Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 5th, 2017

[Mark Gwozdecky]

I'm not in a position to give you chapter and verse what happened in those years. It's not, strictly speaking, a consular case, so we didn't come equipped today to deal with that level of question. I would offer one further point, which is to say that at the time, we did request consular access, but it was prohibited by the host government. We did make efforts in terms of providing consular access, but it was not possible.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

That's interesting. The U.S. approved investigative visits but not consular assistance. Did Mr. Khadr at any of those visits request consular assistance?

[Lisa Helfand]

We did in fact after a point in time get consular access to Mr. Khadr, but these visits were kept completely separate from the more problematic visits from Canadian officials.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

In those visits, did he request repatriation at an earlier basis?

[Lisa Helfand]

I can't tell you exactly what he requested during the visits. I can tell you that he did have consular access and had access to a consular officer.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

The questions we have relate to a settlement payment. It's clear that the Americans were deciding what types of visits could take place, and that repatriation was a decision of the crown not bound by the charter. The lessons learned.... Ms. Jeffrey talked about steps that would be decided on a case-by-case basis in terms of access, visits, and representations.

Would it be possible for the committee to see that policy document that outlines the case-by-case for the critical instances that were outlined?

[Heather Jeffrey]

I just want to clarify the question. Our policy is to request access and to seek it through all the means that we have. In all cases where Canadians are detained, we have consular service standards in that regard, and they vary by the region and the level of risk to Canadians in those regions. We can certainly provide information on the policy in terms of Canadians being detained abroad and what our standard services and level of service are in different places.

Is that what you're looking for?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

That would be helpful. I don't want to seem like I'm dwelling on only the challenging cases. Certainly Pastor Lim, Amanda Lindhout, Robert Fowler, there are cases where these critical instances, as you described them, have a positive outcome, but certainly when they don't.... I recall that the sister of Robert Hall had serious concerns before her brother was killed. Her comment to the media at that time was that she couldn't even get answers on what Canada's efforts were to secure the release. I think if Canadians see the policies in these difficult risk-laden cases, it will probably help public confidence in these rare cases.

[Heather Jeffrey]

Here I would distinguish between two types of cases. There are what we call “complex consular cases”, which are cases of detention where the local context, political circumstances, or conditions of detention are problematic. We can give you that now. Within the consular of services remit, we have a very established protocol of the kinds of services and level of visitation that we need, which is adjusted based on the well-being of those Canadians and the level of risk they are perceived to be under.

In cases of critical incidents, which are where people are kidnapped and held by usually a non-state or terrorist group—that's within Mark's purview—there are different policies and procedures that govern those. Our detention protocols relate to people who are being held by a government in a national or local detention facility.

Mark, I don't know if you want to speak to the procedures on the critical incident side.

[Mark Gwozdecky]

As has been noted many times this morning, every case is different in particular with regard to critical incidents. They are all unique, they're snowflakes, but they are unspeakable turmoils for the families involved and, obviously, the individuals. We try to work on the basis of acting in a way that, on one hand, would best and most likely result in the safe release of the individual but also to not do anything that might jeopardize the safety of that individual or make it more likely that Canadians in the future would be abducted and face the same sort of situation.

We're careful about what we say publicly, and we don't have a publicly available document that governs our actions because they're also individualized, I would say. I can say that whenever there is such an incident, my branch is responsible for coordinating a whole-of-government effort that involves law enforcement, the military, and our intelligence agencies in terms of pooling our resources to ensure that we're doing everything possible, and that group would continue to meet until the case is resolved.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you all for being here this morning and for briefing us on these issues.

First, I'd like to look at the registration system that Global Affairs maintains for Canadians travelling abroad and how it's used for both consular cases, as well as larger, mass events.

What's the uptake level for the registration system? How many Canadians generally use it when they're travelling? What are the disadvantages of not registering with the system and what kind of risk does that pose for travellers? Are there any efforts at hand to increase knowledge of the system and to encourage Canadians travelling abroad?

We always hear about it in the midst of a crisis. There are this number of people registered, but I have to tell you, I travel a fair bit, but I don't register very often.

What is the view moving forward on how to best utilize this system in order to protect Canadians and give you the information you need to do your jobs?

[Heather Jeffrey]

The registration of Canadians abroad system is publicized through our website, all of our social media, and other opportunities to try to get Canadians to let us know where they're travelling, where they're going to be staying, and what their contact information is. I would say that there are different levels of uptake depending on how Canadians perceive the level of risk in the destination where they are going. If they are travelling to a place that is known to have significant security challenges, a much larger proportion of Canadians would be registered because they would understand that they have to be aware of their security environment and that we use that information, as the Government of Canada, to push information out proactively on deteriorating conditions, changes to the travel advisory, or warnings that local authorities might be giving out that we feel Canadians need to be aware of in those local circumstances. Also, it's more apt to be Canadians who are resident there long term.

With the travellers to destinations that are perceived as less risky or for Canadians who are travelling through a number of countries and aren't sure where they're going to be on different dates, it's a much lower rate of take-up. We saw this most recently in the Caribbean, where we had low numbers of Canadians registered, in some cases, but found that there were many times more Canadians who actually happened to be on that island on that particular day.

It's in our interest. Therefore, when we speak publicly, we use every opportunity we can to reach out to travel industry representatives and to Canadians through our social media, websites, and other media interactions to promote the use of these digital apps because we know that Canadians, particularly younger Canadians, are more apt to use it if it's on their mobile phone and they can register. It allows us to be proactive. It allows us to reach people that have already told us they're going to be in a place and we can tell them the latest information on the conditions that they're in, and for example, give them warnings to depart when we know that a storm is approaching and we know that they'll receive it.

