Bill C-353

Foreign Hostage Takers Accountability Act

An Act to provide for the imposition of restrictive measures against foreign hostage takers and those who practice arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations and to make related amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

This enactment authorizes the Government of Canada to take restrictive measures against foreign nationals, foreign states and foreign entities that engage in hostage taking or arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations of Canadians or eligible protected persons outside Canada. It also requires the Minister of Foreign Affairs to provide assistance to the families of such hostages and detained individuals and to establish and implement programs to encourage cooperation for the release of such Canadians and eligible protected persons. Finally, this enactment makes related amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act .

Foreign Hostage Takers Accountability Act

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, all the comments over the course of the bill's presentation deserve more than five minutes, and I am glad that I will be able to do that at committee.

It is unfortunate that the member for Don Valley West did not read the bill or simply did not understand it, because none of those arguments are actually in the bill. Therefore, I will not bother with that.

I want to clarify that the bill was put forward not as a critique of the government or its existing policies but as a next step forward in the natural evolutionary development of laws that are necessary in the terrifying new reality of this world. This is something we are going to face, and the bill would sharpen existing mechanisms to meet the moment in our own country. In many cases, laws evolve from generalized existing provisions, which often fall short in contending with the evolution of the problem, to become more targeted. That is exactly what the bill would do.

Sometimes, our laws have been a product of motions or other declaratory statements that, to be effective, eventually had to find their way into specific laws. As a case in point, prior to 2001, there was no crime related to terrorist activity in our Criminal Code. However, in 2001, Canada passed the ATA, which recognized a whole new series of provisions related to terrorism, which would become one of the greatest challenges in our lifetime. Similarly, international law had only developed its own specialized terrorism provisions over the last decades, which it did for the same reasons: Terrorism had evolved, and the existing frameworks needed to be specifically recalibrated to address the enormity of the threat.

Oftentimes, when these newly targeted provisions are introduced, the question inevitably arises of whether they are really needed. The question came up here a couple of times. However, the House has often adopted a targeted approach to current problems as a first step in a long process of legislative development. In my opinion, it has done so correctly. This is actually what we do here. Therefore, whether we are dealing with terrorism, sexual assault, minority rights or drunk driving, our system has only benefited from more targeted legislation, which ensures that there is better prevention, deterrence and punishment.

Bill C-353 is actually premised on new hostage-related initiatives that are currently being undertaken by our government in an effort to improve Canada's capacity for dealing with the ravages of hostage diplomacy. This has, frankly, upended international world order, specifically, in the last number of months. It was the current government that actually took the step in launching the declaration. The bill before us would strengthen that and sharpen those tools. It would give the senior official for hostage affairs, a lead in consular services who is now concerned with this, more tools in order to do her job, or maybe his job in the future.

The bill would go a step further. It would legislate and impose consequences for perpetrators, create mechanisms for bringing our hostages home and provide better assistance for the families caught in these nightmare scenarios. There is certainly recognition, both by government and our allies that developed a robust legislative response to hostage-taking, that there is a new threat on the horizon, which needs to be addressed concretely.

Some in this chamber have asked whether the legislation would have prevented the hostage taking of the two Michaels. I am not sure. No bill is a silver bullet that would cover the plethora of contingencies or different kinds of cases. I will say, as was correctly noted by the senior official who was appointed in the Department of Foreign Affairs, or Global Affairs Canada, Julie Sunday, that no two hostage cases are the same. However, undoubtedly, in a multitude of scenarios, Bill C-353 would provide better tools to respond to a wide swath of possibilities. Obviously, they would do so in concert with other tools available to the government.

I look forward to seeing the bill go to the next stage at committee. I thank my colleagues in the Bloc and the NDP for actually reading it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments made this evening. I listened very closely to the parliamentary secretary, and a couple of thoughts crossed my mind. Sometimes I think we might be putting the cart ahead of the horse. Members of the Bloc and the NDP say that if the bill goes to committee, they have lots of concerns about what is in the legislation. The parliamentary secretary talked about what we have in place already and how the proposed legislation, Bill C-353, could in fact cause a harmful outcomes for hostages.

At the very least, what might have been nice would have been for a standing committee to look at the issue in its entirety and possibly come back to the House with recommendations as to how we might be able to give strength to the legislation and, ultimately, protect all the different interests that were highlighted by my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, who is responsible for public safety and deals with foreign affairs on so many occasions. He has done an outstanding job representing Canadians in many different types of situations.

When I look at the private member's bill before us, those are the types of concerns I have. I do not believe that we should send the bill to committee, based on the arguments that were presented. We need to recognize that we stand up, first and foremost, for Canadian values. We need to protect Canadians and their interests and work with other like-minded countries. We all want a more stable and secure world; that is one of the reasons Canada is working with allied countries in order to deal with some of these very complicated issues. Our laws, through time, are modified and given strength, which reflect our values, what other allied countries are doing and the best practices taking place.

There were a couple of things the parliamentary secretary referred to. One of them is how the bill would mandate the sharing of information. Information is so critically important and can be a deciding factor in many ways in the outcome of a hostage-taking situation. If there were certain legal mandates that compel information, that information could ultimately compromise a negotiation that is taking place. What we are really talking about is the lives of Canadians.

At the end of the day, I do not have any interest in being involved in high-stakes negotiations and having to deal with individuals who have taken hostages. We see this virtually every day on the news lately with regard to Hamas and what is taking place in the Middle East. I hear that if this particular legislation were to pass in the manner it is proposed today, we would be providing incentives for people kidnap or hold people as hostages as a way to derive cash or be given some sort of preferential treatment to come to Canada. That goes against what possibly even the member wanted to be in the legislation.

That is the reason I would say the legislation, on that one aspect in itself, raises a lot of flags, and we should all be concerned. When one talks about providing incentives for someone to ultimately kidnap or about providing information or mandating its being released, when it could ultimately compromise someone's life, I have a difficult time with that.

What I have not heard in any of the discussions and the debates I have listened to is anything that is very clear about how the legislation would help in a way that would not come back to hurt the victims and their families. There is a certain amount of discretion necessary in the releasing of information, as an example. We have to go out of our way to ensure that we are not providing any form of an incentive for people to be kidnapping Canadians or holding them as hostages.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here to talk to Bill C-353.

There are a lot of moments in this place when I think about the specific challenge that we have as legislators. When we look at the human condition and what is happening in the world around us, we have to find a way to create legislation that will hopefully help and be supportive.

I will be supporting this piece of legislation to get it to committee, but I do have some concerns about it. What we need to do, of course, is the important work in committee to make sure that those concerns are addressed. Hopefully, we can see folks work together to make this the best possible bill.

This makes me think of my many years working with the newcomer community in the work that I did before being elected. I remember sitting with people who were facing the terror of having a loved one taken, not knowing what was happening to them and wondering every day whether that would be the day when they hear something that lets them know their loved one is safe. I think most of us cannot imagine what that reality would look like.

I think about the responsibility that someone who becomes an elected member of Parliament has when those things happen. We often have to sit powerless with our constituents and watch things unfold knowing that we are doing everything we can, and we still do not know what the outcome will be.

When I was reading through this particular bill, it really reminded me of a now dear friend from my riding. Her name is Jan. Hers is a completely different circumstance, but it resonates with me given the similarity.

I remember her chasing me down in a change room. One of the fun things about being a politician that I do not think people always hear about is that when we become public figures, sometimes we have the most interesting conversations in the oddest places. Jan's granddaughter was stolen. She was in another country and they were trying everything they could to get her home. It was terrifying for that family, because they did not know if she was safe and she was very young. I remember, in that moment, thinking to myself that if I was a grandmother having this experience, I would also follow somebody into a change room to make a difference for my loved one.

