The best outcome would be to resolve the case, with Meng’s return to China before the summer. This would free Liberals to focus on electoral issues, not international irritants. If it takes a former prime minister to get us there, so be it.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 17, 2019.

OTTAWA—Only in Canada is it considered a weakness to recruit a former prime minister to help solve the Huawei problem.

Reaction to the news that Jean Chrétien was willing to act as an envoy to meet with the Chinese leadership in the Meng Wanzhou extradition case was muted.

The offer was floated privately months ago. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met with Chrétien several weeks ago to discuss the Chinese deep freeze that has settled on Canada.

Former prime minister Brian Mulroney first publicly broached the idea of Chrétien’s involvement last week.

Both former leaders are getting feedback from the business community that this problem needs fixing.

Chrétien and Mulroney are unlikely allies. They spent a lifetime fighting each other in politics. But both have deep roots in Canadian business, which is anxiously searching for a way to heal this deepening Canada/China rift.

Some Liberal insiders are reticent to recruit a former prime minister, because they fear the optics of Chrétien coming in to fix a Trudeau problem.

These views were reflected in a Globe and Mail quote last week when former Canadian ambassador to China, Guy Saint-Jacques, said it would be a mistake if Chrétien “goes there and gets all the glory and Ms. Meng is free, well, it would give the impression that the prime minister is inexperienced and a neophyte and good old Mr. Chrétien is a reliable fixer.”

Saint-Jacques also said the opposition would pillory the government because the foreign minister and prime minister have repeatedly stated the courts should solve the issue.

The opposition will pillory the government, whatever the course of action.

But Conservatives did not mind when Trudeau recruited their former leader Rona Ambrose to work on free trade talks.

Nor did they complain when James Moore joined top New Democratic Party adviser Brian Topp on the same international trade advisory panel.

The last thing the Liberals need going into the election is to have Meng’s extradition overshadowing a positive economic story.

The Chinese have already taken aim at Canadian pork and canola production. Across the board, Canada-China business deals are being frozen out because of the extradition issue.

Saint-Jacques said the prime minister would risk the wrath of the Americans if the justice minister moved to end the extradition on condition the Huawei chief financial officer return to China.

But Americans have not been doing us any favours lately, and the president himself has publicly speculated that the Meng mess could be used as a bargaining chip in his free trade negotiations with China.

The bottom line is that Chrétien has deep and broad political and business ties with China. He is well-positioned to help extricate the Government of Canada from a mess that has not been of its own making.

Former Canadian ambassador to China John McCallum said early on that there were valid questions to be asked about the reasons behind the American request for extradition.

In McCallum’s words, Meng could make a very good court case against the extradition.

“One, political involvement by comments from Donald Trump in her case. Two, there’s an extraterritorial aspect to her case. And three, there’s the issue of Iran sanctions which are involved in her case, and Canada does not sign on to these Iran sanctions.”

“So I think she has some strong arguments that she can make before a judge.”

McCallum subsequently walked back his comments, saying he regretted saying what he did. But the next day he lost his job after telling a Vancouver reporter it would be “great for Canada” if the United States dropped their extradition request, repeating that any deal must include release of detained Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor.

Since McCallum’s firing, Trudeau has left the ambassadorial post vacant. The solution is a political, not a diplomatic one.

So it makes perfect sense to enlist a former prime minister to broker a much-needed truce.

There is risk for Trudeau in aborting the extradition process. But the risk of doing nothing is even greater.

With the Chinese refusing to take meetings, the dossier is currently a lose-lose situation for Trudeau and Freeland.

The best outcome would be to resolve the case, with Meng’s return to China before the summer. This would free Liberals to focus on electoral issues, not international irritants.

If it takes a former prime minister to get us there, so be it.

Chinese respect for elders is something Canada could learn from.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 28, 2019.

OTTAWA—All countries regularly spy on each other. So the sturm and drang about Huawei’s alleged threat to Canada’s 5G telecommunications network is a little rich.

Huawei has just been invited by India to become a part of its development of the network.

But Five Eye partners, led by the United States, are pushing Canada to ban Huawei based on the claim it could spy for the Chinese government.

Conservative critic Erin O’Toole joined the anti-Chinese chorus last week calling for a Huawei ban.

Similar security claims prompted the recent arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou, in anticipation of an extradition hearing to the United States.

The Americans sought the extradition, alleging that Wanzhou attempted to bypass American sanctions on Iran by using a shell company to do business there.

Huawei vigorously denies these allegations.

China increased the bilateral temperature by detaining two Canadian citizens in retaliation and putting a third on death row.

Chairman and acting CFO Liang Hua was in Davos last week inviting foreign leaders to tour the operations and satisfy themselves that Huawei is not spying.

The Chinese are demanding proof of the Five Eyes claim.

How do the allegations align with spying activities by other countries in all parts of the world?

How did the United States have Jamal Kashoggi murder tapes from inside the Saudi Arabian embassy in Turkey unless interceptive instruments had been planted?

Countries always claim they do not spy on their own citizens. If information is uncovered in a back channel surveillance operation, it is always passed along to the appropriate authority.

Canadian Ambassador to China John McCallum, who was fired on Jan. 25 by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, had reinforced China’s position when he stated in a Chinese broadcast interview last week that Canada was not bound by the U.S. sanctions against Iran.

On the sanctions front, most countries joined a deal to lift sanctions in return for Iranian denuclearization commitments.

Trump withdrew American support for the agreement, even though his predecessor had negotiated it in good faith.

Multiple news reports buttress the blockage of the Chinese telecommunications superpower by claiming Canada is offside with other partners in the consortium.

