Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 28th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 130 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. All witnesses have completed the required connection tests in advance of our meeting.

I'd like to remind both members and our witnesses to please wait until I recognize you by name before you speak.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 5, 2024, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill C-353, the foreign hostage takers accountability act.

It gives me great pleasure to welcome the witnesses we have with us.

First, we have, as individuals, former ambassador Robert Fowler and former ambassador Sabine Nölke.

We also have, from Hostage International, the chief executive officer, Lara Symons, who is joining us virtually. We have the co-founder and president of Human Rights Action Group, Sarah Teich. From the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, we have the national coordinator, Mr. Tim McSorley. Last but certainly not least, from Secure Canada, we have the chief executive officer, Ms. Sheryl Saperia, and the director, Mr. Haras Rafiq.

Each of you will be provided five minutes for your opening remarks, after which we will go to the next witness. I would ask that everyone look over at me every once in a while. When you see me hold up my phone, that means things need to be wrapped up in about 20 seconds or so. That doesn't apply only to your opening remarks. It also applies when members are asking you questions, because each member is allotted a specific time.

All of that explained, we will start off with former ambassador Fowler.

The floor is yours. You have five minutes.

[Robert R. Fowler, Retired Public Servant, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I offer my thanks to Mr. Bergeron for inviting me to offer views on the bill before you. I would also like to thank those who have taken the time and made the effort to put forward this bill, particularly Ms. Lantsman, who sponsored it and has defended its purposes so eloquently.

I strongly support any and all measures aimed at providing the managers of complex international hostage crises with additional tools and greater room to manoeuvre. There is a vigorous debate—only some of it in public—about whether governments should even negotiate, let alone make any kind of deal, with hostage-takers or, more specifically, pay ransoms or exchange prisoners to free their citizens, as the Americans did only yesterday. This dilemma is particularly acute when victims are sent into harm's way by those same governments, or by international organizations acting on behalf of their member states.

There tend to be significant differences between what governments do and what they say. That's exactly as it should be. Every time a principled position is invoked, there are exceptions. Many countries adopt what are, admittedly, more or less pragmatic approaches, while others proclaim immutable doctrine. However, I know for certain that every country has blinked at one time or another. Degrees of flexibility and innovation, along with a measure of humility, are essential ingredients to any successful outcome. This bill offers negotiators more flexibility and the opportunity for innovation. When doctrinaire and vainglorious posturing replaces effective and nuanced diplomacy, people die.

On November 3, 2015, the jihadis of Abu Sayyaf posted a Twitter video in which they threatened to murder John Ridsdel and fellow Canadian Robert Hall, along with their companions in captivity Marites Flor and Norwegian Kjartan Sekkingstad. The fact that both Hall and Ridsdel were subsequently brutally murdered and their families forced to endure the worldwide distribution of videos of their beheadings is a brutal catastrophe—and a source of significant distress to me and my family, as we all thought for months that this would be my fate. For the Ridsdel and Hall families, the nightmares will never end. Such a horrific outcome was, in my view, the result of our government's dogged intransigence, lack of imagination and utter ignorance of how these dramas actually play out in the real world.

It would seem to me that measures focused on bending the will of states to our purposes would principally apply to smaller, poorer and weaker states. Such measures are less likely to be effective against a major power such as China. Our government had all the tools it needed to win the release of the two Michaels at almost any point, which only makes their ordeal all the more upsetting. I am not here, though, to relitigate that fraught affair, and I must state that I'm terribly glad they're all finally safe.

I know well that grand declarations, whether or not they are widely endorsed, of what is right and good and of how the world ought to be managed, particularly by those insisting on how very good we are, are unlikely to change international behaviour, move the hearts of terrorists anywhere or alter the behaviour of states detaining our nationals. We Canadians take ourselves awfully seriously. We tend to believe that what we do and how we do it will have a great impact on what others do. In the main, this is simply not so. The countries of the world will not be moved to different behaviour by moral preaching from Canada, and Canadians around the world will be made no safer.

I have spent much of my life promoting, defending and trying to advance a rules-based international order, but I have always understood full well, although sometimes with ill grace, that those rules would regularly and inevitably be bent and often broken, most often by the most powerful, including our friends. Lest we forget, we are not powerful.

