Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 26th, 2024

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

But you're not getting the information through paying for information to remit to a foreign police of jurisdiction; you're getting it for the purposes of the Government of Canada's use.

As you point out, we're a rule of law country, so I still fail to see why it wouldn't be an appropriate tool for the minister to potentially use in the event of a hostage-taking.

[Tara Denham]

Again—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I'm sorry. Please answer very briefly.

[Tara Denham]

The individuals that you'd be paying would be individuals from these countries in which the rule of law.... We would not be able to engage with a lot of the police of jurisdiction to have that oversight and have a lot of the mechanisms that would be available to us in Canada.

I just quickly want to mention that there's been reference to the rewards for justice program in the U.S. and that it has been in place for a long time. It has been in place since 1984, but it's focused on terrorism: acts of terrorism and information relating to it, foreign interference and malicious cyber. It is only now being considered in cases of hostages, so we do not have the evidence or the understanding of its impact on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

We next go to MP Chatel.

You have five minutes.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to thank the witnesses for being here to discuss this important topic. I would also like to thank them for their work.

I know that this isn't an easy situation. I'm thinking of Canadian families caught up in absolutely disastrous situations, with children and family members abroad.

I can imagine how I would feel if this happened to a member of my family. I can also imagine the pressure that I would place on our public servants to try to resolve the impasse and bring my loved ones back home.

Thank you for coming to talk to us about how Canada could work even harder.

In your opening remarks, you talked a great deal about collaboration with other countries. I think that this plays a key role. When it comes to state‑sponsored terrorism, international co‑operation remains a powerful tool.

I have a specific question about the bill.

I'm wondering how Canada could end up in a situation where taxpayers' money goes to terrorist groups. We've talked a great deal about this.

What measures in the bill concern you most and could lead to this type of situation?

Would this violate…. I know that our alliance with the Five Eyes includes policies that prohibit states such as Canada from making payments to terrorist groups.

Can you elaborate on this point?

[Tara Denham]

In terms of the particular concerns around incentives, which was the first part of your question, and the specific element, as was noted previously, of offering rewards for information to be provided, our analysis is that in the countries where, unfortunately, the reality is that a lot of these cases happen, the individuals who have that type of information are often close to, or have links to, the entities that actually have taken individuals captive. That's where our concern is.

By offering financial incentives to individuals, an unintended implication could be that the information would go into the hands of close collaborators or to those close to the organizations that have actually taken individuals captive. When I say that we want to actually break that business model, it's because our objective is to always and continually not put any financial....

It's obviously illegal to have finances for terrorists, as you noted. We don't want to have any means by which public funds could ever inadvertently end up in the hands of criminal groups or terrorist organizations. That would be a major concern with the proposal outlined in this bill.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

This would certainly contradict the policies of Canada, which made a commitment to its Five Eyes partners to refrain from doing just that.

Can you elaborate on this agreement with our partners in terms of our safety?

[Tara Denham]

I would welcome other colleagues from the RCMP and others if they'd like to add into any of the agreements we have with the Five Eyes in terms of the co-operation we have.

Again, we do not have any funding of terrorist organizations. That is in our Criminal Code. There is a recognition across the Five Eyes that this would not be taking place. We've been co-operating for years to sort of break the cycle of terrorism and to not put any actions in place whereby we could actually endorse or support any acts related to terrorism. Terrorist organizations, unfortunately, have taken Canadians hostage. We need to be taking all actions possible to make sure that we do not allow those groups to continue to take Canadians hostage.

Perhaps I'll pass it over to my colleague to speak to any more coordination with the Five Eyes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Please be very brief.

[Chief Superintendent Denis Beaudoin, Director General, Federal Policing, National Security, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

All right.

The only thing I'll say is that we maintain close collaboration with the Five Eyes. Even broader than that, we just co-hosted, along with the FBI, a negotiating workshop in Washington that was attended by 27 countries. Every country has specific guidelines, but the better the collaboration internationally, the better our chances of bringing our Canadians back home safely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

Next is Mr. Bergeron. You have five minutes, sir.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you all for joining us today. I also want to thank you for what you do every day to help and support Canadians abroad.

I would like to address the connection that Ms. Lantsman kept making in her remarks, meaning the connection between her Bill C‑353 on ransom payments and the current legislation in the United States.

Ms. Denham, you started to address this issue, but you were cut off for lack of time.

Did you finish your answer? Did you want to add anything?

[Tara Denham]

I was speaking to the rewards for justice program that has been cited.

I want to be clear on the history of the program that, yes, it has been in place since 1984. It was introduced as part of the U.S. legislation on anti-terrorism, so it has been used predominantly in relation to terrorist acts, foreign interference and malicious cyber.

