D.卡尔顿 罗西
D. Carlton Rossi

Extradition Treaty




                                  





Couple Held in China Are Free,
but ‘Even Now We Live Under a Cloud’

The New York Times

By DAN LEVIN


JAN. 1, 2017


The Garratts suspect they were unwitting pawns in a gambit by the Chinese government to prevent Canada from extraditing a Chinese spy to the United States. The detention of the couple transfixed Canada and proved deeply damaging to the country’s relations with China.




http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/01/world/canada/canadian-couple-china-detention.html





                   


                             Treaties: Trick or Treat
 

The explanation provided by the Garratts for their arrest regarding the attempt to prevent the extradition of a Chinese spy to the United States is quite plausible. The explanation of the Canadian government that it made no concessions to the Chinese government concerning talks on free trade and an extraditiion treaty is implausible.

A free trade treaty with China is an oxymoron since China is not free. A free country like Canada under rule of law cannot have a free trade treaty with a giant, unfree China which is subject to rule by law unless it wishes to be not free.

Regarding an extradition treaty, Canada already has a working arrangement with China regarding extradition. It does not require a formal treaty which will be at the expense of human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter designed by Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

Canada (a free country) and the United States (a free country) have a long-established extraditiion treaty which has served both countries well. The United States tried to extradite Su Bin (who was  a recent immigrant to Canada) whom they accused of espionage involving two Chinese military officers.

It is highly illogical though for China to establish an extradition treaty with Canada while earlier trying to block, on an extraterritorial basis, an extradition to the United States of a Canadian citizen (who had been a Chinese citizen). Obviously, China wanted Canada to deport Su Bin to the PRC. It was using the Garratts as leverage.

In the long run, it appears that China wishes to establish an extradition treaty with Canada so that dual citizens who have been accused of espionage against US military targets can be extradited to China through contrived and connived trade-offs between Canada and China rather than extradited to the United States. This will make Canada a safe haven for Chinese spies. It also provides a backdoor for triad members to escape prosecution in the United States for international and cross-border crime in the areas of counterfeiting, drug trafficking and prostitution. It would be very surprising if there were not triad involvement in the Su Bin case or other cases similar to it, too.


D.卡尔顿 罗西

2017年1月4日





                                               

 
                                             张昆仑                                             

                                                   
       Zhang Kunlun



中国-加拿大引渡条约

China-Canada Extradition Treaty


It may be useful to examine the past if one is to determine the efficacy of a China-Canada Extradition Treaty. Perhaps a good starting point would be the request for official recognition by 10,000 Falun Dafa practitioners on April 25, 1999 for official recognition as a religion by the Communist Party.This event had a profound effect on relations between Canada and China in terms of extradition and it was personalized by the arrest for heretical beliefs of the Canadian citizen whose name was Zhang Kunlun 张昆仑 .

Between ten and fifteen thousand Falun Dafa practitioners requested official recognition near the Zhongnanhai government compound. President Jiang Zemin  江泽民 ordered the Falun Dafa to be crushed. A campaign of propaganda, large-scale extrajudicial imprisonment, torture and coercive reeducation ensued.

During 1999, the leader of Falun Dafa 法轮大法 whose name is Li Hongzhi
李洪志 had travelled extensively throughout China and the world on a lecture tour. He led between sixty and seventy million Chinese according to the States Sports Commission which was promoting exercise through Qigong. Falun Dafa combined exercise through aspects of Buddhism and Taoism.However, with the request through a public demonstration to the government for recognition everything changed.

On July 23rd a public circular was issued. In it, the Falun Dafa was declared the "most serious political incident" since 1989. In other words, the Communist Party regarded this disturbance as a challenge to its power comparable to the protests for democracy which began on April 15th 1989 or almost a decade earlier. It was declared that the Falun Dafa was incompatible with the belief system of Marxism. Despite the size of the organization and its request for recognition it did not appear as a political force, but rather was politicized by the government reaction. 

Then, beginning on July 29th, Chinese authorities asked both Interpol and a week later the US government to arrest Li Hongzhi. They respectively declined to either arrest or extradite him. The fact that the issues were both political and religious did not help the Chinese argument to the US government which is constitutionally required to protect religious freedom under the First Amendment. Of course, the Chinese did not announce until November 05 that the Falun Dafa should be prosecuted as a heretical religion under article 300. 

