I understand perfectly well that the amendment seeks to establish that an offence committed abroad and which may have a different name than it does in Canada is equivalent to an offence included in the list. That should be an objective criterion.
In practice, however, as we are doing with the much stronger antiterrorism provisions, we would want that equivalence to be consistent and to first be studied by the Department of Justice, so that the attorney general can make a decision after reviewing it. That would prevent contradictory court decisions.
I am more inclined to oppose the amendment. I realize that there is a need for a certain level of consistency and that an objective criterion, as assessed by various people, can sometimes be interpreted differently by those people, even when they are acting in good faith. I would opt for consistency by not supporting the amendment, which I understand perfectly well and which is very well-meaning in its intent to put objectivity over subjectivity.
But we are talking about offences that have a certain label in foreign countries, on a very diverse planet. I will tell you that I have always thought that the expression “sexual assault” was a good example of the genius of the English language, but that is not the case in French with “agression sexuelle”. A lot of sexual assaults do not involve any violence. Indeed, they are sexual acts that may not involve any violence but that French calls “agressions sexuelles” in order to show just how unacceptable the crime is.
The French take a more rational approach to labelling. I suppose that it is different in Spanish, Arabic, Chinese and so forth. My preference is for there to be only one interpretation that an offence committed in another country is equivalent to an offence in our Criminal Code and for that interpretation to come from the Department of Justice, as expressed by the Attorney General.