Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 28th, 2024

[Tim McSorley]

I'm not sure what could be changed in this bill to more appropriately address that. I think it is a resources question. It would take better resourcing for the RCMP and other government bodies to conduct complex international investigations and gather evidence in order to bring charges against individuals who engage in arbitrary detention or hostage-taking internationally. We've seen in the past that the RCMP has laid charges in complex cases, even on individuals they don't really have a prospect of arresting and bringing to Canada.

One other thing I would point to is that in that same report from 2018, there was a suggestion to amend Canada's anti-terrorism laws to ensure that the provision of support to free hostage-takers who are taken by a terrorist entity does not violate Canada's counterterrorist financing or counterterrorism laws. That hasn't happened, so that's another area that we could be looking at.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

MP Chong, you have four minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to ask Mr. Fowler another question, and I'd like to frame the question first.

You mentioned in your opening remarks that there are two broad approaches governments have taken to hostage-taking. One is an immutable position, and the other is one that provides some creativity and flexibility, if I recall correctly. I want to explore that a bit.

It seems to me that there are two schools of thought on hostage-taking. One is that you don't negotiate with hostage-takers. You don't pay ransom. You don't do anything, because the argument goes that you would be providing incentives for more of the same. I've read other arguments from people who have done research in this field who argue the opposite. They have said there is no evidence that taking the first immutable position actually reduces incidents of hostage-taking. Some have even argued quite the opposite, that what happened in the Philippines, which you referenced earlier, leads to more incentives because it was broadcast, as you said, on social media around the world millions of times.

Can you give this committee your view on what the evidence points to and what the better approach is when it comes to governments managing hostage-taking and providing incentives and disincentives with respect to hostage-taking? Part one of the bill really is about a punishment regime that transfers the onus from the families of hostage-takers—which is the situation you have when there is an immutable set of principles saying that the government shouldn't do anything—to one where the government has an obligation to punish hostage-takers. It shifts that burden from families to the state. I'd like you to talk a bit about that.

[Robert R. Fowler]

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.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

We next go to MP Oliphant.

You have four minutes.

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

Thank you.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here.

I am finding the testimony quite helpful in two ways. It reminds us of the importance of first-person narrative and the understanding of people of who have experienced this.

Mr. Fowler, I've read your book. I read it when I was doing consular affairs. As a parliamentary secretary, it was helpful for me to have that.

I have heard the problems of this bill. For me, I believe they are insurmountable. I believe they do exactly what you don't want to have done, which is constrain, confine and take away the fact that this work is more art than science. I believe that our diplomats are well trained. They're not perfect. Our consular affairs officials are well trained and sensitive, not perfect. However, you're alive, and we're glad you're here. We've had more success stories than we've had failures. It doesn't mean that we won't have failures.

I want to turn to Ms. Symons.

You were very helpful to me in understanding the various categories of people who seem to get lumped into this bill—that becomes problematic for me—and the differences among hostages taken by criminal organizations or criminals; hostages taken by terrorists; kidnapping, which may be somewhat different from that; arbitrary detention; and arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations. There are at least five or six categories that I think all demand a different set of tools because they have different motivations.

I won't support this bill. I want to send it back to the House with a negative recommendation. That doesn't mean that I don't think we can improve the work we do. It's partly about resources. I don't think it's a legislative fix. I think there are some things we could do.

You recognize that Canada is a leader on this with our arbitrary detention initiative, which is to say that we try to do this together with like-minded countries. Are there a few things we could recommend to the government that could be helpful to honour and validate the experience of Mr. Fowler but also not put Canadians at risk in the future because we're the soft touch for hostages?

[Lara Symons]

Thank you very much for your question. It's a slightly difficult one to answer, because you've asked me about arbitrary detentions and hostage-takings—both—and I think the answers would be slightly different.

Where arbitrary detentions are concerned, it would be helpful for families to have greater clarity about whether their case is an arbitrary detention. One thing that has been helpful south of the border is the Levinson act criteria, which set out what constitutes a wrongful detention in American terminology. However, let's face it, the United States did not have a good record in hostage-taking resolution before 2015. Indeed, they're still probably not doing terribly well in bringing home hostages who are taken by terrorists. They're a target for that.

The Five Eyes partners—and I think Robert Fowler was alluding to this—also have a poor record. That's probably because of the policy on no concessions to terrorists. I'm not advocating that this should change, but that is a fact and we have to recognize it. It means that other tools should be looked at. As you've said—and I would agree—the tools in this legislation are not the right ones.

The accountability of the government to the families and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Ms. Symons, could I ask that you wrap up within 20 seconds, please?