In American colonial history one would have to go back to the Salem Witch trials. These were a series of hearings and prosecutions of people accused of witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts between February 1692 and May 1693. The trials resulted in the executions of twenty-four people, the imprisonment of one to two hundred people and false confessions to witchcraft by fifty-five people. The result was the end of theocracy in Massachusettes and witchcraft as a crime in the British colonies.

It is appropriate at this time to refer to the Extradition Act of Canada which was assented to on June 17, 1999. It is highly probable that consideration of this act began with the transfer of Hong Kong SAR to the PRC on July 1, 1997. The comprehensive amendments in the act would harmonize Canadian and international law rather than maintain a dual system of British Commonwealth and other laws defined in an 1877 statute.

However, critics of the new Extradition Act would maintain that the reform deprives Canadians of protections which were previously available and furthermore would facilitate extradition to undemocratic regimes. "At the extradition hearing, full Charter of Rights and Freedoms rights are not afforded to the person for whom extradition is being sought. In particular, the extensive disclosure rights given to Canadian citizens facing a domestic criminal trial are not available in extradition procedures (US v Kwok, [2001] 1 SCR 532)." In addition, the threshold for committal to the Minister of Justice is not the traditional criminal law threshold "beyond a reasonable doubt".

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/criminallaw/lawarticle-99/extradition-law--canada.aspx


It may be though that the more pressing issue for the Canadian government was not the transfer of Hong Kong SAR which took place two years earlier, but rather the more immediate issue of the request for recognition to the Communist Party of Falun Dafa on April 25, 1999. With reference to the Hong Kong SAR the Canadian government may have anticipated the request for political or religious refugee status by thousands from the former Commonwealth colony. It may also have anticipated a wave of applications from the mainland similar to that which took place as a result of the democracy protests in 1989. Finally, it may have wanted to prepare for the possibility of a claim for refugee status from Li Hongzhi himself who had visited Toronto by early 1999.

The new Extradition Act did not dissuade Lai Changxing from leaving Hong Kong SAR for Canada on August 14, 1999. By 1999, he was described as "China's most wanted fugitive" for bribery and smuggling crimes. It should be noted that Lai was at one time an apprentice to the former General Secretary Jiang Zemin. It appears that he was forewarned of arrest in Hong Kong by someone. As a result, he entered Canada as a political refugee. It seems, therefore, he was "grandfathered in" or should one say "godfathered in" before the Mutual Legal Assistance document was signed between Hong Kong SAR and Canada in early 2002.

http://www.legislation.gov.hk/BLIS_IND.nsf/e1bf50c09a33d3dc482564840019d2f4/517c908db36251ef48256b3600318dc2?OpenDocument



It might be speculated that the persecution of Falun Dafa had a spillover effect in terms of heightened awareness of other criminal activity. In addition, it may be assumed that the PRC did not want to undertake the prosecution on the mainland of a corrupt individual who could implicate other Party members while it was persecuting members of the Falun Dafa of which there were a considerable number of Communist Party members.

It is now necessary to introduce Zhang Kunlun who was a practicing member of the Falun Dafa. In 1989, he and his family left for Canada. He was accepted by McGill University as a visiting researcher. By chance, the year 1989 was the same one as the Tiananmen protests and also the year in which Li Hongzhi began to privately teach his meditation and exercise program. A year later, Zhang Kunlun applied for permanent residency in Canada in order to qualify for citizenship. 

He gained Canadian citizenship in 1996. At that point, he left Canada to return to China for personal reasons. However, instead of waiting to have his visa processed on a Canadian passport he chose to enter on a Chinese passport since he had dual citizenship. That meant though that he would not be afforded the same protections under a Canadian passport.

He had had a choice. However, according to a new  Chinese law recently passed  in 2016 a dual citizen must use a Chinese passport. Canada responded by requiring a person with dual Chinese-Canada citizenship to enter using a Canadian passport so that a person could be more fully protected under Canadian law.

The upshot was that Zhang Kunlun was arrested on July 1st in the year 2000--Canada Day-- for Falun Dafa activity. It should be noted that he had not taken part in either the Beijing or Tianjin demonstrations. Instead, he was arrested for distributing flyers supporting the organization from his bicycle. "The Station Chief director went on to say that the police could do what they wanted to cult members. "If you die, we will bury you and tell everyone you committed suicide because you were afraid of a criminal charge."  He was tortured with electric batons.
 