I really appreciate deeply the intention of this bill, but I have some clear questions about providing PR for informants and their dependents. I think we really need to address the issue of exploitation and how we can keep these people safe in those circumstances. It is so important that when people are in a vulnerable state, when they are afraid and when they are stressed by political interference, unlike anything most Canadians ever experience, we keep them as safe as possible.

We need to be talking about sufficient supports for the families of victims. We need to make sure that when they are going through some of these vulnerable times, the supports are there. We may think they are there, but I can promise that a lot of the supports are not. People are left to wrestle with profound agony and pain, and the supports are not there to help them move forward.

We have to look at some of these important things. Which incentive programs would the minister create? Should hostage-taking and arbitrary detention be put together? There are some questions that I definitely have as we go through this process, and I look forward to having meaningful conversations and making sure that we have experts. Again and again in this place, one of the things that I am really grateful for as an MP is that we do not have to be experts. We can have experts come in, walk us through these really challenging things and provide feedback that helps us make really good decisions.

It makes me think of the work that I do in my riding, because one of the things I have been provided with is expertise from my own riding on particular issues. I learn so much from constituents as they guide me with their expertise. In these particular issues that are very complex and far-reaching, we need to make sure that there are no unintended consequences. What we do not want to see, of course, is legislation put in place, some serious unintended consequences happening, and then our being behind the ball trying to get that dealt with.

I think we are all very apprised of what is happening in Israel and in Palestine. There is a lot of agony and pain. It does remind me of my dear friend Mary, who fled Germany during the time of the Holocaust, how she survived and that so many of her family members did not. She told me that she did not believe in God anymore but that she still prayed for peace every day. When I look at the piece of legislation before us, I just think about her intention, what she did to help herself go through such a hard crisis, to lose so much.

I think we all have to remember that when we cannot find solutions that are peaceful, the price is far too high. Part of this, of course, is knowing that there are people who have been taken hostage and that someone is waiting again and again for when they are released, to hear their name. I was reading some articles about some people who have had their loved ones taken in Gaza as hostages. Every time people are released, they are holding their breath, hoping that their loved one's name is on the list. When we look at these things, I think we have to remember that we must do all we can to create peace and that we must do all we can to find safety for all people, and that we should pray for peace unceasingly.

I think the bill needs a bit of work. It needs a little bit of study. I think the experts will be very helpful. We know that there are some good recommendations from the New Democrats that date back to a foreign affairs study in 2018. The report was called “Strengthening the Canadian Consular Service Today and for the Future”. It sought to prove instances of hostage-taking that have not been fully incorporated in the bill. We might be able to look at some of those things and hear from the experts.

Things like creating a mechanism to track the extent to which consular services meet service standards and meaningfully improving communications with families are absolutely key; we need to make sure that families are kept up to date as much as possible. This is the most terrifying period of their lives, most likely, and keeping them informed in a really practical way would make a big difference.

As for the decriminalization of private payment of ransom, I think of the people whom I love the most, and if I had a dollar to pay for their lives, I think I would do it. We need to really bring this back to the humanity.

I will be supporting the bill. New Democrats will be supporting the bill. We will hope to see some really good and strong work in committee to make it a stronger bill, to make sure that there are no unintended consequences that would have a poor impact on people who are facing these realities.

I just want to send my love out to everyone who has ever had this experience or is living through it right now. We have to remember, in all of the work that we do, that humanity is at the core of it. It is hard sometimes, when we are divided, to find our common humanity. I think it is important that we remember how human, how vulnerable and how scared people are, and not silence people but bring together the places where we can be human.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful to my colleague. We work together on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and I enjoy working with him a lot.

I prepared a short speech tonight. I hope people are ready. It is probably one of the best speeches I will ever give in the House.

When it comes to international relations, it is hard to look away, especially considering all the headlines that Canada has been making in recent months, if not years, but sadly, not always for the right reasons.

Since the Prime Minister presumptuously declared in 2015 that “Canada is back”, the country's image has been inconsistent at best, much to the consternation of the Bloc Québécois, I would add. Stuck as it is in the confines of a Canadian province, the Quebec nation is forced to endure the federal government's bungling.

The Bloc Québécois would like to see Canada make better diplomatic decisions. One thing is certain. I have every reason to believe that a sovereign Quebec would do better than Canada when it comes to diplomacy. I would even venture to say that it would do much better. While Canada’s international relations serve its oil interests, Quebec could make a distinct commitment to responsible nations to truly fight climate change. Quebec could also be given full authority to make its immigration policies as generous as possible, taking into account its integration capacity, and obtain a seat at the United Nations.

At the risk of repeating myself, the Bloc Québécois would like to see Canada make better diplomatic decisions. Canada's relationship with China has been on a roller coaster ride ever since Canada arrested Huawei's deputy chair and China arrested the two Michaels in retaliation. It took months of pressure from the Bloc Québécois and its parliamentarians to finally set up an independent public commission of inquiry into China's interference in the Canadian electoral process.

With Bill C‑353, the Conservatives claim to want to protect Canadians being used by foreign states as hostages through baseless accusations. Obviously, not to name them, this refers to the situation of the two Michaels and the saga around the deputy chair of Huawei. In fact, this type of bill would never have prevented their arrest.

Bill C‑353 was introduced by the Conservative member for Thornhill. According to my colleague, the bill “would strengthen Canada's ability to deter, minimize and resolve instances of hostage-taking by increasing governmental power to levy sanctions, by establishing a family liaison office and by providing incentives for foreign co-operation.”

More specifically, the purpose of the bill is, first, “to enable the Government of Canada to take restrictive measures against foreign nationals, foreign states and foreign entities that engage in hostage taking or arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations of Canadian nationals”; second, “to ensure that families of such hostages and detained individuals receive timely information and assistance”; and third, “to encourage individuals to cooperate with the Government of Canada to secure the release of such hostages and detained individuals.”

In general, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C‑353, which is to seek ways to fight against arbitrary detentions. That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C‑353 at second reading so that it can be studied in committee.

However, we believe that in its current form, Bill C‑353 is unworkable and could lead to abuses. It is therefore crucial that we study it and propose amendments, which is entirely understandable.

Bill C‑353 attempts to provide a legislative solution to an extremely complex problem that requires thorough consideration. While many of the bill's provisions look good on paper, in reality many of them could have a negative effect. Bill C‑353 is too broad and lacks appropriate judicial oversight. It grants sweeping powers to the minister without any real judicial checks and balances to prevent potential abuses by the Canadian government.

Despite a number of shortcomings that can and should be corrected, I must point out that Bill C‑353 relies on co-operation in trying to obtain information leading to the release of hostages. In my opinion, co-operation is critical in matters involving security and, above all, human lives.

I never miss an opportunity to stress the importance of collaboration in the House. If, at times, my colleagues from the other parties and I have a difference of opinion, I always prefer to seek common ground and collaborate as best I can instead of engaging in partisanship.

In politics, there are issues where partisanship certainly has no place, including when it comes to human rights or, as we say in Quebec, international human rights, in addition to security issues for the families. That is all part of it.

That is why the Bloc Québécois will support the bill at second reading. The Bloc will collaborate fully to improve the bill in committee for the good of hostages and arbitrarily detained individuals, and their families. To reiterate, we are referring the bill to committee because we support the bill in principle. We will vote and we think that it is a good idea to study the bill in committee. However, we must ensure that the study in committee goes well. We will need to make sure that there is no parliamentary obstruction to prevent the bill from going forward.

I think I said it: If human life and human rights were at issue, it would be a bit crazy to see a committee obstruct parliamentary business and get nothing done. I really hope that all my colleagues in the House will look at this bill, with its pros and cons, and see that the principle is very pertinent and that, among other things, human life is the focal point of this bill, as I was saying.

I am asking all my colleagues not only to support the principle of this bill, but also to ensure that, when it is studied at committee, we will work together, co-operate and, above all, avoid bickering over fundamental rights like human rights, the right to life and the right to security.

