Evidence of meeting #129 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Tara Denham  Assistant Deputy Minister, Emergency Management, Legal and Consular Affairs Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Superintendent Denis Beaudoin  Director General, Federal Policing, National Security, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Derek Janhevich  Director, Inadmissibility Policy, Canada Border Services Agency
Vasken Khabayan  Acting Executive Director, Sanctions Policy, and Sanctions Outreach, Compliance & Enforcement, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Jeff Robertson  Manager, Inadmissibility Policy, Canada Border Services Agency
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Alexandre (Sacha) Vassiliev

The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 129 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format.

I'd like to remind you, members, to please wait until I recognize you by name before you speak.

Today we are looking into Bill C-353, the foreign hostage-takers accountability act. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 5, 2024, the committee is commencing consideration of Bill C-353.

I'd now like to welcome Ms. Lantsman to the committee.

I'm very grateful that you made the time to be with us today. For your opening remarks, you have five minutes, after which we will go to the members for follow-up questions.

Ms. Lantsman, the floor is yours.

Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've seen this movie before, so it's nice to be here.

Thanks to my colleagues for welcoming me here. It's certainly an interesting experience sitting on this side of the table and not being able to use my own microphone.

I'm here today to tell you about my legislation, Bill C-353, or the foreign hostage-takers accountability act. I think it will be an important asset for Canada in an uncertain world.

Since this bill was introduced, I can confidently say that the world has become a much more dangerous and unstable place. Nations such as China, Iran and Russia are, more than ever, intent on disrupting the global world order and the established balance of power. We've seen that in aggressive invasions, like the one in Ukraine or the one perpetrated by Hamas in Israel. These are on the verge on exploding into regional and global wars. Our nation's values of peace, freedom and democracy are increasingly under siege.

Throughout the history of global conflict, hostage-taking has been employed as a tactic. Its use is only growing. I mentioned that fact in the deliberations of the House on this bill. We saw it used prominently in the Hamas attack against Israel, even impacting Canadian citizens. That, of course, came after this bill was introduced, which proves again why its adoption, frankly, is probably overdue in this country. In a time of turmoil, we should do everything possible for Canadians travelling abroad when it comes to protecting them from hostile states, groups and individuals. It's clear that there is a deficiency in our current law. I think more can be done, and that's why I'm here today.

When lives and livelihoods are at stake, the value of comprehensive, up-to-date and modern legislation to prevent and mitigate hostage-taking situations cannot be overstated. This bill provides the much-needed update to fix the existing laws or at least add to them. It would strengthen our ability to deter, minimize and resolve instances of hostage-taking and arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations. It would increase our power to levy sanctions, support families and encourage global co-operation.

It would also provide much-needed assistance to the families of hostages, who endure extreme stress while their loved ones remain in captivity abroad. Simply put, it would be a vital tool in the arsenal, helping us to continue to protect the rights of Canadians abroad and support those affected by hostage-taking.

Here is what it will not do, just to make it clear: It will not incentivize kidnapping or effect ransom payments to hostile entities, which I know has been suggested. It will not place too much power in the hands of individual federal ministers. It will not be rendered redundant by existing legislation. In short, there is a gap between what Canada could say and what Canada could do. This bill is brought forth with a desire to address the gap and help protect the rights and inherent dignity of Canadians wherever and whenever they might be in danger.

Since introducing this bill, I've received questions from colleagues on all sides of the House. I'll take that for what it's worth. Maybe it's positive and shows proactive interest in this piece of legislation. I'm looking forward to addressing some of those questions here, as well as any additional questions that may arise from the testimony today.

While there are, frankly, too many people to thank—because these things don't come together on their own—I have time today to name a few. I'm grateful for the support of many organizations and individuals, including Secure Canada, the Iranian Justice Collective, Muslims Facing Tomorrow, Hong Kong Watch, the Human Rights Action Group and the Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project. I hope it has your support, too, along with those groups.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi

Thank you very much, MP Lantsman.

We now go to questions.

MP Epp, you're first up. You have six minutes.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to my colleague for being here and for introducing this legislation.

There are three main pillars you're looking to address, so let's start with the first one.

In your opening comments, you talked about a gap. This committee has undertaken a study. We review and get constant notices about the sanctions this government is applying.

Can you identify the gap between our present sanctions legislation and what your bill will do to enhance it, specifically with respect to hostage-taking?

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON

I know there are members and others who have raised questions about whether our existing sanctions regime is enough, particularly the Special Economic Measures Act and the Magnitsky laws. They don't specifically address hostage-taking. I think a dedicated sanctions regime for this particular issue is probably something worth exploring in this country as a deterrent and to give us even more tools in the arsenal to impose sanctions. It would be dedicated for this, particularly.

I think it does something further. There are lots of obligations Canada has under international law, and there are further things that are probably mandated and required from us domestically to address this. There are a number of articles within the UN hostage convention, the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, United Nations General Assembly resolution 68/276 and Security Council resolution 2133.