On November 13th he was arrested for the fourth time. He was sent to a labour camp in Jinan where conditions were harsh.Two weeks later he was transferred to the Wangcun labour camp where conditions were better. He later learned that this was  due to the efforts of the Canadian government. The Chinese made it clear to him though that he had no right to consular access because he had used a Chinese passport.
It is speculated herein that the fourth arrest of Zhang Kunlun was intended to coincide with the arrival of Prime Minister Chretien's trade mission to China.The Canadian delegation of Team Canada was 900 strong.The visit though had to be postponed because of the Federal Election.

In the meantime, by the order of the President of China, The Extradition Law of the People's Republic of China, adopted at the 19th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Ninth National People's Congress on December 28, 2000, was promulgated and went into effect as of the date of Promulgation.

http://www.gov.cn/english/laws/2005-09/22/content_68710.htm


Now isn't this a coincidence! Canada had completed an Extradition Act on June 17th, 1999 which may have been influenced by the possibility of Falun Dafa members seeking asylum in Canada. The PRC passes an Extradition Act at the height of the persecution of the Falun Dafa. Common sense concludes that the PRC was seeking a China-Canada Extradition Treaty that would cover the Falun Dafa issue. The bait was Zhang Kunlun and trade. Isn't the case of the Evangelical Christian minister Kevin Garrett charged with espionage and whose case was settled in the midst of trade negotiations in parallel with this historical precedent?

It is reported by the AFP on December 7, 2000 in an article called "Two more Falun Dafa members reported dead in Chinese police detention" about the scale of the persecution.

"The deaths bring to at least 74 the number of group members who are reported to have died in suspicious circumstances while in police custody since the Falun Dafa was banned in July last year, according to the Hong Kong based Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy.
Some 450 members have received prison sentences of up to 18 years, more than 600 have been sent to mental hospitals, 10,000 have been placed in labor camps and another 20,000 locked up in temporary detention centers, according to the rights center."

Note: the author has not included the source of this document because he wishes to protect the reader from a malicious "screen capture" app.
 

Zhang Kunlun made a full confession of his crimes in the first week of January, 2001 at which point he was released. Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhu Bangzao said that Zhang "became aware of the evil nature of the Falun Dafa cult and his illegal activities." However, a spokesperson for the Falun Dafa  maintained that the confession was coerced. His wife remained in the PRC while eluding surveillance and was re-united in Canada with her husband on February 15th.

https://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/china/China0102-03.htm


Jennifer May who was a spokesman for the Canadian Embassy in Beijing "declined to speculate whether China released Zhang to remove an irritant in relations ahead of a Feb. 9-18 visit by Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien." If the Canadian government had any interest in a China-Canada Extradition Treaty it seems that the mistreatment of Zhang Kunlun and the Falun Dafa may have provided the cure since no treaty was signed. In fact, it should be noted that Canada was the first country to publicly condemn the persecution through an official protest with the Chinese foreign ministry as reported by the Globe and Mail.

In conclusion, it may be said that it is unwise to conclude a China-Canada Extradition Treaty when dual citizens are forced to use a Chinese passport while entering the PRC thus denying themselves consular access. It is incomprehensible how the Canada Extradition Act allows for certain Rights and Freedoms to be bypassed. Extradition for political reasons should be denied whether or not there is a treaty. It is foolish to conclude any treaty with a country which does not want to define its territory in a specific way in accordance with international laws. It is short-sighted to trade off human rights for trade advantages as framed by "quid pro quo". Finally, do not pursue, plan or participate in trade negotiations if a hostage is held.

Let the last words be those of Zhang Kunlun.

“When you draw a line, all your information such as your quality, morality, life experience, and even your health have been put into it,” explains the former art professor. “It is the reflection of your inner nature. So an artist must be a noble and moral person, and be a thoughtful person.”



D.卡尔顿 罗西

November 22, 2016








                                                      



D.卡尔顿 罗西  D. Kǎ'ěrdùn Luōxī

D. Carlton Rossi

November 07, 2016


                   China-Canada Extradition Treaty



The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau has said that "Canada has extremely high standards on extradition treaties" and a "very, very rigorous process that conforms with the expectations and the values of Canadians." That may very well be true of the fifty extradition treaties that Canada has signed with other countries. However, an extradition treaty with China is a very, very different matter and in a category all of its own. China holds neither to domestic rule of law nor international rule of law and so it does not conform "with the expectations and values of Canadians" whose core values are reflected in The Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is entrenched in the Constitution rather than rights and freedoms or lack thereof which are based upon the values of a Core Leader. In fact, Trudeau was quoted in The New York Times Magazine as saying that "There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada". It is therefore unclear how there can be conformity on anything. This analysis argues that a China-Canada Extradition Treaty must be at least dependent upon  extradition agreements signed between the Chinese themselves; namely, the two Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macao, Taiwan and the PRC.