Looking back 16 years, the issue that causes me visceral anger is the lack of trust, courtesy and even basic respect on the part of too many of those charged with dealing with our families—that is, Louis Guay's and my family. This attitude, in our family's view, too often threatens, however unreasonably, to overshadow the hard, innovative work done by so many others to win our freedom.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much, Ambassador Fowler.

We go next to Ms. Symons from Hostage International. She is joining us virtually.

You have five minutes, Ms. Symons.

[Lara Symons, Chief Executive Officer, Hostage International]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for inviting me to provide evidence today. My comments on Bill C-353 will be based on my more than 25 years of experience working in the field of hostage-taking and arbitrary detention.

Prior to joining Hostage International, I spent 18 years in private sector crisis response and was privy to the confidential details of more than a thousand cases of hostage-taking and state detentions. At Hostage International, our support is provided to families affected by both incidents and to former captives. We provide information, guidance, practical support and access to tailored mental health therapy and legal and media advice. We have supported and continue to support Canadians affected by these incidents.

Given the focus of our charity's work, I applaud legislation that seeks to assist Canadians affected by hostage-taking and arbitrary detention. However, while I commend the spirit behind Bill C-353, I have serious concerns about its focus and assumptions. The bill addresses three different types of cases, perpetrated by different actors, without recognizing that each has to be resolved through different means and with a different level of government involvement. Criminal hostage-taking is generally resolved by the hostage's family or employers paying a ransom. In terrorist kidnaps, ransoms are illegal, so negotiation options are limited. Release may require mediation by other state or non-state actors. In arbitrary detention, the Canadian government has both a consular and a diplomatic role, which are key to safeguarding the well-being and release of its citizens.

Bill C-353 does not recognize these distinctions but focuses on two potential tools for assisting in bringing Canadians home. These are sanctions and incentivizing third party co-operation. The selection of these two mechanisms is bizarre, because neither has been shown to be effective in bringing about the release of hostages or detainees.

In criminal hostage-taking, the identities of the perpetrator prior to any arrest are rarely, if ever, known, so it would be impossible to place sanctions on them. In a terrorist kidnap, the Canadian government already has the ability to sanction terrorist groups and individuals, but doing so in a more targeted way would more likely provoke the hostage-takers into exacting revenge. Terrorists have no fear of killing hostages, as Robert Fowler just indicated. The murders of Robert Hall and John Ridsdel remain in our memories.

Sanctions are more relevant to arbitrary detentions, although, again, this is a mechanism already available to the Canadian government. I am not aware of any detainee released to date because of sanctions. It is arguable that some nationals have been detained in response to sanctions. Where third party incentives are concerned, there is again a real difference between hostage-taking and arbitrary detentions. Third party information is irrelevant in arbitrary detentions, which are resolved through diplomacy between governments.

In hostage-taking, on the other hand, third party individuals can and sometimes do provide information and even assistance, but it is hard to fathom what information and co-operation would help to bring about a hostage's safe release. Even if a third party provides the hostage's exact location, it would be hugely risky to carry out a rescue operation in foreign territory, which could lead to the hostage's death. While information about the perpetrators might help identify them, that is only relevant to seeking justice in the aftermath of an incident, not to bringing about the hostage's release. The unreliability of third party information in hostage-taking is notorious. Incentivizing it could lead to confusion and resource diversion that only serves to increase the risks to the hostage.

Finally, Hostage International applauds measures for consistent and reliable information for families. We witness first-hand the suffering of families and the frustration they often feel with their government's sharing of information. This is not limited to Canadian families. In every country we support in, families have similar grievances. This is often because expectations of what governments know or can do in a kidnap case and what they can safely share in an arbitrary detention case are unrealistic. What is important is how governments communicate with, involve and support families.

The Canadian government has faced harsh criticism from families in the past, but significant improvements have been made in recent years with much better feedback and a commitment to taking on lessons learned. The appointment of a senior officer for hostage affairs is an important step in government accountability.

The bill's focus on mental health support for families is positive, but Canada is already well ahead of its Five Eyes partners in having a victims fund that covers the cost of therapy for families. The government is also working consistently with its civil society partners, like Hostage International, to ensure that families access broader and longer-term support.

