Wouldn't this give the appearance that Canada and the U.S. orchestrated this just to get leverage in the trade deal? What sort of precedent does this set?
Under the Canadian Extradition Act, Canada does NOT have any option about executing an arrest warrant when validly issued.
The arrest warrant was validly issued, and the Canadian authorities complied with Canadian law by executing it.
Under Canadian law, however, the Canadian courts do NOT have to refuse to grant bail, and they have done so - despite the fact that the US government said that it didn't want bail to be granted.
Under Canadian law, the judge hearing the extradition request, is entitled to consider all of the relevant circumstances surrounding the request - one of those relevant circumstances is whether it appears that the proposed prosecution is actually a "political prosecution". That consideration will - eventually - take place.
That consideration will also take place at each stage of the extradition proceeding - all the way up to the Minister of Justice - and at each step the relevant authority can refuse to grant the request if they believe that what they are dealing with is a "political prosecution" (even if there is an actual crime underlying the charge).
At each step, up to the Minister of Justice, the decision can be appealed.
The Minister of Justice has the absolute right to deny the request for extradition - and need not even give any reason for that refusal. THAT decision is NOT subject to appeal.
If anything is being "orchestrated" it is (possibly) the Canadian government (figuratively) poking Mr. Trump in the eye with a sharp stick and a stick that it has allowed Mr. Trump to sharpen all on his little lonesome.
Think about it - if Mr. Trump (whose government does not actually have Ms. Meng) can use the prospect of the non-extradition of Ms. Meng in order to get a "good deal" out of China, exactly what is stopping Mr. Trudeau (whose government actually has Ms. Meng) to do the same thing?