Many Hong Kongers applied for residency in Canada prior to the handover in 1997. They then returned to Hong Kong to see if Hong Kong would remain as a separate and independent jurisdiction. Instead, they have seen a continual erosion of its jurisdiction with mainland incursion and intrusion.  

The HKSAR has been able to complete international agreements as if it were an independent state. Therefore, it has been able to arrange extradition treaties with various countries. However, if the judicial system of Hong Kong becomes less independent and more integrated with the judicial system of the PRC then rights of criminal defendants  will be compromised.

Canada has signed an extradition treaty with Hong Kong. It was made possible because Hong Kong abolished the death penalty in 1993 under the British Colonial government. Canada had earlier abolished the death penalty in 1977 under the Liberal government of Pierre Elliot Trudeau who argued strongly for abolition.

However, what happens in the future to Canadians arrested in Hong Kong or Hong Kongers  arrested in Canada if Hong Kong does not have a separate and independent judiciary? It would seem that a China-Canada Extradition Treaty would override, supercede and make obsolete the Hong Kong-Canada Extradition Treaty. Why would Canada weaken its extradition treaty with Hong Kong which is  based on "rule of law" and substitute an extradition treaty based on "rule by law" with the PRC?

Presumably, Hong Kong-Canadians might be extradited to the PRC which has the death penalty or if to Hong Kong then their treatment might be less than humane. Remember that Hong Kong has not agreed to a formal extradition treaty with the PRC because the PRC has the death penalty and also due to its treatment of prisoners. Why would Canada contemplate an extradition treaty with the PRC if there is no extradition agreement between Hong Kong and the PRC?

It is one thing to do as the Chinese do while visiting the PRC, but it is another thing to do as they say regarding the core identity of Canadians. Canadians do not have an affinity with an authoritarian Core Leader. They will not be substantially influenced, either, by one who may be a moral relativist without core identity in dealings with China as it concerns rule of law and human rights. To put it bluntly, in these matters, Canadians want the vision of Pierre Elliot Trudeau who presumably named his son after Justinian who compiled a Body of Civil Law.

It is highly disturbing that Kevin Garratt was detained and  arrested on charges of spying and stealing state, military secrets only one week after it was alleged that a "highly sophisticated Chinese state-sponsored actor recently managed to hack into the computer systems at Canada's National Research Council". Of course, the charges are denied by China. In other words, he was held as a virtual hostage for accusations of alleged crimes committed by China in Canada. It is beyond coincidence that he was convicted on those charges, granted bail and then deported to Canada unless there was an understanding that Canada would open talks regarding a China-Canada Extradition Treaty which transpired a short time later. What kind of extradition treaty is executed on apparent extortion?  

Canadian governments under both the Liberals of the Rt. Hon. Chrétien and the Conservatives of the Rt. Hon. Harper supported the populist Bo Xilai as a reformer. They were mistaken. He wanted to return China to the heyday of the Cultural Revolution under Mao. In fact, he was so popular that he was regarded as a threat to the Communist Party. Bo's fall meant the collapse of Canada's foreign policy regarding China. Is the Canadian government in the process of aligning itself with another pro-Mao leader whose agenda is eerily similar to the Anti-Rightest Campaign of 1957 which persecuted intellectuals and led to loss of individual freedoms?

An editorial opinion in The Ottawa Citizen of September 07, 2016 hit the mark. It expressed the view that "Trudeau missed an opportunity to deal straightforwardly with China. Whatever else he gained, he loses points for not distinguishing between taking responsibility, and denying the need to." The Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Honorable Stéphane Dion replied semantically that "To say that nothing is perfect is obviously not the same as saying everything is equivalent."

It is clear though that Stéphane Dion has expressed both too few words and too many words on other occasions. His loss for words concerned a lack of response to the Chinese representative who berated a Canadian journalist for her concerns on human rights in China. It seems that he expressed too many words against an extradition treaty with a country which supported the death penalty as does China. To his credit, he told that reporters as reported by The Huffington Press that what Canada means by the rule of law is “due process, the independence of the judicial system, the rights for detainees, and asking clemency in every circumstance.” It is evident that his views are at odds with those of the Prime Minister on the extradition issue.  
 
The Special Administrative Region of Macao known by the abbreviation MOSAR did away with the death penalty in 1976 when Portugal abolished it in all its territories. Macao does not have an extradition agreement with the PRC. It is reluctant to sign an agreement because the PRC has the death penalty. Why would Canada be interested in signing an extradition treaty with the PRC before its region signs an agreement with it?  