My colleagues are surely exhausted after hearing everything I have just said. I will conclude by thanking the member for Thornhill for bringing this bill before the House.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be joining this debate with respect to Bill C-353, the foreign hostage takers accountability act.

Again, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise in the House and speak not only on behalf of my constituents, but also on behalf of a lot of friends of mine from the Middle East: Kurds, Persians and a lot of Chaldeans and Arab-Iraqis and Turks, whom I know are dissidents who live in our country. Many of them had the experience of being imprisoned or detained unlawfully by a group and some of them, unfortunately, by terrorist organizations operating in the Rojava region of Syria. In one case I know of, it was a journalist who was unlawfully detained in her own country at the time. Now, thankfully, she is in Canada, and she is a Canadian citizen here, and an author. I always refer to her as the “Robert Fife of Turkey” because she was the one who broke the story that the Turkish government was allowing arms, money and weapons to flow to ISIS organizations. She was unlawfully detained. She eventually became a Canadian citizen, here in Canada.

There are countless such examples, and if what we just heard from the parliamentary secretary were true, that all of this great work is happening and that it is functioning, then Huseyin Celil, who has been unlawfully detained in the PRC since 2006, would not be there; he would be safely in Canada as a Canadian citizen and would be allowed here with his family members and with his kids. Huseyin Celil has been in prison, like I said, since 2006. He was renditioned as a Canadian citizen out of Uzbekistan to the PRC and was falsely accused of a number of charges.

I believe that the main benefit of Bill C-353, and I want to thank the member for Thornhill for having tabled such legislation, is that it would be a way to dissuade and to deter organizations. The bill would take what is policy, some regulations, some ideas and some behaviour, by what the parliamentary secretary said, and would put it into legislation and would make it functional and usable in law so that family members would know that this would actually happen.

The bill, Bill C-353, is supported by a great number of organizations across the country. There are so many examples that we can point to of Canadians who have been unlawfully detained overseas or who have been imprisoned by terrorist organization, and what they are doing is just not working as well as it should. Therefore, to me, this is an improvement. It would not wipe out what the government has already started doing. In fact, much of that is referred to in the preamble of this private member's bill. It is a recognition that there are activities, and there are things going on, but we could do so much better. We could do more for Canadians, typically of dual citizenship.

I will say that as a Canadian of dual citizenship, I deeply care about this. I happen to be from a country that today is a democratic republic and has all the rights afforded to all types of citizens, but that was not the case pre-1989. I was born in a country that was a communist country at the time, and there were no equal rights for people. There was martial law for six years. There is a reason that my family is here and that we were allowed to leave during that same martial law. In that case, there would have been unlawful detention of dual citizens as well.

I want to focus on a few other Canadians because there is another recent case, as of 2021, of one young lady who disappeared in Tehran. Her name is Behnoush Bahraminia. She is a dual citizen of Canada and had been a Vancouver resident since 2013. She disappeared in Tehran on November 6, 2021. As a dual citizen of Canada and a young lady, her parents are still very worried as to her whereabouts. They have sufficient information, which they have shared in media reports in the past, that they believe she is being unlawfully detained by the Islamic regime in Tehran. We often refer to the IRGC as a terrorist organization. In fact, the House has twice now pronounced itself as labelling the IRGC as a terrorist organization. The government's position is that the Islamic regime is a state sponsor of terror. With the little bit of Farsi that I do know, Sepah-e Pasdaran should be listed as a terrorist organization. I just wanted to speak up on behalf of Behnoush.

I also want to speak up on behalf of Zahra Kazemi. Very famously, she was murdered in Evin prison. She was a Canadian, a Montrealer no less. She was perhaps a professor or taught as an instructor at the same university I used to go to, Concordia University. She was murdered in Evin prison. The police chief at the time of her murder, who gave excuses on national television in Iran, now lives in Canada, unfortunately. I know it is quite a surprise, but he does.

In that particular case, again, it is an example of regimes overseas that feel there is no accountability. They are never held accountable for their actions. That is why a piece of legislation like this is necessary.

The other one I wanted to mention, because the member for Thornhill mentioned it before as well, is the case of Saeed Malekpour, a Canadian permanent resident who, while visiting his ill father, was also arrested, again in Iran, and then was subject to the death penalty. In Farsi they call it hokm-e ‘edam, which is very commonly spoken about, because it is so common in Iran for political opponents of the regime, regardless of whether they are foreign nationals, dual citizens or citizens of the Islamic republic, to be subjected to the death penalty almost on the whims of these courts. These are, of course, not legitimate judges with deep legal educations. These are typically members of the IRGC, or these are kangaroo courts that really do not care about the rules.

If the government labels the Islamic regime, the Islamic government of Tehran, as a terror organization, then rules like this would formalize how we treat them when they unlawfully detain or arrest our citizens. This is how we should treat this regime. This is not a friendly regime to us.

I am focusing most of my commentary on Iran because I have so many people I have come to know all across the country. I want to speak on their behalf, whether they are Baloch, Kurdish from Rojhelat, Persians, Azerbaijanis or the Arabs in the very deep southwest corner in Khuzestan and other provinces, who are continuously persecuted by a regime that took over in 1979. Many governments have come to know them as state sponsors of terror. After all, this is the same regime that arms and trains Hamas. This is the same regime that arms, trains and protects Hezbollah in Syria. This is the same regime that arms, trains and helps the other Hezbollah, in Syria, among other organizations that they support on the ground. This is why so often in the news there are IRGC generals and officers who die in air strikes, whether from drones or from jets, because they are operating freely in Syria, whether in Rojava, nearer to Damascus or nearer to the Turkish-Syrian border.

This is also the same regime that operates freely and has backed the Houthis in the civil war in Yemen. They have backed them perpetually. Now, the Houthis are attacking international shipping. This type of legislation targets regimes like the Islamic regime in Iran.

I will also remind members that this is a regime that, for decades now, has been killing its political opponents, even in Europe. There are people like Qazi Muhammad, who was murdered in Iran, but there are many others whom they target, sometimes using diplomatic immunity for this type of purpose. Sometimes they use rendition as a tool to get back these people; and sometimes, as has happened now, they target Canadian permanent residents and Canadian citizens.

There are many human rights activists who have come to Canada and found a safe place of refuge here, who continue to fight for human rights in Iran, who are the target of this regime. Most famously in North America, although she is not a Canadian citizen, I think of Masih Alinejad, who was targeted by the regime to be renditioned back to Iran to face hokm-e ‘edam, the death penalty.

I do have a Yiddish proverb, because I am speaking of Iran, which had a historically large Jewish community. It is not Yiddish in source, though. It is this: I hope what I have spoken here is that my eyes have spoken what I have seen. It is very important to me that we reflect on this particular issue. There are many diaspora groups in Canada who self-censor, who worry. They are afraid that a regime like Iran's is not held responsible when it takes hostages and when it picks on families. People are sometimes terrified of travelling back to Iran to go to a funeral or to go to a marriage. Even though they may have come here as economic immigrants, become Canadian citizens and joined our family, they are worried what the Islamic regime would do to them in a hostage-taking exercise like that.

It is a terrorist regime. It has terrorist organizations that are part of this large octopus of terrorism. Sometimes that image is seen in caricatures of the government. Legislation like Bill C-353, holding them accountable for hostage-taking, is absolutely necessary. It formalizes a lot of what the government has been doing and does a lot more.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, let me begin tonight's discussion by saying that I appreciate the Conservative member of Parliament for Thornhill's interest in some very important international issues that are raised in this bill, Bill C-353.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs has repeatedly said, we find ourselves amidst an international security crisis. This is evident in the events unfolding around the world, which have direct impact on Canadians' day-to-day lives. Among other things, the brutal, illegal and unjustified invasion of Ukraine by Putin is wreaking havoc on global food and fuel prices. In the midst of that, the Conservatives have been equivocal.