As for paragraph 20(c) in the bill on “facilitating communications”, it is at best ambiguous and at worst highly risky. Communications between families and criminal kidnappers are already assisted by the RCMP. Consular posts already try to access detainees in prison on behalf of families. These are—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Can you wrap up in the next 15 seconds? We have other witnesses as well.

[Lara Symons]

No legislation is required, but if other types of communications are intended, I would be quite concerned. There's still work to do for better family support, but the proposed legislation does not address what is needed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Ms. Symons. You will have the opportunity to answer questions. Hopefully the remainder of your testimony will emerge during those questions.

We next go to the co-founder and president of Human Rights Action Group. We're grateful to have with us today Ms. Sarah Teich.

You have five minutes, please.

[Sarah Teich, Co-Founder and President, Human Rights Action Group]

Hello, everyone. Thank you for inviting me to participate in this meeting.

My name is Sarah Teich and I'm a lawyer based in Toronto. Together with David Matas, I co-founded Human Rights Action Group, a collective of lawyers working directly with community groups to combat mass atrocity crimes and gross human rights violations.

Most relevant to this study, though, is that three years ago I authored a legislative proposal on the subject of hostage-taking, which was co-published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and the Canadian Coalition Against Terror. The latter organization is now known as Secure Canada. Over the last year, we have worked closely with MP Lantsman to adapt that legislative proposal into Bill C-353.

I was originally planning at this point to summarize each part of the bill, but I think instead I'm going to use my remaining minutes to pre-emptively answer a question that I think is important: whether or not this bill expands consular services to individuals who are not Canadian citizens and whether or not that is advisable or feasible. I think we have to start by looking at exactly what services may be captured by this bill because what this bill does not do is mandate that Global Affairs Canada provide consular services writ large to permanent residents and to refugees who meet the definition of “eligible protected persons” in the bill.

The bill is narrowly tailored to hostage-taking, arbitrary detentions, and state-to-state relations, so if this bill becomes law, this is what it would do. It would enable the imposition of sanctions on perpetrators in response to cases of hostage-taking and arbitrary detention where the victim is a Canadian citizen, permanent resident or eligible protected person. It would mandate that the government provide support to families or direct them to it, including psychological support services. This would be if the victim is a citizen, permanent resident or eligible protected person. Finally, it provides for monetary rewards and/or resettlement for those who assist in their repatriation of a hostage. Again, this would be if the victim is a citizen, permanent resident or eligible protected person. None of this is a significant expansion of consular services, for which I understand resources may be limited.

The relevant metric here should be how many permanent residents and eligible protected persons are taken hostage or arbitrarily detained in state-to-state relations abroad. I don't have the figure offhand, but it seems a safe assumption that this figure is not in the millions. This figure is unlikely to even be in the hundreds.

It is also relevant to note that the United States' Robert Levinson Hostage Recovery and Hostage-Taking Accountability Act, which similarly enables the imposition of sanctions and mandates various supports for family members, uses the term “United States national” throughout the act, which is defined as including U.S. permanent residents, so this feature of the bill is not without precedent. I hope that helps clarify this aspect of the bill.

I would also like to share that the Australian Senate foreign affairs committee, which just released its report in the last few hours, agreed that it is important to legislate on this topic. It concluded, after hearing in a committee from Ms. Kylie Moore-Gilbert, who I understand has submitted written testimony here, and from me and others:

The committee is also of the view that a robust framework would in itself act as a deterrence factor against Australian citizens being wrongly detained in the first instance. It considers that a clear and transparent framework would send a strong message to those states that choose to engage in hostage diplomacy and that Australia will not stand for [it].

That's from paragraph 3.115 on page 42 of the report.

Significantly, it also said that the U.S. Levinson act, which, as I noted, contains many of the same features as Bill C-353, “provides a suitable starting point for establishing an Australian framework.” That's from paragraph 3.119 on page 43 of the report.

I think I'll leave it there. I'm happy to answer any questions from committee members. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much, Ms. Teich.

We next go to the national coordinator for the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Mr. Tim McSorley. He is also joining us virtually.

Mr. McSorley, you have five minutes.

[Tim McSorley, National Coordinator, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for this invitation to speak to Bill C-353.

I'm here on behalf of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, a coalition of 44 Canadian civil society organizations that works to defend civil liberties in the context of national security and anti-terrorism measures. Through our work, we are acutely aware of the severe impacts faced by individuals who are taken hostage or arbitrarily detained. It is clear that more must be done to support the survivors of such acts and their families and loved ones.

