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.

Transcript

Discussions (0)