They have only now begun to roll out and consider applying that same approach in circumstances of hostages. Our assessment in relation to this bill remains in the considerations that I've outlined and the concern that we do not inadvertently have information flow to the individuals who have taken Canadians captive. That is a significant concern. We also do not want to inadvertently incentivize that.

We're always open to learning from best practices. We're constantly in contact with our U.S. colleagues on this, but they're only now rolling this out. Our analysis and our concerns remain the same, but we will continue to engage with our American colleagues on the implications of rolling this out on these particular cases, recognizing the considerations and concerns we've raised.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I would like to follow up on a question asked by Mr. Chong about intelligence sharing and support for the families of hostages or individuals arbitrarily detained.

Based on my own experience a number of years ago, I know that families are sometimes kept in the dark. They sometimes feel that negotiations are taking place over their heads and that they aren't being kept in the loop. I understand that, at times, this is completely necessary. I don't see any issue with that. However, you talked about trying to continually improve your way of communicating with families.

With regard to my own experience, in cases such as William Sampson's in the early 2000s, would you say that we have since managed to implement good communication practices with families to avoid leaving them in the dark while their loved ones' lives remain at stake?

[Tara Denham]

Thank you for your question.

On information sharing, just to be clear, we always want to share as much information as we can. We can all only imagine the heartache families are going through, and they want to do everything possible to bring their loved ones home.

On the considerations we've put in place, there are not only security ones on intelligence and potential links that I referenced. We are also taking into consideration what should be shared and when, based on all of our collective experience on the impacts that this could have. While I can completely understand a family wanting to know everything that's happening, it isn't always in the best interests of the individual.

I also mentioned that we have to respect privacy. All families are not created equal, unfortunately, and the reality is that some people have circumstances, such as health issues or situations that happen to them while they are in this horrible situation, that they do not necessarily want to disclose to their family. We have to let them.... We're always working under the assumption that they will come home. That's our starting point. I think that's where we always have to focus.

We have also made a lot of improvements. We have dedicated family contacts for every case we have. We make sure that we're increasing the training that individuals have. We want to continually ask ourselves, our colleagues across town and our international partners what other types of information we can share and if there could be risks.

We always want to share as much as possible, but we have to be careful with all of these other considerations.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Of course.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I'm afraid you're out of time.

We will next go to Madam McPherson for five minutes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much.

Thank you all for being here today and for answering our questions.

I have a few questions that I want to make sure I am very clear on so that I can understand the legislation better.

First of all, families of hostages have expressed the need for greater flexibility in paying ransoms without facing prosecution. This issue came up in a study this committee did on consular services several years ago.

Since that time, how has the government addressed the concerns of worried families about paying ransoms without fear of prosecution? Does this bill address those concerns, or does it, in the government's opinion, create new concerns, including the possibility—I think we've gone over this, but I'd like you to comment—of incentivizing hostage-taking through the compensation mechanism?

[Tara Denham]

The government's policy remains the same: We do not pay ransom and we do not change any policy positions.

We are also very aware that in certain circumstances, family members will want to do everything possible to bring their loved one home. That is the choice of the individual family. We do not provide advice on that, because our policy is to not pay ransom.

The concern about applying sanctions, particularly in this bill.... It's a blanket. It's applying to states, terrorist organizations and criminal groups. There are very distinct differences among those. We have sanctions regimes in place that we can apply to states. Our major concern is about organized criminal groups. Applying sanctions would actually make it illegal to pay ransom, should Canadians choose on their own to do so. The reality is that we've had a number of Canadian families choose that option. This bill would criminalize that.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

As a mother, I'm sure we all understand we would do anything we possibly can to get our loved ones home, so we certainly need to be cognizant of that.

I also have some concerns about the permit process proposed in the bill, especially given the long waits Canadian organizations have faced due to Bill C-41, which established a new process for government authorization to do humanitarian and development work in areas controlled by terrorist organizations, such as Afghanistan under the Taliban. It is well over a year since that bill passed, and the authorization process took a year to design. It is so complicated that many Canadian organizations are saying that it simply doesn't work.

Then there is the no-fly list process. To my understanding, it takes up to six weeks to get a Canadian travel number.

In cases where time is of the essence and families are seeking a permit from the minister to carry out a specific activity that is restricted under this act, what would the service standards be, and how would the government ensure flexibility in urgent hostage-taking situations? What information would be required from the individual?

[Tara Denham]

If I understand your question correctly, this is about permits to come into Canada.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

This is about the permit process proposed in the bill. It's about being able to get the carve-outs, I guess.

[Tara Denham]

I'm sorry. I'm just trying to confirm.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

We're using the example of Bill C-41. We know the way it was brought forward was very problematic. It took a very long time for the government to come up with the framework in which Bill C-41 would work. The no-fly list process is very long as well.

We're wondering if we'd be looking at a long process like that, should families want to move forward and be able to do things. Would we have that concern?