We have been active in supporting Canadian citizens and permanent residents who have faced arbitrary detention abroad. These include the well-known cases of Maher Arar, Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Abou-Elmaati and Muayyed Nureddin, all of whom were detained and tortured in Syrian prisons, as well as Khaled Al-Qazzaz, who was arbitrarily detained by the military government in Egypt, and Abousfian Abdelrazik, who was arbitrarily detained and tortured by Sudanese national security forces. More recently, we have advocated for the return of all Canadians arbitrarily detained in northeast Syria, including Canadian women and children in detention camps, and Canadian men being held incommunicado without charges and in life-threatening conditions in prisons.

We cannot be clearer that hostage-taking and arbitrary detention violate Canadian and international law and that Canada must act to address these crimes. While we agree with the intent of the bill to support survivors and their families, we are not certain that this bill is necessary. It could in fact have negative unintended consequences in countering arbitrary detention and could have broader consequences.

First, we are overall skeptical of attempts to establish new sanctions regimes in general. There is a growing body of research suggesting that the increase in unilateral sanctions regimes has not been effective in protecting rights internationally. They can result in wasted resources and can have severe unintended consequences for the delivery and provision of international aid.

If sanctions are believed to be necessary, they must be narrow and targeted. We believe this is not the case with Bill C-353. It would target not only individuals but also broadly defined foreign entities and entire foreign states, including, according to paragraph 5(3)(a), the property of any national within a sanctioned state. This poses a real threat of unintended consequences that could impact humanitarian aid, international assistance, peacebuilding and even diplomacy. It also means that such sanctions could, if a government wanted to, be used to punish broad swaths of foreign nationals, their governments and their associations in arbitrary ways.

Second, we are concerned about the low thresholds in this bill. For example, clause 5 allows for the levying of sanctions on the basis that the Governor in Council is “of the opinion” that a foreign national, state or entity is “responsible for, or complicit in” hostage-taking or state-to-state arbitrary detention. These are incredibly broad powers to be granted based solely on opinion. Moreover, clause 7, in allowing the minister to require any person to provide any information that is relevant to an order or regulation under clause 5, would permit the minister to go on a fishing expedition for information. There are no provisions for how that information is to be handled or disposed of.

Third, the definition of “arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations” will exclude some of the gravest cases of state-sanctioned arbitrary detention. The definition of arbitrary detention in this bill requires that “a person arbitrarily arrests or detains the individual to compel action from, or exercise leverage over, a foreign government.”

In all of the cases I listed at the beginning, the arbitrary detention was either done with Canada's complicity or done for objectives unrelated to Canada, not done to compel action from a foreign government. Beyond the cases I stated above, we can also look, among others, to that of Huseyin Celil, a Canadian citizen and Uyghur human rights activist originally from China who has been arbitrarily detained by that government since 2006. Given that China's interest has nothing to do with influencing Canada or another state but rather with punishing human rights activism, we believe this act would not apply.

Fourth, the very broad application of sanctions within this legislation, including to anyone who makes available any property to a sanctioned state, entity or individual working on their behalf, would prohibit the provision of aid. While clause 6 allows the minister to provide a “permit to carry out a specified activity” that would violate an order under this act, the length of time it would take to secure a permit could have severe impacts on the timely delivery of aid and could lead to organizations simply not applying at all. Moreover, it could negatively impact instances where families or employers are negotiating with hostage-takers. They may need to act quickly, but they would risk violating this order unless they receive a permit.

Finally, we agree completely that more must be done to support the survivors of these horrendous acts and their families and loved ones. However, we do not believe this support should be tied to a sanctions regime, nor are we convinced the answer lies in new legislation. We would point instead to the recommendation of this committee's 2018 report on the provision of consular services. There are clearly other levers already available to the government to act in this area, if only there is the political will to use them. We urge the government and committee to further pursue that path.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. McSorley.

We'll go to Ms. Sheryl Saperia, chief executive officer of Secure Canada.

You have five minutes.

[Sheryl Saperia, Chief Executive Officer, Secure Canada]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for the invitation to be here, and thank you very much to Melissa Lantsman for sponsoring this piece of legislation.