What we found is that even the people who notify us that they're there sometimes don't notify us once they've left. We are tireless in our effort to reach people, even when communications are down. We go through the lists and we use those registries to try to track down Canadians. The level of take-up varies by state. I don't have the exact figures, but I can give you an example. In the country of Dominica, we had 15 Canadians registered when we were doing our planning before the storm and we found out that there were approximately 250 that were actually there. In that case, the take-up was not great, but that's a place where people didn't perceive their levels of risk and where there were many Canadians who were there just for short amounts of time. In other countries, it's higher.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you.

That's actually going to be my follow-up question about preparing for situations of mass emergency, like hurricane Irma, as an example.

How do you prepare internally, both on the ground in the countries where you see the emergency, presuming that there's notice and you see it coming, and also remotely in Canada? What does our response look like, as compared with that of other countries that we might be involved with as well? What action gets put into play as these situations start to develop?

[Heather Jeffrey]

As I mentioned, we have an elaborate emergency preparedness system. Within Global Affairs Canada, we have a 24-7 emergency watch and response centre that operates 365 days a year on a continual basis. It monitors for natural disasters that we can see coming, such as hurricanes that form and move, but also emerging news of disasters like earthquakes. We saw two earthquakes occur recently in Mexico, and there was no warning. We hear first through different meteorological or other seismic notification sites, so there are different kinds of disasters.

We prepare and exercise throughout the year. We have a highly specialized unit within our branch that deals with emergency management. They exercise on a whole-of-government basis working with Public Safety, CBSA, IRCC, DND, and all of the different partners with whom we work in a whole-of-government response. We have a well-exercised task force system that comes together almost immediately.

In the case of these storms, I would say that one of the important parts of our emergency preparedness is the advice that we give to Canadians before hurricane season starts. We do this in May and June, and we reach out through the travel industry and through our publications and digital footprint to talk to Canadians about the kinds of things that they need to do when travelling to these destinations. It's about registering. It's about having travel insurance. It's about having emergency points of contact and making sure people know where they are and when, and who they should go to—namely local authorities—for advice if they find themselves unable to depart before an event like this arrives. There's that whole front end of preparedness.

When these storms we're monitoring start to intensify, and the tracks, for example, start to focus on certain regions, our travel advisories kick in. We started on August 26 providing advisories on storms that were approaching, and beginning on the first of September, we started assembling our task force. We started meeting and having coordination calls to plan the response.

Part of the issue is that there's a high degree of uncertainty with regard to these storms. Where we think they're going doesn't necessarily end up being where they hit. Also there's some uncertainty as to who is present in the areas that are going to be the most affected.

I would say that it's a very well-exercised capacity that we have. Each storm is different, and that's why the lessons learned are so important. The Nepal earthquake was different from hurricane Matthew, and they were both different from this.

I would say that, in terms of the level of complexity, these storms were among the most complex situations that we've faced, given the tight sequence of three very intense storms hitting the same places, very isolated island chains that had limited physical and communications infrastructure.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Hélène Laverdière]

Thank you. We'll have other opportunities to return to the subject.

Mr. Genuis, please.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

I'll start off by asking what five countries give you the most work in terms of the volume of consular cases you're getting on an ongoing basis. Obviously there are some that would give you issues, but maybe Canadians don't travel there in large numbers. What big names in terms of countries have ongoing issues that take up a lot of your time and effort?

[Heather Jeffrey]

The United States is where we have the largest volume of cases because that's where the largest number of Canadians travel. They're not necessarily the most complex cases because there's a well-established rule of law and legal structure in the United States and commonalities.

I don't have the exact list in front of me, but after that, it would be Mexico and the sun destinations, where there are also a large number of Canadians. Soon after that are places like China, where we have large numbers of Canadians travelling back and forth. Places with the largest numbers don't necessarily have the most complexity.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Fair enough.

If we were to zero in on the higher volumes of complexity, am I right in guessing the scale would tip more towards, let's say, China, or are there other countries we should be thinking about in terms of a higher volume of complex cases?

[Heather Jeffrey]

I'll turn to my colleague on the case management side to answer that, but I would just say that, as a general principle, the places that are more complex are places where the legal and political systems differ significantly from ours and also where perhaps there are security issues and other conditions that make access to Canadians more difficult.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Ms. Helfand, were you going to comment on that?

[Lisa Helfand]

I was going to say exactly that. The location is often a factor with complexity, but there are other factors, such as the nature of the charges against someone, limited consular access, or whether there's been a miscarriage of justice or human rights issue.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Related to that—and then I'll tie this together—I'm curious about how a decision is made on political engagement. There are some cases where there seems to be political...and I mean at the political-to-political level, which seems to maybe have happened with some cases in China, or maybe not.

How is that decision made in terms of going to that level?

[Heather Jeffrey]

We look at each case, as we mentioned, in this specific context. The bottom-line question that we ask ourselves is what will be most helpful to this client. We look at the type of risk or sentence that they've been subject to, the grounds, the due process that's been applied, whether there's evidence of politically motivated action. It's also very important for us to have the views of the clients themselves. Not all clients want us to intervene on their behalf; many explicitly do not. In cases where there's legal action involved in the country where they are currently located, the advice of their legal team informs the client's decision in that regard. Not in all cases do people find it useful. Then we need to consider whether we do that publicly or privately.

It's based on what we think is going to have the most positive effect on the client's outcome.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Then you—

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Hélène Laverdière]

I'm sorry, Mr. Genuis, you're finished. It's a three-minute round, but we'll come back and we'll have time to do further rounds.