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]

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.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I know that the member mentioned that she worked in the office of the minister of foreign affairs in a previous government, and she said that she had identified some gaps. I would just be curious to find out what this particular bill includes to address the gaps she outlined.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the bill has, effectively, three pieces.

It has a dedicated sanctions mechanism that we could impose on other countries. Second, it would increase support to families, which has been a big gap that was identified, making sure that the Canadian government is communicating and providing supports to the families of those who have been kidnapped or arbitrarily detained and who live without them for so long. The third important thing is that it recognizes that none of this happens alone. Getting Canadians back into the hands of the Canadian government and back onto Canadian soil does not happen without some kind of partnership. The bill would fully give the minister the discretion to provide compensation to those who cooperate in the international community, not those who are the ones detaining but those who provide any information to be able to help bring our loved ones home.

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

Madam Speaker, sometimes there are bills that come before the House that require royal recommendation and, typically, those types of bills do not get through. I had some concerns when reading through the bill as to whether or not this one was going to fall into that category.

I wonder if the member can comment as to whether or not she has had any advice on that and whether it would require royal recommendation.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have had some advice on that. We are willing to discuss that, hopefully when the member votes in favour of this bill and we send it to committee to make the appropriate changes so that, something as important as this, at a time like this, can be made a Canadian law by all members of this House.

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

Madam Speaker, during my speech, I will come back to the Bloc Québécois's position on the bill. For now, I would like to ask the member a question.

Does she not get the impression that perhaps a bit too much discretionary power is being given to the minister and that, conversely, there may not be enough checks and balances?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it would be up to the government's discretion. The act would expand the government prerogative rather than restrict it. Right now, the minister is restricted from being able to use any kind of compensation to seek or reward co-operation. We want to provide that prerogative, but in an additional way, to be able to bring home Canadians safely and give people the incentive to co-operate with Canada in a way they do not have currently.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Thornhill for bringing forward this legislation. It is very commendable. I think everyone in the House recognizes the part about bringing Canadians home as being so important.

My one worry with this bill is this. I certainly hope we can address at committee, when it goes there after second reading, the idea of incentivizing PR, the monetary incentives. Does the member have any thoughts on whether or not that could be exploited or if there is a risk there? It feels to me that, when we put up PR as something that can be used as a carrot, the potential for exploitation is really high in that situation.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, certainly that is a concern. I think the bigger concern is that, right now, there is no incentive for any kind of co-operation. We wanted to ensure that the discretion lies entirely with the minister to be able to provide that and to be able to make an informed decision, with the help of the brilliant public service we have in this country, to make sure we are doing that in a way that helps bring people home, rather than of course to play into the hands of those trying to exploit the system.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, promoting and protecting human rights, a rules-based international order, the rule of law and judicial independence are principles that are integral part of Canada's foreign policy and that will continue to guide the Government of Canada's efforts with respect to arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations.

This practice of arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations undermines our democratic values and our security. It also threatens the foundation of our international system, which is based on trust and friendly relations between states. The taking of hostages by terrorist groups often affects innocent civilians and poses a serious threat to national security. We need to be aware of the immeasurable impacts that these practices have not only on victims, but also on their families, their friends and their supporters around the world.

That is why Canada has implemented a strong system for dealing with hostage takings, which includes the recent appointment of a senior official responsible for hostage affairs. That is also why Canada launched the initiative against arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations about three years ago, and that is why Canada is leading the fight against arbitrary detention.

When states target foreign nationals for diplomatic pressure or retaliation, they endanger the security and freedom of all people who travel, work, study or live abroad. People should never be used as bargaining chips. For the victims, their families and friends, the human cost is profound. We know that it is extremely difficult for victims and their loved ones to recover.

Not only do these practices blatantly violate the rights of those affected, they also jeopardize friendly relations between states, international co-operation, security, travel and trade. What is more, they undermine the rule of law. Arbitrary detentions and convictions for diplomatic purposes compromise the independence of the judicial process while undermining international norms and values.