If all the world is a stage, terrorism is theatre—horrific violence choreographed to terrorize a global audience. Of the vast array of asymmetrical terrorist tactics, hostage-taking is one of the most terrifying and heartbreaking. The wrongful holding of individuals to inflict harm or seek gain is not a new phenomenon. The biblical commandment of “do not steal” was understood by rabbinic scholars over 2,000 years ago to refer to the prohibition against kidnapping.

Hostage-taking is not just about the individual seized and the agony they suffer. In stealing a person, you take their family hostage and you take their people and country hostage. When a Canadian is wrongfully held by a malign state or non-state actor simply for being Canadian, it is Canada itself being held hostage, with the incarcerated person essentially acting as a surrogate for our country. We are living in an era in which hostage-taking and arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations constitute a growing threat to individuals, entire countries and the international order.

I have noticed that Canada's default position is often that a new legislative idea is unnecessary and that current laws do enough on their own, but bad actors constantly adjust and enhance their practices. Countries must therefore be nimble, creative, bold and principled in countering evolving threats. When it comes to hostage-taking specifically—a cost-effective weapon used by state and non-state actors to inflict extreme and disproportionate harm—it behooves our lawmakers to explore every possible tool to assist in repatriating the unwilling ambassadors who represent us in the dungeons of our adversaries and prevent this fate from befalling other Canadians.

At its very foundation, Bill C-353 was created to help Canada fulfill its fundamental responsibility to protect its people and uphold the value of its citizenship. The Australian Senate recently held hearings on the issue of hostage-taking and wrongful detention, and this very bill was discussed and lauded as a template for a similar Australian initiative. Dr. Kylie Moore-Gilbert was one of the witnesses who testified in Australia. She spent 804 days in the Iranian prison system, having received a 10-year sentence for espionage, which was denounced as baseless by the Australian government. She was released in a diplomatic deal negotiated by the Australian government in 2020, which saw Thailand release three Iranians convicted of terrorism offences in exchange for her freedom.

I want to share with you a message from Dr. Moore-Gilbert, the director of the Australian Wrongful and Arbitrary Detention Alliance: “We applaud and congratulate the Government of Canada for taking the initiative in spearheading the 2021 Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations. We would note however that, in spite of Canada’s stated aim of leveraging the Declaration to push for impactful multilateral efforts at disincentivising the practice, very little discernible progress has been made toward this particular goal. The proposed Bill C-353 recognises that difficult decisions must be made to impose genuine costs on non-state actor hostage-takers and governments which arbitrarily detain Canadian citizens for diplomatic leverage. By explicitly setting out the tools through which the Canadian government is empowered to punish and deter hostage-takers and perpetrators of arbitrary detention, Bill C-353 provides decision-makers with a positive mandate to disincentivise the practice from occurring in the future and to achieve a semblance of justice for victims.”

I look forward to a fulsome discussion with members of this committee on the need to redouble our government's efforts to protect Canadians. I encourage you to direct some questions to my esteemed colleague Haras Rafiq, who is a board member of Secure Canada and a British counter-extremism expert. He is here beside me to join today's discussion and situate hostage-taking within the extremism and terrorism framework.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge Danny Eisen, the co-founder of Secure Canada. He has been at the centre of our organization's work on this file.

Secure Canada is an organization dedicated to combatting terrorism, extremism and other national security threats. We fully endorse Bill C-353 as sober, targeted legislation that is consistent with Canada's obligations under international law to take further action domestically to address the threat of hostage-taking and arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much, Ms. Saperia.

Next we will go to former Ambassador Nölke.

You have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Sabine Nölke, Ambassador (retired), As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and honourable members of the committee, for your invitation to appear before this committee today.

I'd like to give you an idea of the perspective I'm bringing to the examination of Bill C-353. I'm a retired Canadian diplomat and an international law practitioner. My areas of past practice and expertise include international peace and security, UN charter law, the law of armed conflict and atrocity crimes, terrorism and transnational crime, human rights, economic sanctions, disarmament and non-proliferation.

Since my retirement, I've published on more effective implementation of the UN Convention against Corruption through the tracking, tracing, seizure and repurposing of assets. I've also carried out a number of projects for Global Affairs Canada on a consultancy basis. These include framing the mandate of an independent panel of experts to address the issue of arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations in international law; a study on the legal framework in which Canada carries out its consular activities, including in emergency and crisis situations; and a discussion paper on strengthening Canada's operational response capacity with respect to international hostage-taking.