The conflict between Israel and Hamas is having devastating humanitarian impacts and is inflaming tensions at home. Again, the Conservatives have been equivocal. A race for resources critical to reducing carbon pollution and to addressing the existential threat of climate change are leading to coups and conflicts across the world, including in Africa. Again, the Conservatives have been worse than equivocal. Populism, autocratic regimes, political instability and extremist leaders are driving waves of irregular migration. The Conservatives have been have a blind eye toward that.

We have been kept safe at home for generations due to a system of rules and institutions, the international rules-based order, following in the legacy of great leaders like Lester B. Pearson, Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney, and that is why the Minister of Foreign Affairs has made our government's foreign policy priorities clear. We will stand up for our values every day, protecting Canadians and their interests while defending our sovereignty, and at the same time, we will be pragmatic and will engage with a broad and diverse set of other countries to address these challenges and to work toward a more stable and secure world.

Turning to the proposal at hand, at first glance, the principles underpinning this bill, Bill C-353, seem commendable. A core responsibility of any government is to protect Canadians and to keep them safe, whether at home or abroad. Our objective in hostage situations is always to protect the lives of those who are in danger. Canada should be a leader in fighting for a world free of arbitrary detention as an instrument of political pressure or for leverage between states, yet once one gives this Conservative bill a careful read, concerns become very evident. However well-intentioned this proposal is, the bill has major problems. It would actually make it more dangerous for Canadians to live and to travel abroad. This bill would conflate arbitrary detention and hostage-taking. There are different approaches and different issues that are required for each of these situations.

Bill C-353 would also fail to make the critical distinction between terrorists and criminal hostage-taking. The motivations, pressure points and risks, including of torture or death, vary greatly. Complex situations require sophisticated responses. Each case is unique and requires a response that is tailored to the situation so that we can maximize the likelihood that the victim will return home safely to be reunited with their family and loved ones. One size does not fit all, and that kind of mandate would simply hamper the work of the safety and security of Canadians abroad who may find themselves in trouble.

For example, sanctioning criminal groups for hostage-taking would make ransom payments by families illegal, hindering families' abilities to resolve cases quickly and privately. This bill would also mandate the sharing of information with families or with Parliament, which could undermine efforts to resolve cases safely. Family dynamics can also be complex, particularly when privacy is concerned. We Canadians have the right to decide for ourselves when personal information is to be shared, particularly in situations of vulnerability. This bill, Bill C-353, would dismiss the rights of the victims who may or may not want sensitive and even traumatizing information shared with their loved ones or with others. Sharing details of the victims' circumstances, which often include distressing information, can lead to undue distress for families and loved ones. It also risks increasing the chance that they could make rash or emotionally motivated decisions that put their loved ones in greater danger.

I have been involved in a number of these cases doing consular affairs. Our objective in hostage-taking cases is to protect the lives of the hostages, and putting details into the public domain can affect the safety of hostages. Public communications relating to hostages could potentially prolong the ordeal, further endangering their lives. As it is impossible to know what a hostage has told captors to protect themselves, the emergence of details to the contrary could heighten any danger that they are in. Furthermore, exposing government's efforts to negotiate release would allow the captors to gain critical information regarding negotiation tactics as well as oftentimes sensitive government operating procedures.

A third issue is that the bill, Bill C-353, is largely unnecessary. Many of its proposed provisions reflect legislation and policies that our government has already put in place. We already have the strictest and the most robust sanctions regime in the world, which allows for the application of sanctions in the event of growths in systematic human rights violations. For example, we have used these tools, updated as recently as last year, to sanction Hamas leaders involved in the horrific October 7 terrorist attack against Israel. Similarly, our Criminal Code already prohibits dealing with terrorists and authorizes the freezing of assets. Consular officials also already share information with victims' families. However, there is an appropriate and necessary discretion to tailor what, how much and when to share in these circumstances.

A fourth concern that Bill C-353 raises is the various and diplomatic challenges it presents. The bill proposes the seizure of foreign government property in Canada, which is in direct conflict with international law and could expose Canada to legal action and even reprisals. What is more, expanding consular services to permanent residents, while perhaps laudable because we have human beings' lives at stake, other loosely defined eligible individuals would expose the Government of Canada to legal and diplomatic risks.

We are a signatory to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and we hold that clearly. It outlines our responsibilities as well as other countries' responsibilities, and we need to fall in line with the Vienna Convention. Under this convention, countries do not have obligations to share information about non-Canadians with us, and we do not want to risk that quid pro quo being a problem for Canadians.

At best, we would be reliant on diplomatic goodwill. At worst, hostile states could perceive our efforts as interference, increasing the potential of harm faced by the Canadian victim or by any victim. This could even become an irritant with our allies in the event our interventions on behalf of one of their citizens who has Canadian permanent residency is at odds with their own attempts to resolve the situation. It is the responsibility of a government to maintain the protection of its citizens and to appeal for their well-being, and we respect that.

Finally, we are concerned that the Conservative bill, Bill C-353, would propose giving cash and preferential immigration treatment to terrorist groups like Hamas. Let me unpack that for a minute. The bill would actually give an ability to support groups like Hamas to try to solicit information leading to the release of people they have in captivity. This is more than worrisome.

The MP for Thornhill has said in the house recently that, “There is a reason that Canada has a long-standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists. It is that it rewards barbarism, and worse that it provides an incentive for that barbarism to continue and even escalate.” I could not agree more.

Providing cash to terrorists and criminal organizations could flood our consular officials and security agencies with volumes of false and misleading information, and it is not in the best interests of Canadians. The bill's proposal that Canada offer cash and preferential immigration treatment to bad actors, such as gangs and terrorist organizations like Hamas, could provided an incentive to take Canadians hostage so that they could be leveraged as a source of revenue. Again, the bill, Bill C-353, actually increases the likelihood that Canadians could be kidnapped.

In a global security crisis, we want to keep all Canadians safe. We have launched the arbitrary detention initiative. Country after country is signing on to that. We have modernized our consular operations bureau. We have appointed a senior official for hostage affairs. We will continue to do that work with 70 other countries and the European Union, which are part of it and which have endorsed Canada's declaration on arbitrary detention. It serves as a deterrent by raising the cost that such activity incurs.

We have also taken steps to ensure better support to victims by engaging international experts and NGOs, to improve our communications with, and support for, victims and to increase post-detention care.

In closing, our government does not support this bill. This bill, Bill C-353, would send cash to Boko Haram, Hamas, other terrorist organizations and criminal organizations. We will continue to look at it. We will continue to operate in good faith. We want to keep Canadians safe.

The House resumed from December 1, 2023, consideration of the motion that Bill C-353, An Act to provide for the imposition of restrictive measures against foreign hostage takers and those who practice arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations and to make related amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Requirement of Royal Recommendation for Bill C-353—Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The Chair is now ready to rule on the point of order raised on October 24, 2023, by the parliamentary secretary to the government House Leader concerning Bill C-353, an act to provide for the imposition of restrictive measures against foreign hostage takers and those who practice arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations and to make related amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, standing in the name of the member for Thornhill.

In a statement concerning private members’ business on October 19, 2023, the Chair invited members to make arguments regarding the need for this bill to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

In his intervention, the parliamentary secretary stated that the bill would grant a monetary award to an individual who provides information that assists the Government of Canada to secure the release of Canadian nationals and eligible protected persons who are held hostage or arbitrarily detained in state-to-state relations outside Canada. He therefore concluded that this would constitute a new and distinct charge to the consolidated revenue fund.

The Chair has examined Bill C‑353 and has noted certain elements concerning the requirement of a royal recommendation.

Page 835 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states, “[u]nder the Canadian system of government, the Crown alone initiates all public expenditure and Parliament may authorize only spending which has been recommended by the Governor General.”

In addition to the pecuniary reward provided for in clause 21, the bill also seeks, in clause 10, to allow a minister to make withdrawals from the proceeds account in order to provide hostages or detained individuals or, if deceased, their estates or successions with financial compensation.