But the Five Eyes have a history of doing what is in their economic interests, under the guise of security.

Huawei is aggressively competing with Silicon Valley giants like Cisco, so any move to limit Chinese growth would definitely assist major competitors in the United States and elsewhere.

When Canada was negotiating the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of Diversity of Cultural Expressions at UNESCO, there was a diplomatic push from the other partners in Five Eyes to block the treaty.

Americans worked with British, claiming the treaty was an attack on their cultural freedom. In reality, the opposition was an attempt to ensure a Hollywood monopoly on global movie distribution.

In the end, only the Americans and the Israelis opposed the convention, with Australia abstaining and 148 countries voting in favor. Economic fights often parade as security matters.

Questions continue to be posed about the political nature of the current American extradition request.

Shortly after Wanzhou’s arrest last December, American president Donald Trump tweeted that he was willing to use the issue as a lever in negotiations with the Chinese over trade disputes.

McCallum and former American ambassador to China Max Baucus both said publicly last week that Trump comments damage the American request, scheduled to be heard in a British Columbia court starting Feb. 6.

Canada’s Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland expressed similar concerns that the president’s comments were politicizing what should have been a strictly judicial process.

However, the question will be politicized, as an extradition order ultimately has to be approved by the justice minister.

That last time Americans asked Canada to extradite a Chinese citizen was the high-profile case of serial killer Charles Ng, a Hong Kong born national convicted of murdering multiple American citizens.

Ng used every legal lever to avoid extradition, arguing unsuccessfully that the potential imposition of the death penalty was a violation of his Charter rights.

The Californian legal system is reported to have spent $20-million on the case. Ng is now on death row awaiting execution.

In the Huawei case, McCallum said extradition “would not be a happy outcome.”

Canada has become the ham in the sandwich of a fight between China and the United States.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has worked hard to stay out of Trump’s crosshairs even when the president imposed tariffs on our country with the false claim of a security threat.

It won’t be possible this time.

Trudeau made the decision but, ultimately, hubris on the prime minister’s team is costing him.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

By SHEILA COPPS

Published on Monday, January 16, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—The new year cabinet changes in Canada and the United States are a keen study in just how different our two countries really are.

With the departure of Stéphane Dion and John McCallum, the face of the Liberal government is even younger and more diverse.

Dion and McCallum had decades of experience in government. Their departures deplete the experiential depth and breadth of the cabinet.

Most ministers don’t only manage their own departments and responsibilities. They may weigh in on major national issues, which impact on the government and the whole country.
 
Prime minister Jean Chrétien’s decision not to join the war on Iraq, was seen as seminal. Chrétien’s four decades in Parliament played a role in that decision, but he also consulted multiple cabinet members, especially those with lengthy political experience.

Youth has the benefit of energy and drive, but with age comes wisdom. History often repeats itself, which is why some wizened faces in cabinet are a good thing.

The deeper Trudeau goes into his mandate, the more he will need to count on colleagues with experience to weather difficult storms.

The youthfulness of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau himself has been key in attracting a whole new generation of engaged young people. His commitment on issues like marijuana managed to engage a new generation, one that previously had no interest in government.

That intergenerational change has served the Liberals well but it also has limitations.

Maryam Monsef came to cabinet with high expectations but had no political experience. She inherited a treacherous portfolio which could have used a veteran’s touch. Her successor is also a newbie. Karina Gould has impressive international organizational experience which could be a useful training ground for this tricky portfolio.

In his first wave of American appointments, the cabinet of U.S. president-elect Donald Trump is getting older and whiter.

Neither change should surprise us. Politicians promote those with whom they feel the closest connection.

Young leaders generally encourage younger faces, while older leaders can be more comfortable with those of their own age, gender, and race.

Women often support other women. Leaders hailing from minority communities work hard to recruit those from diverse cultures and races. U.S. President Barack Obama’s cabinet was a reflection of his own personal life experience.

Hillary Clinton surrounded herself with strong women and her team reflected a real gender change that, had she won, would have radically changed the face of the American administration.

Trump is a white, 70-year-old business man. It should surprise no one that most of those whom he has elevated to his cabinet are white businessmen.

For those Americans witnessing the changing face of Washington, it must be tough to see so few minority appointees at the table. It is as though the last 30 years of civil rights progress has been erased and Jim Crow is back to rule the roost.

The visible lack of diversity is one thing. Even more troubling is the fact that some cabinet viewpoints are a real throwback to America’s racist past.

Trump’s choice for attorney general is so polarizing that he is being publicly opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus.

Seventy-year-old Senator Jeff Sessions voted against hate crimes legislation, and publicly questioned whether women, gays, lesbians and transgendered even face discrimination.

Thirty years ago, an attempt by then president Ronald Reagan to make Sessions a district court judge was rejected by a Republican-dominated Senate committee.

Apparently, this brand of conservatism is more palatable today than it was in the eighties.

By most accounts, Senator Sessions has not changed.

But America has. The deep racial divide reinforced by this appointment is a glaring example of the growing differences between Canada and the United States.

It is easy to understand the frustration of civil rights activists and feminists confronted with a proposed cabinet appointment that is so controversial. How can the attorney general be trusted to promote human rights and protect the judicial gains for women and minorities if he does not believe in them himself?

New Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland will, no doubt, make the case in Washington that Canada continues as the best friend and neighbour of the United States. She will be smart enough to avoid making a gratuitous enemy of President Trump.

Trudeau will make sure he is not caught in the crossfire in potential trade disputes.

Canadian jobs are too dependent on our interconnectedness. Trudeau has nothing to gain by accenting Yankee-Canuck differences.

But last week’s cabinet changes in both countries speak louder than words.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era Cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.