Extradition to China is nothing new for Ottawa

DESPITE TORTURE FEARS, CANADA HAS SENT 24 PEOPLE BACK IN 2016

As fears over the treatment of prisoners continue to dominate debate about a possible extradition treaty with China, data show Canada has already been extraditing dozens of Chinese nationals annually.

The previous Conservative government sent back more than 330, according to Canada Border Services Agency data provided by Global Affairs Canada. So far this year, Canada has returned 24 people to China.

Conservatives are pummelling the Liberal government for indicating it is discussing an extradition treaty with China, saying China is known to use torture and the death penalty — a fact Chinese Premier Li Keqiang defended during a recent visit to Ottawa. But some experts say there could be benefits to a well-negotiated agreement.

“The return of inadmissible persons is a normal part of the bilateral relationship with any country. Nothing has changed with this policy since the change in government in 2015,” Global Affairs Canada spokesman Nicholas Dorion said.

A working group of Chinese and Canadian officials has been meeting regularly on “common law-enforcement issues, including the return of Chinese fugitives to China,” since 1999, he said.

Documents obtained with an access-to-information request show prime minister Stephen Harper told Chinese leadership in 2014 that he was eager to collaborate on the return of fugitives.

The deputy minister of foreign affairs at the time, Daniel Jean, said in a 2015 memorandum: “It is in Canada’s interest to have such persons removed.”

In 2015, extradition numbers reached a 10-year high of 43. The lowest number of returned fugitives over the past 10 years was 18, in 2010. The average number was 33.

Over the decade of data, 13 people are also listed as having been “removed to China” who did not have Chinese citizenship.

Engagement with China on this issue included a meeting in June 2015 between Jean and the head of China’s national bureau of corruption prevention, viceminister Fu Kui. The meeting was not made public.

Jean is now Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s national security adviser.

A Sept. 13 communiqué on a new high-level dialogue between Canada and China showed Jean and his Chinese counterpart Wang Yongqing agreed to “start discussions on an extradition treaty and a transfer-of-offenders treaty.”

While China has repeatedly asked Canada for an extradition treaty, according to sources, it’s the first time that Canada has publicly indicated a “discussion.”

A former adviser to Harper said that’s the important distinction to make, because a public mention of a treaty — even if it’s not a formal “negotiation” — means that bureaucrats in the foreign department will start mobilizing to make it happen, in case a ministerial directive comes down.

“We still haven’t had a clarification or an explanation from the government on why they’re doing this, whether there were strings attached,” Conservative foreign affairs critic Peter Kent said, noting the extradition treaty news came on the heels of China’s release of jailed Canadian Kevin Garratt.

“It doesn’t make sense to negotiate a formal treaty if some of the people that are probably on the China wish list could very well be subject to either capital punishment or imprisonment,” he said.

However, Phil Calvert, most recently the ambassador to Thailand, who worked on Chinese issues for more than 15 years within the Global Affairs department, said, “There could be some benefits to a well-negotiated extradition agreement that would allow Canada to remove people who it’s not in our interest to have in Canada, while living up to our human-rights obligations with respect to execution and torture.”

Gordon Houlden, director of the China Institute at the University of Alberta, said that although he is skeptical a deal can be negotiated, “the volume of cases warrants an extradition treaty.”

Because the two legal systems are very different and Canadians are not confident in the Chinese judiciary, “I would not hold one’s breath for this agreement to be concluded,” he said, calling it “a bridge too far.”

But he said Canada can use discussions to bring up other issues, short of a “proper” treaty.

“There is little risk in discussions,” Houlden concluded.