Macao and Hong Kong have been negotiating for three years to establish an extradition treaty between them. A treaty has not been signed despite assurances. Why does Canada find it so imperative at this time to sign an extradition treaty with the PRC at its request when two administrative regions have been unable to sign an extradition agreement?

In an unprecedented move, the legislative assembly of Macao turned down the draft law brought to it by the Executive Council in late 2015 that would make it possible to sign extradition treaties with Hong Kong and the PRC. First, it was not easy to achieve consensus among those involved in different legal systems. Second, the agreements could allow for political activists to be extradited to the mainland. Third, the proposal would allow for the extradition of people wanted by China for national security or military crimes even if there was no such crime in Macau-- thus going  against international extradition principles. This is just a hint of a Pandora's box of constitutional and moral issues that will be opened up if a China-Canada extradition treaty is signed that could potentially involve the mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao and other territories claimed by China.

There has been extradition of criminals since 1989 between Taiwan and the PRC. However, there has been no formal extradition treaty signed despite the fact that both have the death penalty. It appears that both are separated by more than the Taiwan Strait. If a Taiwanese resident were to seek asylum in Canada because of national security issues in the PRC then would it be covered by international extradition law or by a China-Canada Extradition Treaty?

In summary, a step by step approach should be taken with regard to any consideration of a China-Canada Extradition Treaty. The first step is that the PRC, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao must sign bilateral or multilateral extradition treaties among each other. In other words, they must resolve among themselves issues concerning the death penalty, human rights, judicial systems and laws. Only when the Chinese have achieved consensus on these issues can the process begin of negotiating a China-Canada Extradition Treaty.



References


PMO's Silence On China's Human Rights Record Troubling: Critics
Posted: 09/30/2016 5:03 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/09/30/canada-china-legal-system_n_12270136.html


Ottawa to negotiate extradition treaty with China
ROBERT FIFE - OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF
The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Sep. 20, 2016 6:00AM EDT

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-china-to-negotiate-extradition-treaty/article31961475/


Canada to negotiate extradition treaty with China
By Lynn Desjardins
Tuesday 20 September, 2016    

http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2016/09/20/canada-to-negotiate-extradition-treaty-with-china-garratt/



Glavin: The questions politicians don't want us asking about Chinese money

Ottawa Citizen

May 07, 2016


http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/glavin-the-questions-politicians-dont-want-us-asking-about-chinese-money



Macau Legislative Assembly rejects extradition proposal

Macao News

May 09, 2016


http://macaunews.com.mo/macau-legislative-assembly-rejects-extradition-proposal/



China’s Fox Hunt in Canada strains trust that an extradition treaty is possible

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE

BEIJING — The Globe and Mail

Published Friday, Sep. 23, 2016 9:54PM EDT


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/chinas-fox-hunt-in-canada-strains-trust-that-an-extradition-treaty-is-possible/article32042306/







China-Canada Extradition Treaty

中国-加拿大引渡条约


The history of a China-Canada Extradition Treaty is a sordid one. Almost exclusively it has been China that has wanted an extradition treaty predominantly to expedite the extradition of their most wanted corrupt officials who have been charged with graft. In each of three major cases, China has dangled the carrot of trade benefits and the stick of incarceration of Canadian citizens to achieve its political ends. It has been a historical fact that there were three Canadians who were under arrest at the time of trade talks; namely, the dual citizen Zhang Kunlun for religious crimes, missionary Kevin Garratt for espionage and the apparent, dual citizen Xiao Jianhua for questionning regarding complex, shady, financial dealings.



                                                          
                                          Zhang Kunlun


Canada had completed an Extradition Act on June 17th, 1999 which may have been influenced by the possibility of Falun Dafa members seeking asylum in Canada. The PRC passed an Extradition Act on December 28, 2000 at the height of the persecution of the Falun Dafa. Common sense concludes that the PRC was seeking a China-Canada Extradition Treaty 中国-加拿大引渡条约 that would cover the Falun Dafa issue. The bait was Zhang Kunlun and trade. Zhang Kunlun had dual citizenship, but entered China under a Chinese passport. He confessed under coercion to his crimes in January 2001 or just before the Canadian trade delegation led by Chretian was to arrive.



