That's a good question.
I'm of the firm belief that absolute maximum flexibility should be afforded to the people who have to deal with a hostage crisis. I'm not, therefore, in favour of broad, firm, clear, immutable constraints on what they can and can't do.
I have little time, you will have heard, for those who invoke great principles and then break them. The last thing I think anybody would want to see is “ransom or else” type of provisions in any kind of legislation. I certainly would never be light about whether some kind of ransom—I stress some kind—or quid pro quo for getting a Canadian out of such circumstances might be in order. There are lots of ways of doing that, and I wouldn't want to see them prescribed.
What I was saying earlier is that everybody blinks. By that I mean that the most firm, stern, immutable insisters on never negotiating and never making a significant concession do so when they have to and don't when they don't have to. Therefore, I would not wish to see Canadian negotiators wrapped into a constraining or binding principle that would diminish their ability to get the job done.