I believe that's how my name came to the attention of the committee, but I'm not currently employed by Global Affairs. I'm speaking entirely in my personal capacity.

In the interest of maximizing time for questions, let me give you a brief rundown of my views.

Bill C-353 is a well-intentioned effort to address the operationally complex and sensitive issue of individual Canadians who fall victim, at times tragically, to forces beyond the control of the Canadian government. In practice, however, I believe the bill to be both unnecessary and possibly counterproductive. It seeks to emulate part of the U.S. Robert Levinson Hostage Recovery and Hostage-Taking Accountability Act, but without taking into account important differences in the legal, contextual and operational frameworks between the U.S. and Canada.

In Canadian law, as confirmed by this committee in its report on Canada's consular services in 2018, issues relating to national and international security and foreign relations fall under the Crown prerogative rather than under the control of Parliament. In November 2023, the Federal Court of Appeal summarized the proper exercise of this power as the “responsibility of the executive to make decisions on matters of foreign affairs in the context of complex and ever-changing circumstances, taking into account Canada's broader interests.” Hostage-taking clearly falls under that, as does arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations.

Bill C-353, while intended to strengthen the government's tool kit in responding to hostage-taking and arbitrary detentions, has the effect of legislating in areas of national security and foreign relations. The decision to apply economic sanctions under the bill is correctly left to the Governor in Council, as it is, for example, in the Special Economic Measures Act. Creating a specific legal framework for the imposition of sanctions in response to hostage-taking could exponentially increase domestic pressure on this government and future governments to do so in practice. This risks handing hostage-takers and foreign states precisely the leverage they want and driving up the stakes for victims by boxing in the government's response. I agree with previous speakers on that particular issue.

In the case of arbitrary detention by foreign states for political purposes, Canada already has the power to impose sanctions, if they are considered useful, under subsection 4(1.1) of the Special Economic Measures Act. For terrorist hostage-taking, financial dealings with listed terrorist groups and their members are already subject to prohibitions under the Criminal Code. In other words, we already have access to the tools that Bill C-353 purports to provide.

There are other concerns I have about the bill. It conflates terrorist hostage-taking and arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations and criminal kidnappings. That point has already been made. De facto, it mandates the government’s response to hostage-takings to include permanent residents, in respect of whom Canada has no standing under international law to exercise consular or diplomatic functions. Also, the statutory requirement to extensively share information with families could compromise operational or national security, although I certainly agree with others that we need to do more to deal with families appropriately.

The compensation of individual victims from seized state assets is potentially fraught. Canada is currently subject to a complaint on this very issue before the International Court of Justice in respect of the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.

The specific requirement for parliamentary reporting is redundant. This committee and NSICOP already have broad mandates to review government actions in this field. I would note that in 2022, NSICOP made recommendations on how Global Affairs could strengthen its response to hostage-takings. Legislative action was not among those recommendations.

In conclusion, there are clearly multiple areas at the operational level in which Canada's response to terrorist hostage-takings and arbitrary detention by foreign states could well be strengthened, streamlined, made more coherent and, particularly, better funded, but Bill C-353, however well-intentioned, is not the answer, in my view.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much, Ambassador Nölke.

We will now open it to questions from members.

We start off with MP Chong for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for appearing to talk about a very important issue.

Mr. Fowler, I'd like to direct my questions to you. Thank you for appearing in front of our committee.

You have decades of experience within the Government of Canada as a deputy minister and as an ambassador. The first question I'd like to ask you relates to the second part of the bill, which is really about improving supports for families of people who have been taken hostage. Can you talk a bit about your experience and how the machinery within the department and the machinery between the department and central agencies could have been improved?

[Robert R. Fowler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chong.

I've been out of the business of government for a long time. I very much would like to get to Mr. Chong's question, although something says that, really, my wife should be here answering that question. I was lying in the sand a long way away while she had to deal with what you're talking about.

Perhaps to sum it up, in listening to testimony a couple of days ago before your committee, I heard again and again that things have changed, that the government does this better, that they're better organized and that Global Affairs, my old department, is restructured and ready and able to do all this. That may well be the case; I simply don't know, but it sure wasn't the case 16 years ago.