Not only does it do something our sanctions currently don't; it also helps us adhere to some of the things that I think we're lacklustre on.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

Thank you.

Obviously, it's not just hostages who are so severely affected. Their families are as well.

What is presently not covered for support, and how does your bill enhance support for families?

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON

You have to give kudos to the foreign affairs ministry. I know that in all consular cases, particularly in hostage-taking, it does everything possible to work with the families. However, I think there's an additional step and probably a legislated solution that could ensure that the minister has an obligation, a legislative requirement. We can build out better supports for families.

Families are often the ones held in the balance. There is insane media scrutiny that happens around families that end up in the story of all of this. No regular family—I don't even think an irregular one—is built to deal with, first of all, the very fact that their loved one or somebody in their family has been either detained or taken hostage. The fact is that the hostage-takers may use that family as a way to influence the media cycle and turn it, potentially, against the government. I don't think the importance of wrapping our arms around this family and providing support for them can be overstated. It's about understanding that it's the family that best knows the person who has been taken hostage. They could potentially be useful in solving the crisis.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

Your comments lead right into my next question.

In your opening comments, you touched on how hostage-taking diplomacy has become the new global currency for terrorists. It seems we are somewhat, or maybe considerably, ill-prepared for it.

What will this legislation do to help us prepare more for the potential unfortunate reality of seeing even more of this?

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON

There's an argument that legislation is not necessarily needed around this, and there was probably that argument in 2001 before some of the anti-terror laws. This is different from terrorism. It could be one event; it could be a single moment in time. You saw that with some of the most famous acts of terror in the world, a mass casualty event of some kind.

This is like a prolonged way to hold an entire government and an entire country almost hostage on the basis of policy, on the basis of what they say or on the basis of its own citizenship, which may turn against a country. I think that this is one of the currencies that is going to be used more and more. In fact, we've seen that it's been used more and more by really bad actors in the world to hold countries like this one hostage on the basis of all kinds of things, like policy.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi

Thank you.

We now go to MP Alghabra. You have six minutes.

Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Ms. Lantsman.

Let me start off by saying that I want to give a shout-out to our consular team here in Canada and around the world for the work that they do every day. Hundreds of Canadians are being assisted on a daily basis when they find themselves in difficult situations. I'll also start off by saying that I do believe there's room to further strengthen and enhance our consular services policies, and I take this attempt at trying to improve our consular services policies in good faith.

You know, there's always a tension between how much you prescribe policies and how much flexibility you leave for the officials to respond to the unique situation that they're having to deal with. The question that I have about this bill is whether it really finds that right balance.

You've included eligible protected persons in here—non-Canadian citizens. You didn't talk about permanent residents but about “eligible protected persons”. Can you help me understand how Canada would choose which “eligible protected persons” this law would apply to?

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON

It's actually in a subsection of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I think it's subsection 95(2). “Eligible protected persons” would be individuals within the meaning of that, and it specifically refers to people “on whom refugee protection is conferred”—

Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON

I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt, but I understand the definition of the term. I'm asking how Canada would choose which of those, because on a daily basis there are thousands of “eligible protected persons” around the world who find themselves in difficult positions. Which ones would the Canadian government choose to be involved with?

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON

It would be the ones who wouldn't be found to be inadmissible.

Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON

It would be everyone who is found to not be inadmissible.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON

That's correct. All of this legislation...colleague.... I'm sorry.

Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON

We used to work together.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON

We're used to using first names, so....

MP Alghabra, I should say that you raised a point in your question about finding the balance. In this entire piece of legislation, there is nothing prescriptive. It is all up to the minister's discretion. Everywhere you think it should be a “shall”, there's actually a “may” in the legislation. It entirely falls on the minister and their prerogative to make those decisions.

Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON

As you can imagine, if this law passes, there will be, again, thousands of families around the world who would expect Canada—

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON

It would be the minister's prerogative.

Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON

The second question I have for you is on arbitrary detention and unfair detention.

There are also a lot of Canadians who find themselves in detention in countries where there is no due process. There might be some other motives for their detentions, but they may not fully be under the definition of arbitrary detention. It could be unfair detention. Would this new act apply to them?

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON

The definition under this act is pretty clear on arbitrary detention. The definitions around arbitrary detention are pretty clear in international law. Again, the discretion is to the minister on whether they would want to confer any of the pieces of legislation, such as take care of their families. They would automatically have consular services already.

These pieces of legislation, I think, in the case of arbitrary detention, which is delineated in international law, would give the minister additional capacity to act. It's not a “must”; it is additional tools in the tool box.

Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON

Sure. As you can imagine, a lot of these arbitrary detentions are also hard to really figure out. The country that detains an individual doesn't come out and say, “This is what we want you to do in return for releasing this individual.” There are lots of factors—

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON

But some of them are not very hard to figure out. That's where I think the discretion of the minister plays a role.