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—

Transcript

Discussions (0)