In light of these grave concerns, in February 2021 we launched the Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations, an international effort to discourage, and ultimately end, this practice among states that arbitrarily arrest, imprison and convict people in order to exert diplomatic pressure. The declaration establishes a common front and lays the groundwork so we can put an end to this abhorrent practice through international co-operation. It aims to protect innocent people from becoming pawns in bilateral disputes.

In that sense, the declaration is about human rights and a rules-based international order. It helps not only protect citizens, but also revitalize the basic principles of co-operation, loyalty and mutual respect between states. It is also a question of international security. Arbitrary detention as a tool of political pressure engenders fear and mistrust between peoples and states. It undermines opportunities for dialogue and hinders bilateral co-operation at a time when the world needs it most.

Since 2021, Canada has consistently mobilized the international community against this unacceptable form of diplomatic leverage. The coalition of states supporting the declaration has grown from 58 to 75 signatories and comprises countries from all over the world. In recent months, the declaration has received the support of Barbados, Dominica and Grenada. The declaration also has the support of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and the G7. This growing number of endorsements and expressions of support is a testament to the international consensus that is building to call for an immediate end to this insidious and unacceptable practice.

Canada is playing a leadership role in rallying support around the world for the declaration and moving this critical file forward for all nations.

These efforts are a testament to Canada's commitment to finding peaceful and effective multilateral solutions to pressing global issues.

As part of the initiative against arbitrary detention, Canada put forward a partnership action plan, which was welcomed by G7 ministers in May 2021. The partnership action plan advances the declaration by establishing six areas for international co-operation to stop arbitrary detentions. They include advocacy and awareness raising, research, case tracking, information sharing, and civil society and multilateral organization engagement.

Canada continues to take every opportunity to hold international discussions on the use of arbitrary detention as a political tool. In addition to holding bilateral talks, Canada is leading a multilateral awareness raising campaign by bringing the issue up at the United Nations General Assembly and the UN legal committee, which considers legal matters of interest to UN member states.

Canada has also sent messages concerning arbitrary detention to the European Parliament and continues to be asked to lead discussions on the subject at major international events. In addition, Canada facilitates crucial discussions on this issue in order to create a space for countries that support the declaration to share their viewpoints and advance the objectives of the partnership action plan.

On the sidelines of the 78th session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and the foreign affairs ministers of Malawi and Costa Rica, co-hosted a high-level dialogue on arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations with the participation of 20 foreign affairs ministers and 100 guests. I was there and it was a packed house. An important conversation took place in the fight against arbitrary detention.

This dialogue revealed the growing coalition of countries that support this initiative. It also deepened international partnerships for a more coordinated response to future cases of arbitrary detention. It provided an opportunity to reiterate the importance of establishing international standards to fill gaps in international law, while anchoring the issue in the multilateral agenda.

We will continue to fight tirelessly against arbitrary detention, while recognizing the need to fill the gaps in the multilateral system on this issue. To that end, we announced the creation of a new, independent, international expert panel that will strive to entrench the principles of the declaration into existing international laws, organizations, and mechanisms. This panel will be composed of eminent jurists from around the world, who will formulate an authoritative opinion on the state of this issue in the international system and who will seek to identify effective legal tools and mechanisms to fill the gaps.

Although the purpose of arbitrary detention is to influence state-to-state relations, we are well aware of the human repercussions of this heinous practice. Many people in the world and their families are living a nightmare, wondering when they will see their loved ones again. Canada continues to stand in solidarity with the victims, survivors and families who have endured this terrible practice that blatantly violates the fundamental rights of everyone affected.

In addition to providing personalized consular services to Canadian victims and their families from the beginning to the end of a case, we will also continue to involve our partners, as well as individuals who have been detained before and their families, in our efforts, so that we can share best practices and lessons learned. The approach that we are taking must always be well-thought-out and informed by extensive knowledge of and experience with this complex and difficult issue.

As the debate continues, I look forward to working with the member for Thornhill and all members of the House to strengthen our efforts and our determination to fight against arbitrary detention and hostage takings in state-to-state relations, and I commend the member for Thornhill for introducing this bill.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 2:30 p.m., the motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)