McCallum’s overstep rightly cost him his job By: Editorial Posted: 7:00 PM CST Monday, Jan. 28, 2019

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 27/01/2019 (2160 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

John McCallum, a former Liberal cabinet minister, attended last week’s three-day cabinet retreat in Sherbrooke, Que., in his capacity as ambassador to China. The purpose of his visit was to brief his ministerial chums on Canada-China relations and the Meng Wanzhou extradition affair, which is before a Vancouver court.

Ms. Meng, the chief financial officer of Huawei Technologies, is accused by U.S. authorities of bank fraud related to the company’s business dealings in Iran. She was arrested at Vancouver International Airport under terms of an extradition treaty between Canada and the U.S.

Mr. McCallum later offered extensive public comments on the case, saying twice that a decision to surrender Ms. Meng to the U.S. would be an unwelcome result.

These comments, seeming to express the government’s view, were out of line. Under the rule of law, judges are independent. They do not take orders from the authorities. The court is supposed to decide cases, including this extradition bid, according to the law, the evidence and the pleadings. The authorities are not supposed to tell the court what conclusion to reach, as Mr. McCallum appeared to do.

Independence of the court from political interference is a delicate point at the moment, because China has been demanding that Canada release Ms. Meng without awaiting the court process. Canada has been refusing on the grounds that Canada respects the rule of law. China has arrested two Canadians and imposed a hasty death sentence against a third, apparently in retaliation for the detention of Ms. Meng. If Mr. McCallum is free to tell the court how to rule, then Canada’s talk of the rule of law is poppycock.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau dismissed Mr. McCallum on the weekend, which should help to uphold the rule of law and show that Canada’s government does not dictate decisions to judges. That gesture did not, however, advance Canada’s efforts to resolve the Meng Wanzhou case and win freedom or clemency for the Canadians imprisoned in China.

If Mr. McCallum is free to tell the court how to rule, then Canada’s talk of the rule of law is poppycock.

Canada needs to get its story straight. The government should acknowledge, as Mr. McCallum did, that U.S. President Donald Trump has hinted he might let Ms. Meng go free, despite fraud charges against her, as part of a wider trade deal with China. Canada should also admit that, after the Vancouver court has ruled on the merits of the extradition demand, Justice Minister David Lametti will make the final decision. In these ways, the case is hard to insulate from political factors.

Mr. McCallum spoke the honest truth, to a certain extent. He may have been offering China a friendly hint to be patient with the Canadian judicial process because it may yet give them a result they will like. That is a helpful element to include in Canada’s explanation of the matter — as long as it does not sound like the government is instructing the court.

Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland should maintain pressure on the Trump administration to help solve the problem it created for Canada when it demanded Ms. Meng’s extradition. She should keep lining up governments around the world to support Canada’s demand for the release of China’s Canadian hostages. China is evidently sensitive to the messages of support for Canada it has been receiving.

Mr. Trudeau should direct his ministers, MPs and other surrogates to say nothing about the Meng Wanzhou case that could sound like telling the court what to do. Ministers should know that anyway, but Mr. McCallum showed that even an experienced, battle-scarred political veteran could lose sight of his proper role.