Mr. Chair, thank you for the invitation to be here to discuss this topic.

Let me start by saying that arbitrary detention for diplomatic leverage and hostage-taking by non-state actors are unacceptable violations of human rights.

So far in my role as senior official for hostage affairs, I've met with many victims and their loved ones. I know that the suffering they endure from these practices is immeasurable and inhumane. Canadians and their families in these horrific circumstances need to know that their government is doing everything possible to bring them home and to protect their safety when they travel, work, study or live abroad.

We must always focus on their well‑being. We must have the right tools to protect and support them.

While analyzing this bill, we came up with two main questions.

Will it help us ensure the well‑being of victims? Will it help to ensure the safe and swift release of victims?

We are in full agreement with the intent of this bill. Our assessment is that mandating responses across a range of distinct situations with unique considerations does, however, present some unintended yet serious risks to victims and their families. Our assessment is based on significant operational experience in managing cases; our understanding of best practices, developed through regular information exchanges with trusted partners and informed by ongoing consultations with survivors and their families; and a comparison with what has been put in place over recent years, based lessons learned.

It should be noted that the types of cases discussed today include some of our most complex work and that they often have significant implications for human rights, privacy, international law, intelligence, national security and public safety.

No two cases are alike. There are important distinctions between arbitrary detention by states, terrorist hostage-takings and kidnaps for ransom by criminal groups. Each has different motivations and pressure points. States are usually more sensitive to reputational costs, such as through statements, resolutions, démarches or coordinated sanctions using existing regimes. Conversely, non-state actors are much less likely to be swayed by tools of international pressure—for example, by sanctions—and may be incentivized to engage in more predatory behaviour when presented with the possibility of cash rewards or media attention.

We have different frameworks for dealing with various types of hostage‑taking.

We respond to each case with a highly tailored and nuanced approach. We use the tools proven most effective and least likely to harm victims.

We always apply a victim-centric approach, which is absolutely essential and a cornerstone of the work we do.

Let me provide some details in terms of the considerations related to this bill.

First, in terms of assistance to families, I want to reiterate that working closely with families is absolutely critical to the effective management of cases. We have dedicated contact people for families. We share as much information as we possibly can while also considering the Privacy Act and the best interests of the victim.

The families do everything in their power to ensure that their loved ones can return home. We do the same. The considerations involved in determining when and how to share information are based on our experience and lessons learned.

Mandatory information sharing, as this bill proposes, could in fact put victims in danger, particularly while cases are active. We have seen situations in which sensitive information has been leaked, including by families posting details on social media. Information leaks can have many repercussions, including triggering reprisals against the victim or putting negotiations or prosecutions in jeopardy.

Mandating the disclosure of personal or sensitive information can also undermine victims' rights to privacy and lead to further traumatization.

Family dynamics are also complicated. We have dealt with many consular clients who are estranged from their family members. Hence, not all victims are comfortable having all of their personal information shared.

We must respect the victims' right to share their information in a way that makes them feel safe and at a time of their choosing.

In terms of facilitating communication between families and captors, we must also be careful. Direct contact could enable captors to further victimize family members. It could jeopardize sensitive negotiations, further endanger the victim and their release, and even impact future prosecution.

When it comes to offering monetary rewards or emigration incentives, many government departments have identified significant national security and public safety implications. These programs run a real risk of creating an incentive to hold Canadians hostage.

Offering rewards may also lead to an influx of misinformation that could overwhelm investigations, undermine negotiations and subject families to scams or false hopes. Unfortunately, the people most likely to have information on cases are often those with links to the terrorist or criminal groups that have taken individuals captive. We don't want to inadvertently put public funds in the hands of these bad actors. We want to break the business model.

Sanctions, including in existing legislation, can be powerful tools, depending on the circumstances. However, they are not necessarily helpful in cases of hostage-taking and arbitrary detention. On the contrary, they could trigger reprisals against the victims or other Canadians held by the same captors. Applying sanctions against criminal groups in particular would make any kind of financial dealings with them by Canadians illegal, hamstringing potential efforts families may want to pursue to bring their loved ones home.

Transcript

Discussions (0)