The proposed plans to offer monetary rewards and to provide monetary compensations entail new and distinct charges against the consolidated revenue fund, which would constitute an infringement of the financial initiative of the Crown. Accordingly, Bill C-353 must be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Consequently, the Chair will decline to put the question at the third reading stage of the bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.

When this item is next before the House, the debate will continue on the motion for second reading of the bill, and the question will be put to the House at the end of that debate.

I thank all members for their attention.

Foreign Hostage Takers Accountability Act

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-353, the foreign hostage takers accountability act. On my first day in the House as a member of Parliament, my dear friend, the hon. member for Thornhill asked me to second this bill. It was inspired, in part, by a report copublished by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and the Canadian Coalition Against Terror, now known as Secure Canada, entitled “Fighting back against global hostage-taking”.

In my previous, non-partisan life, where I founded and led the Macdonald-Laurier Institute's foreign policy practice, I had the opportunity to work with the authors of this report, Sarah Teich, Daniel Eisen and Sheryl Saperia. As the hon. member for Thornhill so eloquently noted, their contributions to securing victims of terrorism, of extremism and of hostage-taking are, frankly, unparalleled.

The hon. member for Thornhill knows this. She is not only the sponsor of this legislation and my deputy leader but also a fierce Canadian proponent for human rights, unafraid to challenge authoritarians who would do Canadians harm. Therefore, I am especially proud to rise in this chamber as her cosponsor today, in support of the champions who contribute ideas and in support of a fearless legislator who knows how to turn those ideas into laws.

I have three reflections on this legislation, looking at hostages and sanctions, support for families and co-operation with third parties. In the past decade, we have seen Canadians increasingly seized as hostages by terror groups and authoritarian regimes.

In China, the world watched Xi Jinping's “wolf warrior diplomacy”, holding Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor for over 1,000 days as retaliation for arresting Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou.

At the same time, there were several cases of Canadians receiving harsher sentences in China. Robert Schellenberg, a Canadian who was convicted for alleged drug smuggling in China, previously sentenced to 15 years in prison, was retried and sentenced to the death penalty. Fan Wei, another Canadian, received the death penalty shortly after the Meng arrest. In Iran, the clerical regime arrested Saeed Malekpour, a Canadian permanent resident originally sentenced to the death penalty, while visiting his ill father.

Today, we see Hamas, a sadistic death cult, using their own people as human shields and murdering innocent Israelis and Canadians. Hamas has proven that they only have one goal. It is to eradicate the Jewish people and any freedom-loving person who stands in their path. They have shown that they do not care about any civilian life and are willing to use innocent hostages, right now, as bargaining chips to further their terror apparatus.

By clearly directing that sanctions may be implemented against states and individuals alike, if they are responsible for engaging in hostage-taking and arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations, this bill provides the tools necessary to combat these crimes and gives greater teeth to the government in stopping our enemies from taking hostages in the first place.

Alarm bells are ringing across the world, and the urgency to protect and defend our citizens has never been higher. This brings me to my second point, which is the need for tools to support families of hostage-taking.

When confronted by authoritarians and their use of hostages by those who practice state terror as statecraft, we currently have limited tools in this country to defend our own people. Families are often left in the dust, with varying levels of support. Canada has not taken enough meaningful action to combat or deter this behaviour. In the case of Zahra Kazemi, her family could not even seek damages from the Iranian regime.

Even when people are freed in swaps, this has incentivized future hostage-taking. Moreover, it sends a message to brutal forces around the world that they can take our people and get away with it.

We will ensure that these bad actors are isolated from participating in the global economy and that justice is brought upon them. In this legislation, victims and their families will be at the forefront of the government's efforts. Families struggling with mental health issues will get access to the quality services and support they deserve. Those who have been left in the dark on the status of their loved ones will finally receive timely updates from Ottawa.

In terms of my third point, tools are needed to enhance co-operation with third parties to secure the release of Canadian hostages. By granting the minister the ability to communicate and collaborate with foreign states, this legislation would enhance our ability to bring our people home. Whether a person is a citizen, a permanent resident or refugee, we will fight tooth and nail for them.

In terms of those abroad offering valuable information on the status and location of hostages, we will protect them, stand with them and make sure that we fight for them and their repatriation. Bill C-353 would give the government the discretion to do just that; it would keep those who assist us safe by granting the minister the ability to consider immigration status for them and their families.

To close, we have a responsibility to protect and defend our innocent civilians from the evil that roams this earth. This common-sense legislation is long overdue. We need to be providing hostages and their families the support they need and the justice they seek. We need to target the authoritarians and brutal regimes who think they can hold Canadians captive with zero consequence.

I am proud to stand with the hon. member for Thornhill. To my colleagues across this chamber, this need not be a partisan undertaking. Let us make it a parliamentary one by supporting this bill today.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for the introduction of Bill C-353, the foreign hostage takers accountability act.

Canada's promotion of human rights and a rules-based international order are pillars of our foreign policy. The practice of arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations undermines our democratic values and our security and threatens the foundation of our international system, which is based on trust and amicable relations between states. Incidents of hostage-taking by terrorist groups often ensnare innocent civilians and pose significant threat to national security. We also recognize the immeasurable impacts that these practices have, not only on victims but also on their families, their friends and their supporters around the world.

This is why Canada has responded. Almost three years ago, we launched the initiative against arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations, and we have been playing a leadership role in the fight against arbitrary detention. In addition, to deal with instances of hostage-taking by terrorist groups, we have put in place a robust system and most recently named a senior official for hostage affairs. Our government continues to explore all options to deter, prevent and respond to these egregious acts and to defend the rights of Canadians.

I welcome this opportunity to discuss the proposals in the private member's bill introduced by the member for Thornhill. I believe that all members in this House agree that Canada must continue to uphold its firm commitment to protect Canadians, to defend human rights and international peace and security, and to respond to cases of wrongful detention and hostage-taking in an effective and meaningful way.

To respond effectively to the egregious practices of arbitrary detention and hostage-taking, we must have the appropriate tools and services in place. These issues are incredibly complex, and any response must be very carefully considered. Bill C-353 focuses on the tools at the government's disposal to combat arbitrary detention for diplomatic leverage as well as hostage-taking of Canadians, permanent residents or eligible protected persons outside Canada. We agree on the importance of enhancing the tools available to the government and of refining our approach. However, these issues are incredibly complex and any response must be carefully considered in order to minimize any potential harm to victims. Our overriding concern must always be the well-being of the detainees. Therefore, my remarks today will focus primarily on this consideration.

This bill addresses two extremely serious but distinct issues: arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations and international hostage-taking. The motivations, tactics and risks of harm to the victims can vary greatly. For example, while a state may be more receptive to diplomatic pressure to release a hostage, non-state actors may be less responsive to this type of pressure. Also, the risks of serious harm to the victim may vary across such cases. Every situation is unique and each case therefore requires a sophisticated and tailored response.

Further, there are distinctions to be made among types of hostage-taking incidents. There are those involving terrorist entities versus those perpetuated by criminal groups. In general, the government considers hostage-taking by terrorist groups as a threat to national security and therefore our response differs compared to how we deal with kidnappings by criminal gangs, for instance. This bill, however, proposes the same set of tools for all of these scenarios and would mandate some actions on the part of government in response to these cases, which raises a range of concerns.

We know that an effective response must be designed to respond to each unique situation to ensure the safe release of the victim. Moreover, the imposition of sanctions must be very carefully considered. The pros and cons must be weighed in each case. Imposing sanctions during a hostage situation could, for example, increase the risk that the hostage is mistreated in retaliation by his or her captors.

The use of monetary and migratory incentives, as the bill proposes, may give rise to serious unintended consequences. It could increase the amount of false information provided by opportunistic individuals, including those associated with captor groups. This could complicate investigative work and leave families more vulnerable to scams by predatory individuals seeking a payday. In fact, there is potential that this could create a market for hostage-takings in Canada.