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

Mr. Chair, if Ms. Symons has something she'd like to send in writing, that may be helpful. We would very much appreciate it, because I have a feeling that I asked a complex question and gave her no time to answer it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Absolutely.

Ms. Symons, you have another 20 seconds, but if there's any further elaboration, please feel free to send us written submissions.

That obviously applies to anyone who is here as a witness.

I apologize for the interruption. You have another 20 seconds remaining.

[Lara Symons]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What is useful is changing the framework and giving someone in government who actually understands these cases accountability to the families. That is missing at the moment: someone in government who has longevity in their role, has experience with hostage-taking and arbitrary detentions and is able to explain those cases to the family and do what they need to do, with flexibility to resolve them and bring hostages and detainees home.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you for that.

We next go to Mr. Bergeron.

You have two minutes, sir.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to apologize to the witnesses. There are so many of you that we don't have enough time to ask all of you questions. Much as we would like to, it's impossible.

I am going to pick up where I left off with Mr. Fowler.

I sincerely believe that it was perhaps not wise for the Government of Canada to say that it would never pay a ransom. Similarly, I don't think it is wise for Canada to say that it will pay a ransom, because that could lead to a price on the heads of Canadians abroad, putting them at risk. Potential kidnappers would know that the Government of Canada was willing to pay money to secure Canadians' release.

That brings me back to what you told us, Mr. Fowler. A certain number of things perhaps shouldn't be shared so bluntly. What worries me about Bill C‑353 is that it clearly lays out what the Government of Canada should or could do, and that could have consequences.

Would you agree with that?

[Robert R. Fowler]

I would agree.

Mr. Bergeron, I recommend that any legislation or any public statement by any Canadian government, politician or official remain utterly silent on the matter of ransom in all circumstances anywhere. It provides greater flexibility.

You raised something that I wanted to get back to. I've heard it raised in various situations, and I think Mr. Oliphant mentioned it a moment ago. I think the hostage-taking of Canadians because they're Canadian has been extremely rare. The Canadians who have been hostages were largely in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were rich, were from a rich country, were from a western country and were available, and they were taken. I honestly see very little that we're doing that would paste a sign on Canadians around the world saying, “I'm a Canadian. Take me.” That would be very unlikely, in my view.

I see that the chair is waving at me, so I will stop.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Ambassador Fowler.

Next we'll go to MP McPherson.

You have two minutes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to ask some questions of Ambassador Nölke.

Thank you for being here today. Thank you for your testimony. We know you have a strong career representing Canada, particularly with regard to international law and international human rights.

You are someone with experience advising the Canadian government on these matters, so I'd like to hear your thoughts on the challenges Canada faces in—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I apologize for interrupting, MP McPherson. Evidently, we're experiencing some sound problems on our end.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Did you hear anything I said, Mr. Chair, or should I start from the beginning?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, we can hear you.

Is it muffled for anyone? It's good.

Please proceed.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Maybe it's me who is muffled, not my sound, Mr. Chair. I will try to be more articulate.

Ms. Nölke, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the challenges Canada faces in responding to cases of arbitrary detention abroad. What measures or more effective steps could Canada adopt to support Canadians who are arbitrarily detained?

How does Canada currently balance diplomatic and trade priorities with the urgency of protecting Canadian citizens in these complex cases, and where should Canada be exerting more pressure? Do you think Bill C-353 offers the minister more flexibility or too much flexibility? How do you assess that when addressing these particular concerns?

[Sabine Nölke]

Thank you for that question. It's a very complex one. I hope I have enough time to answer it.

I don't think the bill offers the minister anything he or she doesn't already have.

When it comes to cases of arbitrary detention and state-to-state relations, those are matters of international peace and security because they amount to diplomatic coercion. That's where the security aspect comes in. If a minister were to decide that economic sanctions are the answer, they can already apply them under the Special Economic Measures Act.

Frankly, in a diplomatic coercion scenario, the best response is one where Canada does not stand alone. The current initiative on arbitrary detention and state-to-state relations is not the answer. It is an incremental step towards an answer. The government has created an international panel of experts that will hopefully make recommendations as to how state recourse can be more formalized. What can states do to respond comprehensively and meaningfully to another state seeking to coerce it into action through threats to its nationals? The tools are not legislative tools. The tools are diplomatic tools and multilateral tools, because frankly—I think Ambassador Fowler already said this—if Canada stands up and says or does something, it doesn't mean very much in the grand scheme of things.

Economic sanctions unilaterally imposed by Canada alone are not going to be effective. The solution has to be broader.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much.

That might be my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Ambassador Nölke.

We next go to MP Epp.

You have four minutes.