                     

                                       Kevin Garratt

Kevin Garratt was arrested on trumped-up charges of espionage. He was convicted on those charges. While the Canadian government denies that he was released on the condition that Canada negotiates an extradition treaty with China it certainly appears that way. Major trade negotiations were underway--particularly in canola sales.



                       


Now, again, there is a similar situation. Xiao Jianhua was granted Canadian citizenship, abducted from his residence in Hong Kong, and currently held in China. He may also have held a diplomatic passport from Antigua and Barbuda at the time of his arrest. It was speculated that he had left the mainland earlier because of  suspicions of graft. The open question is whether or not he also retains Chinese citizenship. If he is charged with a crime in China then it seems he will be charged as a Chinese citizen. However, it appears that a trial would be the last thing the Chinese government would want.

"The party in 2017 will hold its 19th congress, when all of the seven Standing Committee members except Xi and Li are scheduled to retire, having reached the age of 68. Six out of the remaining 18 members in the Politburo, the second most powerful body in the hierarchy, are also due to step down by then." 1. Disclosure of corruption, upper echelon ties and a trial of Xiao Jianhua would be a major embarrassment for the Chinese government. It seems that if his Antigua and Barbuda diplomatic passport had been renewed until 2018 then it was probably cancelled as of February 02, 2017 by an island government that wanted the appearance of transparency. Of course, a return to his Hong Kong residence is a possibility, but that is not far enough. Canada is far enough. For us it is a bridge too far.  

It seems that this time China is putting pressure on Canada to sign an extradition treaty under contrived circumstances. It is not in Canada's interest either to repatriate Xiao Jianhua or to sign an extradition treaty with China in order to secure his release and return to Canada. Of course, he should be offered consular services to ensure that he receives due process of law in China.


                         

                         Brian Mulroney and Justin Trudeau

Both the former Hon. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and the Hon. Prime Minister Trudeau are interested in free-trade. Mulroney was elected on a free-trade platform which culminated in NAFTA. Trudeau is bucking the international trend to protectionism and perhaps the wishes of the Canadian people in pursuing a free-trade agreement with China on the back of the unpopular,conservative China-Canada FIPA. The length of the latter agreement roughly coincided with the longevity of an oil sands project.

It seems that Mulroney and Trudeau wish to push oil sands development. They believe that Xiao Jianhua (who had recommended Fancy Bridge to take over and expand the West Indies Oil Company in a passport for investment funds scheme) may help them pursue the goal of oil sands development. Xiao Jianhao controls trillions of yuan in assets. It appears they wish to promote an oil for wind turbine and solar panel deal. On the surface, that idea sounds ideal if one overlooks corruption practices of various governments. However, it begs the question "Why doesn't Canada through the Bank of Canada or its Canadian Infrastructure Bank (CIB) undertake to finance, design and manufacture wind turbines and solar panels in the Province of Alberta? Canada does not need to import them from China. More basically, why does a country with sophistical, technological expertise like Canada surrender a chance to  manufacture high technology products which will help to rebuild the middle-class?  

Finally, if Canada were to facilitate the transfer of Xiao Jianhua to Canada for dubious benefits then it would open up a Pandora's box of problems. Why did China find it necessary to pursue the return of Lai Changxing in order to stand trial in China if it conducts the opposite operation with respect to Xiao Jianhua. It appears that China may not wish to wait for the years it took to return Lai, but may want a quick solution to the Xiao issue for political expediency. Second, how can one stop dirty money--dirtier than the tar sands--from entering Canada and potentially introducing an epidemic of corruption across the country. Third, why would Canada consider under any circumstances an extradition treaty which would only serve the interests of China?

Fourth, there is nothing transparent about the bromance of a former Conservative Prime Minister and a current Liberal Prime Minister in terms of free-trade, an extradition treaty, political intrigues and the long-standing conduct of a bagman and purveyor of questionable, murky deals whose Canadian citizenship appears to be one of convenience and insurance. At this point, it does not look, though, that Xiao has been charged with financial crimes so that it is conceivable it might facilitate his entry into Canada without a bevy of charges against him. In other words, he would be free to conduct free-trade on an unrestriced and unfettered basis. Make no doubt about it, Mulroney wants access to Xiao's little red, contact book. Does Canada need to import corruption because there is not enough here?
 


China-Canada Extradition Treaty 中国-加拿大引渡条约




1.  Xi’s Anti-Corruption Campaign Signals Power Play for 2017

Ting Shi

July 4, 2014


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-03/corruption-crackdown-helps-xi-position-to-shape-future-leaders




D.卡尔顿 罗西

2017年3月12




Non-Market Economy