I think we can all agree that no member of the House wants to see taxpayer dollars ending up in the hands of terrorist organizations. No member wants to increase risk for Canadians travelling, working or studying abroad. Further, the reporting and information-sharing provisions in the bill also require careful consideration in order to avoid any potential repercussions to efforts used to secure release of detainees. In pursuing the safe release of a Canadian, we must always be very careful about how information is shared. It is imperative that we not share information that could jeopardize negotiations for the safe release of a detainee. It is also important that we have the discretion to share information with families of victims as and when appropriate. There are cases where victims do not want to have their information shared with family members, for instance. Family dynamics can be complex. We must respect their wishes.

Responding to these egregious practices and protecting Canadians are priorities for the government. As a result, many programs, policies and authorities have already been put in place and are being used to support Canadians facing arbitrary detention and hostage-taking. I am pleased to confirm that we already have, in our tool kit, many of the elements that are proposed in Bill C-353.

First, Canada already has two autonomous sanctions regimes, which have been used to respond to a variety of circumstances in the international context, including gross and systemic violations of human rights. Further, existing legislation, such as the terrorist financing provisions in the Criminal Code, and regulations regarding sanctions related to terrorist entities, already impose asset freezes and dealings prohibitions on terrorist groups.

Second, the government has an established set of mechanisms to assist victims and their families. For example, there are robust policies and practices in place to adopt a trauma-informed approach to aiding former hostages and their families.

Global Affairs Canada has implemented standard operating procedures, and works closely with other governmental organizations and external partners in efforts to resolve these cases. There are also existing programs and funding mechanisms that facilitate access to financial support, medical assistance and counselling for Canadians. We continue to refine and enhance our approach to ensure effective and tailored support to victims and their families.

No one doubts that the government must have effective tools and programs to respond to the egregious acts of hostage-taking and arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations. Bill C-353 is an example of the House's recognition of this fact. Nonetheless, we require solutions that are carefully considered and that are informed by deep knowledge and experience of the challenging, complex issues. It is clear that a one-size-fits-all solution may have unintended consequences, and that having the discretion to respond to a particular case, depending on the circumstances at hand, is key to an effective, victim-centred approach.

As debate continues, I look forward to working with the member for Thornhill and with all members of the House, to enhance the tools at Canada's disposal and to reinforce our commitment to address arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations and hostage-taking.

I will just comment briefly on my intervention earlier today, when I asked the member for Thornhill about royal recommendation. Royal recommendation is something that is very rarely afforded to a private member's bill. I know this for a fact, because I brought a bill before the House early in my time as a parliamentarian that did require royal recommendation, and my very own government did not give royal recommendation to the bill. The bill did, nonetheless, still pass, as far as it could go without the royal recommendation, with the support of all members of the House. However, we cannot underestimate the importance of triggering such an action by the government. What is of critical importance is recognizing that when royal recommendation is required, it is very easy to allow it to go through in one particular case, but setting a precedent is where it becomes very dangerous.

I understand any government's reluctance, whether it is Liberal, Conservative or NDP, to use a royal recommendation based on that rationale. Nonetheless, I look forward to continuing discussion on this important bill.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Thornhill for introducing Bill C-353. At a time when Canadians and people around the world are concerned about cases of hostage-taking and arbitrary detention, we are all desperate to see action in having people returned who have been taken hostage.

The member for Thornhill spoke about the brutal, horrific hostage-taking by the terrorist organization Hamas on October 7. Everyone in the House felt the brutality and horror of that. The stories we have heard from that have rocked all of us. We have all been disgusted, and our humanity has been tested.

As a mother, I cannot even imagine what some of these families have gone through. I watched a mother reuniting with her teenage daughter recently on social media. I tried to imagine what this mother and her daughter had to go through. She hugged her daughter; I thought if it were my daughter, I would never be able to let go. It really touched me because I have a teenage daughter.

Of course, New Democrats want Canadians who have been taken hostage or arbitrarily detained to be safely repatriated and for those responsible to be held accountable, which is why we are happy that this legislation came forward. Obviously, it is unacceptable that Canadians who work, live or have family members abroad should worry about whether their loved ones will have access to the correct consular services if they are needed.

New Democrats have worked at the committee level, and we feel strongly that there is a better response to situations of hostage-taking and arbitrary detention. Previous studies, including the 2018 study by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on consular assistance, as the member for Thornhill mentioned, have shown that consular services have failed to protect Canadians who were detained overseas in the past.

When the member for Thornhill introduced this bill in the House, she stated, “It would strengthen Canada's ability to deter, minimize and resolve instances of hostage-taking by increasing governmental power to levy sanctions, by establishing a family liaison office and by providing incentives for foreign co-operation.” While we think these are commendable objectives, New Democrats are very concerned with the methods by which Bill C-353 seeks to achieve these ends. That is why we will be supporting this bill at second reading, but we need some serious study to be undertaken before we can support it at third reading.

I am going to talk about some of the concerns that New Democrats have. First of all, in terms of increasing governmental power to levy sanctions, Bill C-353 aims to impose restrictive measures, such as seizing property and assets, to deter individuals and entities from dealing directly or indirectly with those responsible for hostage-taking or the arbitrary detention of Canadians. However, the bill does not clarify for me what that “indirect dealing” is. Is this merely something that the Governor in Council has discretion to decide? Which individuals or entities are deemed responsible for complicity? For me, that is not clear enough, and without that detailed clarification, there is a risk of ambiguity and subjectivity that could leave a grey area. Innocent Canadians who provide financial support to charitable or relief organizations or directly to family members overseas might find themselves targeted by the bill, so we have to be very cautious that there is not unintentional harm being caused.

When it comes to the idea of helping the families of victims, this bill could do more. I feel that it is inadequate in terms of helping with the needs of families. First, the member said that this bill would establish a family liaison officer, yet nowhere in the bill does it mention this officer or even provide a framework for it. Second, the bill would not guarantee much-needed mental health supports to families of victims, and I think that is where Canada can do more. Third, this bill would do nothing to decriminalize private ransom payments, a mechanism that is essential for many families to resolve such cases. This is something that we could look at again.

I also want to highlight something, going back to the question I asked earlier of the member. In terms of providing incentives for foreign co-operation in locating and repatriating victims, this bill would do two things.

First of all, it would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to enable the MFA to provide PR status to foreign nationals who would otherwise be inadmissible or fail to meet the requirements of the IRPA. They could be free from any applicable criteria, obligations, payments or fees so long as they provide information that leads to the release and repatriation of a Canadian national or eligible protected person. The second thing the bill would do is give the MFA the ability to pay monetary rewards to informants who provide information that leads to the release of victims.

Obviously, one of the concerns I have is that handing out free PR and monetary rewards to individuals in exchange for information opens a pretty dangerous precedent and a pretty dangerous avenue for exploitation that we would be very concerned about. For example, who is to say these potential informants would not be co-operating with criminals? How do we know? It is not much of a leap to think some nefarious individuals would use these conditions to their advantage. I am not sure if this bill addresses that adequately, so I have some serious concerns with that.

Despite these concerns, New Democrats still feel this bill is good. It just needs a lot of work and more study so that in the future, victims and their families are better protected and supported abroad and at home.

We have a few recommendations that we will be bringing forward. Some of these recommendations seek to improve the resolution of instances of hostage-taking and arbitrary detention, and to truly support the families of the victims.

We would like to see, for example, that mental health supports are provided to families of victims and that they are guaranteed access to mental health support. We would like to establish a framework to track the extent to which consular services meet service standards and produce post hoc review reports to assess consular personnel performance. Being able to measure is part of how we make sure we are doing what we can to support families. We should also establish a framework for a family liaison office to meaningfully improve communications with families and should work toward decriminalizing the private payment of ransom in a foreign context.