Just to give you one example, Mary was not told that Louis and I were alive for 45 days. The government knew that we were alive immediately following our grab. They regularly had intelligence information suggesting that we were alive at different points after that. In terms of who was managing our affair, I have no idea. Both the RCMP and Foreign Affairs insisted that each of them were in charge. The PCO never said anything to anybody, and never focused attention on what was not happening.

We made two videos. Louis's family and mine were not told that the videos were made. Finally, Mary couldn't stand the lack of information. She went down to meet with the then secretary-general of the UN, who told her that we were alive and seemed to be in relatively good shape. Ban Ki-moon having told her that there was a video, she came back and demanded to see the video. It was then 45 days old. The RCMP said they'd have trouble translating it, but they'd see what they could do. Mary said she didn't need it translated, and they showed her the video.

Some weeks later, about 30 days later, she was going to London to see our fourth daughter, who lived there and needed a little care and attention. Before she left, she spoke to her interlocutors from the RCMP and said she'd be away, but to get in touch with her if anything came up.

She was having lunch with our high commissioner in London, who said she must be really happy to see the most recent video. Mary told him she didn't know what he was talking about. He left, made a phone call home and a few minutes later the RCMP called and told her that, yes, there was another video. When she said she wanted to see it, they told her that she would have to come back to Canada. It was so sensitive they couldn't possibly send it to London. That was idiotic, of course. They then did send it and she could see it.

If I may, I will read a little of the book I wrote, which perhaps highlights my concern in this regard.

On 23 February, in one of the rare briefings at Foreign Affairs, Mary asked for confirmation of the accuracy of media reports that suggested our captors had made a specific ransom demand. A very senior RCMP officer—in fact, the future commissioner of the RCMP—interrupted, pointed his finger across the table to where she sat and snapped, “As long as I am in charge of this investigation not one cent will be paid for the release of these high muckety-mucks.” At that point, her trust in the management of her case was destroyed. Louis's wife and my wife refused to attend future meetings.

No, relations with hostages 16 years ago were not very well managed.

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

Thank you.

I don't have any other questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much.

Now we go to MP Alghabra for five minutes.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of the witnesses not only for being here today but for all the work they've done over the years to help families and victims who've found themselves in a very difficult situation. I'm also humbled by the presence of Mr. Fowler.

Mr. Fowler, I'm grateful for your service and very delighted that you're here with us safely.

I don't subscribe to the idea that our current policies—or the execution of our policies as a government—are perfect, nor do I subscribe to the idea that there's no opportunity for additional reform or for the introduction of new legislation, for that matter. I think there might be room for additional tools.

My concern is that this current proposal doesn't do what it's intended to do. I question whether these new tools would help get a Canadian citizen or someone in the difficult situation of either arbitrary detention or hostage-taking out of harm's way. I also worry that it raises unreasonable expectations, to a degree that the government will be unable to fulfill them. Many Canadian families who have loved ones in a difficult situation may start expecting the Government of Canada to use these new tools at their disposal, but, really, they're without an appropriate application.

I'm going to start my questions with Ms. Teich.

I have concerns about expanding eligibility to non-Canadian citizens, particularly protected persons. Who decides who is a protected person? I know the definition of “protected person”. In Canada, we have the IRB deciding whether a claimant is a protected person or not. If someone finds themselves in a difficult situation abroad and they're not at home, who defines them as a protected person?

[Sarah Teich]

It's a great question.

An eligible protected person is someone with refugee status who is not inadmissible based on security grounds, based on the grounds of having violated human or international rights or due to criminality. It's essentially for refugees in Canada, with a couple of exceptions.

In terms of who decides, I expect it would be the relevant minister under the act, although I—

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

I'm sorry. Allow me to interrupt for the efficiency of time.

Are you suggesting that the protected persons in this bill are intended to be those who have been found by the Canadian IRB to be a protected person?

[Sarah Teich]

I believe so, yes.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

The bill is not very clear about that. It says “protected persons”. That could be a refugee claimant who made a submission to the United Nations. Would that person be eligible for this consular service?

[Sarah Teich]

I don't believe so, but I'd like to take this question on notice, if that's possible, and get back to you. I don't want to say yes or no if I'm not 100% sure.