Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 26th, 2024

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Also, thanks to MP Lantsman for putting this bill in front of the committee and, at some point, the House.

The first job and responsibility of every Canadian government is to protect Canadians everywhere they exist, whether inside or outside Canada. We have many examples of Canadian governments stepping up to protect Canadians abroad, and I thank all the people on the ground who do this tough negotiation and the tough work in these cases to make sure we get a positive result.

There were cases that we've experienced in the past. If Bill C-353 had been there at that time, how much difference do you see that it would have made in the negotiations or the end result when a hostage has been taken or when a Canadian was being detained deliberately by any foreign player?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

I can't speak to the specifics, given that we don't have the intelligence around the cases, let's say. I've been asked a number of times if this would have sped up the case of the two Michaels, or any such cases. I think the answer is that if I were to say yes, it would be untruthful, but I do think that it adds, again, tools in the arsenal to be able to potentially do it faster.

We do have many examples from the U.S., and obviously some interest from Australia. Their Senate is studying a version of this, based on this bill, to eventually take to the Australian parliament. We do know that our allies are interested and we do know that there's been success in the U.S., particularly in the rewards for justice program.

I don't think anybody can argue.... I'm sure that you'll hear from witnesses in this short study on this bill who will tell you that the family aspect of it is probably the most horrific part of any of this. You don't just take a country hostage by policy and you don't just take the hostage; you take the entire circle around that person, where they are living and breathing this on a daily basis. Unfortunately, over the last year, I've talked to many, many families who are in that position and who see their government as acting inadequately on it.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

I'm sure that at the time when you were trying to bring this idea forward, you probably reviewed the current legislation and the tools we have, which were probably a trigger for you to introduce this. What do you believe the most significant tool is that this bill will be giving to the minister or to the existing system to be more effective?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Looking at all of this, I believe there is an inadequacy here. It's very clear that it's a missing piece in our legislation.

What I didn't understand is the argument of redundancy. I think there are a lot of international treaties that suggest that we should be doing more. There are a lot of people in our midst who have been victims of hostage-taking, who have said, after the fact, that we should do more. There are a lot of inadequacies in our own dealings with this as a country. I think that all three of them are are important. We have to figure out how to incentivize people so that they will co-operate with us so that we can get our people back as fast as possible, and we have to make sure that we're taking care of families while we do it.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Thank you.

How much time do I have? Is it about 30 seconds?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

No, you're actually over time.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Oh, okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

We next go to MP Oliphant, please.

You have four minutes.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Lantsman, for being here.

I have absolutely no doubt that this bill is well-intentioned, that your concerns and consideration for people who are taken hostage are real and that you have exercised compassion and interest in this bill.

I'm not going to repeat the speech that I made at second reading in the House, but I would commit it to other members' attention. I outlined what I believe are my personal concerns about this bill, as well as some of the government's concerns about it.

Being well-intentioned is not good enough. You, yourself, said recently in the House:

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 agree with that. My fear is that this bill, at its core, is deeply flawed. It actually encourages and promotes such conversation, and it rewards and incentivizes criminal behaviour. It also does not distinguish clearly between hostage-taking—where we have a long history of attempting to help families deal with kidnapping, for instance, and our RCMP is quite skilled at this around the world—and state-sponsored terrorism, which is the arbitrary detention of Canadians.

There is also the rewarding of criminal and terrorist organizations. This bill—and we have had much legal analysis—actually enables the funding of terrorist organizations. That is illegal in Canada, and it needs to remain illegal in Canada.

My first concern is this: Could you explain what you see as the difference between arbitrary detention, which is in state-to-state relations, and hostage-taking, and where it is?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

I'll answer your first comments. I think I attempted to answer them in the speech. Will it naturally end up funding terrorism? Frankly, I'm just going to disagree with you there. I think many people disagree. The 40 years of legislation in the U.S. would disagree with your assessment. There's a very successful act in the U.S., and it's the rewards for justice program. It's been around since 1984. It has helped save lives.

We are behind the ball. If you think we're doing everything as a country to incentivize co-operation with getting our people back, I think you are wrong. I'm going to say that as many times as possible, because I don't think you have thought this through. I think you are repeating talking points that were given to you by the ministry. I think—

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I don't take that. I would ask the chair to please not allow personal attacks on members of this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

Let's all try our best to make sure we get to the bottom of the question.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Chair, to go back to my point, I think a great deal of accumulated evidence has led to successful negotiations by our ally in the U.S. to get their people back quicker. Part of that has been to enlist the help of those with information. I think it sends a vital signal.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you for that answer.

I would also like to understand your understanding of Canada's initiative on arbitrary detention and our understanding in consular cases. I have worked on literally hundreds of them, and have dealt with families. How do you protect the privacy of an individual who may not be in a family situation that is the best family situation?

Our consular officials are brilliant at trying to assess the situation. The number one goal is the safety and security of that individual. There are times when a family can help the situation. There are times when it doesn't. We have families that sometimes think an advocacy program will be helpful, because they're absolutely stressed. I get it, because I have to deal with them on a daily basis, but it isn't always in the best interest, depending on the country involved.

We have an initiative on arbitrary detention. I forget the number now, but there are 70-some signatories, plus the EU. We actually co-operate with countries that have different understandings of the country that may have done an arbitrary detention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

We're over time, so please give a very brief response.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

I'll just say that none of what's in this bill would stop consular officials from doing what they already do and from making those assessments.

Again, the minister is given the prerogative on whether to use these tools or not. This legislation is an enabling of a tool box and not an edict.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

We next go to Mr. Bergeron for two minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Lantsman, thank you again for initiating this important debate on Canada's response to the hostage‑taking issue. Congratulations.

Regardless of what happens to your bill, I hope that this debate will help to move things forward so that we can become more and more effective in dealing with this type of extremely worrying situation.

Clause 5 of your bill states that the Governor in Council may make any orders or regulations with respect to the restriction or prohibition of certain activities or transactions with a foreign national, foreign state or foreign entity if the Governor in Council is of the opinion that the foreign national, foreign state or foreign entity is responsible for, or complicit in, the hostage‑taking or the arbitrary detention of a Canadian national or eligible protected person outside Canada or that the foreign national, foreign state or foreign entity materially supported this type of hostage‑taking or arbitrary detention.

My question is quite simple. In the current body of legislation, what's preventing the government from taking the exact steps called for in clause 5 of your bill?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

In terms of what the legislation stipulates, we don't have this program currently in place. The legislation would put that program in place.

I think what you're getting at, frankly, is the checks and balances that need to exist. We believe that this legislation, from an administrative law perspective, would be subject to common law, and that judicial oversight on some of these rewards could be applied. That doesn't need to be in the legislation.

To answer your question more broadly, there could be clear criteria put in place for some of these awards, which I think would quell some of the concerns you have—

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Sorry, Ms. Lantsman, but I think that we're being told—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I think you're out of time.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

There you go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

It was only for two minutes.

We next go to MP McPherson.

You have two minutes.