Those are some of the supports we will be bringing forward at committee as we work to strengthen this piece of legislation. New Democrats feel, as I think all members of this House feel, that Canadians and their families deserve to be cared for. They deserve to be supported during the terrible, extremely painful and extremely dangerous situations where one of their loved ones is being held hostage or arbitrarily detained.

We will be supporting this bill at second reading, and we will do what we can to work with all parties and the member for Thornhill to make sure this legislation is as strong as it possibly can be. Let us protect Canadians and do everything we can to bring hostages home.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we are discussing Bill C-353. This is a vitally important measure for protecting the rights of our fellow citizens, but the text of the bill raises some crucial questions and legitimate concerns.

When the member for Thornhill introduced her bill, she said it would “strengthen Canada's ability to deter, minimize and resolve instances of hostage-taking by increasing governmental power to levy sanctions, by establishing a family liaison office and by providing incentives for foreign co-operation.”

The bill states that its purpose is “to enable the Government of Canada to take restrictive measures against foreign nationals, foreign states or foreign entities that engage in hostage taking or arbitrary detention [of Canadians]”, “to ensure that families of such hostages and detained individuals receive timely information and assistance”, and “to encourage individuals to cooperate with the Government of Canada to secure the release of such hostages and detained individuals.”

The minister responsible for enforcing this bill would be the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

In keeping with its commitment to defending the rights of all human beings, the Bloc Québécois recognizes this bill's laudable intent. It seeks to fight against arbitrary detention, protect citizens who have been taken hostage and provide vital support to the families involved. However, it is important to recognize the substantial flaws in the bill as it now stands.

The very essence of the bill deserves to be commended. It seeks to take restrictive measures against acts of arbitrary detention or hostage takings committed by foreign entities. This bill also highlights the critical need to help the families of hostages and encourage co-operation for their release.

The bill seeks to take restrictive measures against foreign nationals, foreign states and foreign entities that engage in hostage taking or arbitrarily detain Canadians, Quebeckers or eligible protected persons. The Department of Foreign Affairs will also have to provide assistance to the families of such hostages and set up programs to encourage co-operation for the release of these Canadians and Quebeckers. The bill will make related amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

That being said, the bill creates grey areas and raises concerns that need to be addressed. The Conservatives claim that it will protect Canadians and Quebeckers detained abroad based on unfounded accusations, but they should realize that the bill would not have stopped the recent detentions that had the whole world holding its breath. The bill implicitly refers to the two Michaels and the Meng Wanzhou saga, but it would never have prevented their detention.

The bill also gives the government the power to pay money to individuals who provide information on or help hostages. This could have the opposite effect because kidnappers could figure out a way to indirectly receive payment from the federal government, even if the government does not pay the ransom. In other words, ironically, this could create an incentive to take hostages. The bill has some major flaws, including the possibility that Canadians and Quebeckers could be forbidden from providing goods or services to foreign states. That could expose ordinary citizens to severe and unfair consequences, like significant prison sentences of up to five years.

Moreover, the discretionary power granted to the government without an appropriate judicial review mechanism raises legitimate concerns about the potential for abuse. The bill is overly broad in scope and lacks appropriate judicial review mechanisms. It gives broad powers to the minister without any real judicial checks and balances. It is essential to recognize the importance of this issue while also considering the potential implications of this bill.

A thorough committee review is imperative to address glaring gaps and ambiguities that could lead to unintended consequences. That is why we will be voting for the bill at this stage.

We have a responsibility to protect the rights of our constituents while avoiding the legal and diplomatic pitfalls that could result from this legislation. We must work together to strike a balance between protecting Canadians and Quebeckers and maintaining international relations.

The Bloc Québécois will continue to support the fundamental principle underlying this bill, while urging the House to make substantial changes to guarantee its enforceability and its consistency with the democratic values that we defend.

Bill C‑353 will have to be studied in committee and amended; otherwise, the Bloc Québécois will probably not support the bill at third reading, if it gets that far. That being said, again, we support it at this stage.

In closing, we must join our efforts to draft a bill that will preserve the rights of our fellow citizens without compromising our international relations. To ensure we get this bill right, we must carefully study it in committee and make crucial adjustments so as to strike this delicate balance between protection and co-operation.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

moved that Bill C-353, An Act to provide for the imposition of restrictive measures against foreign hostage takers and those who practice arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations and to make related amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is a first for me, as I stand here to speak to my own private member's bill, the foreign hostage takers accountability act.

I will start with the fact that we are very blessed to live in a nation that, at its core, values human rights, justice, equality and the rule of law. These are the principles that define who we are as a people, the story we have written thus far and the kind of country we want to protect and, frankly, build up.

These are also principles that are shared by many, but they are certainly not universal or even widespread around the world. There are still many places today where basic human rights are not recognized, where they are under attack and where simply being a Canadian can put one in grave danger.

When I proposed this legislation, the events of October 7th were not even within the realm of imagination. The brutal attack and subsequent hostage-taking by Hamas terrorists of innocent civilians on a holiday Saturday have cast an undeniable light on the power of hostage-taking, even thousands of miles away.

The events we bear witness to almost daily in the news impact the stability of our own country and, of course, of fellow democracies around the world. We watched the slow return of innocent civilians who had been viciously torn away from their homes and their families, at least those whose fate was not outright murder, .

Virtually every democratic administration on the U.S. side of the border, from Carter to Reagan, and here at home, from Harper to our current government, has had to cope with wounds inflicted upon them by state and non-state hostage-taking. This has tilted the histories of both of our nations.

The events of October 7th set a new precedent that is being watched very carefully by the most malevolent forces on earth, which happen to despise Canada no less than they do any other democracy of freedom-loving people. There has never been a comparable incident, in numbers or in its systemic nature, which has involved Canadians. In these events, hostages as young as 10 months old and as old as 85 were taken in an unusually ruthless way.

These hostages have subsequently become the focus of international hatred and violence in the streets of virtually every western city everywhere in the world. While the October 7th attack is not the focus today, it cannot be ignored.

The last two months opened a new chapter in hostage-taking that has proven to be a serious security threat in the world. It has the power to not only change the victims, who must live forever with the consequences and the trauma, but also the internal dynamics of sovereign countries.

Every malevolent force on earth has taken note of just how much power this hostage-taking has provided for its perpetrators. How we respond is truly going to matter as to how others will act. Our legislation must be adjusted accordingly.

In a world that is increasingly authoritarian, unsafe and, frankly, unstable, the threat of hostage-taking presents a real and pressing danger. Faced with these challenges, the importance of having comprehensive, up-to-date modern legislation to prevent and mitigate hostage-taking situations must be a priority. It must be something that we think about.

The truth is that most legislation dealing with terrorism generally only comes to be in the aftermath of the most egregious terrorist events. Virtually every major terrorism-related UN resolution or domestic law was only in response to the specific events that compelled injured international communities to change the rules regarding terrorism. Every leap in international and domestic law was forced on western democracies by the imaginative murderers of al Qaeda, ISIS or anyone of their ilk.

Canada has always risen, and should always rise, to defend civil liberties and freedoms wherever and whenever they have been challenged. On the beaches of Normandy, in the jungles of Rwanda and in the deserts of Afghanistan, we must ensure we can continue to rise to that occasion and must ensure we can protect innocent lives and assert our values as a nation.

That is why I have introduced this bill. If passed, this act would strengthen Canada's ability to deter, to minimize and to resolve instances where Canadians are taken hostage abroad. It would increase government power to levy sanctions, establish more support for families and provide incentives for global co-operation. It would be a vital tool in Canada's arsenal, helping us continue to protect the lives and rights of Canadians taken hostage or arbitrarily detained. It would provide valuable support here at home and to the loved ones of hostages, who endure long periods of sacrifice and extreme stress. We have seen that in recent cases.

