Article content continued

If we are to end that cycle, it will not be sufficient to make bold statements of intent. We will have to follow through in policy. There might be a theoretical case for lying — declaring we will not pay ransom publicly, while remaining willing to do so on the sly — so long as the terrorists did not catch on. But by now they will have seen through that charade.

Neither is it sufficient that the government of Canada not be directly involved in paying ransom itself, while allowing or encouraging others do so on our behalf. This is perhaps the most significant part of Trudeau’s statement: “directly or indirectly.” (Harper, by contrast, had left himself an out: “What efforts or initiatives may have been undertaken by other governments are questions you’ll have to put to those governments.”) The point, as far as the incentive to take more hostages is concerned, is not who pays the ransom: it is enough that it is paid.

And yet it remains unclear how absolute the government’s commitment to its “no ransom” policy is. If it was not “very directly involved” in the negotiations with the Abu Sayyaf group, as the former Liberal leader Bob Rae, who was assisting the Ridsdel family, said it was, it certainly knew about them, and that ransom was being discussed. It’s understandable that the families and friends of the victims would wish to do all they can to secure their release, but if we are agreed that paying ransom only encourages future kidnappings this surely cannot be allowed to continue. The families are, of course, focused on the fate of their loved ones. But the government must concern itself not only with the situation at hand, but other potential kidnappings and other potential victims.