Foreign Affairs committee  I don't think we would engage them any differently than we do now. We would continue to advise them as we do. It would have to be a very particular case. You would have to have a situation in which a member of a family who is a spokesperson would decide to go above and beyond the negotiations for the release of the hostage and, let's say, would be willingly and knowingly supplying funds on a side track.

Foreign Affairs committee  I really don't see any major ramifications. At the end of the day, if there's an offence that's being committed outside of the actual negotiation for the release of a hostage, then we would pursue it, but that would be extremely rare, if it happened at all.

Foreign Affairs committee  I just want to make sure I understand your question.

Foreign Affairs committee  Yes.

Foreign Affairs committee  A private contractor would not have access to our criminal investigation holdings. What they would have access to is the same information the family has been privy to. Let's remember that the family identifies a main negotiator. All of the information that has flowed between that family member and the hostage-takers will be, of course, disclosed by the family to this private contractor, but anything else that would be on a separate track, anything that would really deal with a criminal investigation, would not be released, no.

Foreign Affairs committee  There is not a conflict between the two. It's a matter of ensuring there are parallel tracks that need to be paid attention to from the onset of the hostage-taking. Right from day one we go to great lengths to ensure that the family is well aware that the primary focus in attention is the safe release of their loved ones, and then, at the same time, that if we do have an opportunity to lay charges and prosecute some of these individuals down the road, they would be potential witnesses.

Foreign Affairs committee  Again, I won't be commenting on any specific case, but there are processes in place that allow us to verify individuals who are meeting with the Prime Minister. As you stated, in the interest of fulfilling our protective police mandate, those processes exist, and they are there for that reason.

Foreign Affairs committee  As we work with the families, we do of course explain the potential for criminal offences depending on what happens within a case. Let me say this: we're very clear to state that it is not and has never been in the public interest for us to pursue criminal charges—whether they be for terrorist financing or facilitation—with any family member, nor have we ever investigated or considered laying charges towards any family member.

Foreign Affairs committee  There is no concern around comfort letters.

Foreign Affairs committee  I don't have any numbers to provide to the committee, but I believe a number was publicly stated by our colleagues from CSIS on the number of returnees to Canada some time ago. That said, I think the issue of returnees requires the very close coordination that we've certainly undertaken with our partners.

Foreign Affairs committee  We've had a few charges, and I can get those details with respect to the number and types of charges for you as well. I don't have that information with me here. We have not commented publicly on any numbers with respect to Daesh fighters returned here in Canada.

Foreign Affairs committee  It comes from CSIS.

Foreign Affairs committee  It's public. The information that was released by CSIS was made public a few years ago.

Foreign Affairs committee  But I believe, as well, in the terrorism plan in the—

Foreign Affairs committee  Certainly in countries or areas that have very little or no structure in place, it's extremely challenging and difficult. We will always look to leverage either our own Canadian agencies—GAC or other agencies—to see if they have assets, or if not assets, if they have relationships.