The bill is not the silver bullet by any means to prevent and solve such incidents, but it is a necessary bullet in our arsenal as a democracy in order to deal with the bad actors more effectively and to limit the damage they can inflict on our country. Reviewing a list of the Canadian hostages taken abroad in recent years reaffirms this phenomenon. There is Nigeria, Mali, Pakistan, Haiti, the Philippines and of course China, the case in recent memory that affected two Canadians who sat in this gallery, the two Michaels.

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development studied complex consular cases in 2018, recommending unanimously that Canada should provide greater support to the families of hostages and establish a more transparent information-sharing structure. Many of those recommendations informed and influenced this bill.

I have worked in this space as a staffer in the prior government in the office of the minister of foreign affairs, and what I saw was a gap between what Canada could say and do. I decided to use my time as a parliamentarian here in this House to address that gap so that Canadians feel safe wherever and in whatever situation they might find themselves.

Many of my colleagues have reached out to me in recent days with questions, which I take as a positive sign, but if they have questions, it means others might have questions too.

First, I should make clear that this bill would not change Canada’s current and long-standing policy of not paying ransom. We do not and should not ever provide financial rewards to those who seek to kidnap, imprison or otherwise harm our citizens. The proposed incentives in this bill are not a repudiation of that principle. Rather, as an extension from the foreign affairs report, these incentives would promote greater collaboration among the government, innocent third parties, NGOs and others so we can do everything possible to bring our loved ones home, to bring our Canadian citizens home.

Second, hostage-taking and arbitrary detention are not the same thing. Hostage-taking is a form of arbitrary detention. However, it goes further because it includes threats of physical violence or even murder if certain conditions are not met. In other words, the element of extortion is present in hostage-taking, and extortion is a grave threat to our entire country, the decisions we make, how we do business and our governance. Arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations occurs when a an individual is arbitrarily arrested or detained “to compel action from, or exercise leverage over, a foreign government”. I hope that provides some clarity so we can move forward into making this a new reality in Canada.

I would also like to thank a few key people and groups that have played a critical role in advancing this idea all the way to the floor of the House of Commons. First, I want to thank Sarah Teich, Danny Eisen, Sheryl Saperia and Stacey Granovsky for their long-standing work on the issue and on the legislation, and on behalf of Canadians at Secure Canada. I want to also thank strong advocates such as my friend Irwin Cotler, one of Canada’s greatest advocates for human rights, and to acknowledge support from groups like the Iranian Justice Collective, Muslims Facing Tomorrow, Muslims Against Antisemitism, The Greater Toronto Kurdish House, Hong Kong Watch and the Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project, just to name a few, and from synagogues and churches. I also, of course, want to thank my own staff, who have worked on multiple iterations of something that had long been in my brain and in the brains of some of my colleagues to make that a reality and bring it through the process. We must never underestimate how much work goes into that process.

These organizations, advocacy partners and our own staff understand that this concept needs to be ensconced in law because that is the way democracies establish our values and what actually matters. Statements, including statements we have heard over the last number of years, simply do not cut it any more. That is what we have become very good at in this country in far too many instances.

I will be slightly crass for a moment and say that we do not just declare our objections to things like child abuse or intimate partner violence; we legislate them. We establish them as truths of our value system through law. Law is the last arena we have in which we can level the playing field against forces, including the hordes gathering around the world that are currently applauding the dismemberment of babies and the rape and mutilation of women and children. They will inevitably be back to applaud such other atrocities against those they consider deserving. There is simply no way, given the millions of trips that Canadians take a year and the tens of thousands of Canadians living outside the country in dangerous places, that the Government of Canada, regardless of its politics, regardless of who sits in what seat, will be left unscathed by this.

The bill is about protecting Canada as much as it is about protecting Canadians. It is about protecting the sovereignty of the Canadian government and the lives of Canadian citizens. Voting against it would delight the hostage-takers around the world, and I ask the House to please do not give them that satisfaction, particularly after what we have seen in the last two months around the world. Every Canadian deserves to be safe and secure. They deserve a government that can help them when things go wrong. I think that anything we can do to make that a reality is worth doing. Anything we can do to make sure we bring Canadians home safely needs to be done. I hope that all my colleagues from across all parties will support the legislation.

Requirement of Royal Recommendations for Bills C-353 and C-356

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with respect to what the Speaker said on Thursday, October 19, when he raised two items for Private Members' Business that appeared to infringe on the Crown's financial imperative and asked members to bring forward interventions on these matters.

Without commenting on the subject matter of the two bills in question, I submit that Bill C-353, sponsored by the member for Thornhill, and Bill C-356, sponsored by the member for Carleton, both infringe on the Crown's financial prerogative and that both bills require a royal recommendation.

Subclause 21(1) of Bill C-353 relating to the programs to encourage co-operation provides that:

The Minister may, in cooperation with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, establish and implement programs designed to encourage individuals to co-operate with the Government of Canada to secure the release of Canadian nationals and eligible protected persons who are held hostage or arbitrarily detained in state-to-state relations outside Canada.

Subclause 21(2) of Bill C-353 further provides that “the Minister may pay a monetary reward to the individual who provides that information in an amount and manner determined by the Minister.”

I submit, respectfully, that there is no authority in statute or in an appropriation to establish such a program set out in subclause 21(1), nor the authority to make payments subject to the provisions set out in subclause 21(2). Therefore, subclause 21(1), in toto, seeks to impose a new and distinct draw on the consolidated revenue fund in a manner that is not currently authorized.

Turning to Bill C-356, I submit that the repurposing of $100 million from the housing accelerator fund and the provision to give effect to a 100% GST rebate on the new residential rental property for which the average rent payable is below market rate both seek to infringe on the Crown's financial prerogative.

First, the housing accelerator fund was established as a program administered by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and is funded by a voted appropriation by Parliament through the estimates process. The member is seeking to change the terms and conditions and the purposes of the housing accelerator fund in a manner that is inconsistent with the program parameters as established and that therefore deviates from the authority granted by Parliament. The tabling of the main estimates and supplementary estimates is preceded by the recommendation of Her Excellency the Governor General for voted appropriations. That royal recommendation sets the maximum amount, the purpose and the terms and conditions of the voted appropriations contained in the estimates documents and voted upon by Parliament.

Second, the 100% GST rebate on new residential rental property would be a rebate paid out of the consolidated revenue fund for which a builder, landlord or buyer could claim the said rebate. I would point out that Bill C-56, which also proposes a 100% GST rebate for purpose-built rental housing, while different in design, was accompanied by a royal recommendation. Since, when brought into force, it would create a new and distinct draw on the consolidated revenue fund, it stands to reason that the program for which the terms, purposes and conditions of the GST rebate envisioned in Bill C-356 cannot rely on the royal recommendation provided with Bill C-56. Bill C-356 must, similarly, require a new royal recommendation to authorize a new and distinct draw on the consolidated revenue fund.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The Chair would also like to make a statement on the management of Private Members' Business. The consideration of legislative measures involves certain procedural issues of a constitutional nature that impose constraints that the Speaker and the members must address.

As a consequence, every time the order of precedence is replenished, the Chair reviews the bills added to draw the House's attention to those that appear, at first glance, to infringe the financial prerogative of the Crown. This enables members to rise in a timely manner to present their views on whether these bills require a royal recommendation.

Accordingly, following the addition of 15 new items to the order of precedence on Wednesday, September 20, two items concern the Chair.

First, Bill C-353, an act to provide for the imposition of restrictive measures against foreign hostage takers and those who practice arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations and to make related amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, standing in the name of the member for Thornhill.

Also: Bill C‑356, an act respecting payments by Canada and requirements in respect of housing and to amend certain other acts, standing in the name of the member for Carleton.

In the Chair's view, these bills may require a royal recommendation. Members who wish to make arguments regarding the need for bills C‑353 and C‑356 to be accompanied by a royal recommendation should do so as early as possible.

I thank all members for their attention.