Bill C-242 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (inflicting torture)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to create the offence, for a private individual, of inflicting torture. It also amends other provisions of the Act as a consequence.

Criminal Code

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

moved that Bill C-242, an act to amend the Criminal Code (inflicting torture), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I stand today to formally address my private member's bill, Bill C-242, an act to amend the Criminal Code (inflicting torture).

After being drawn ninth in the private members' bill lottery, I felt a responsibility to take advantage of this good fortune by putting forward a meaningful reform. I might have sought for a particular cause to be given special recognition or to have a forgotten historical event commemorated. Such initiatives certainly have their place, yet I felt the need to go in a different direction.

Bill C-242 is a human rights bill that aims to add a torture offence to the Canadian Criminal Code.

Article 5 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

While a torture offence exists in section 269.1 of the Criminal Code, it only applies to acts perpetrated by state officials. Equivalent acts that would otherwise be defined as torture but committed by private individuals acting outside of state authority are instead typically considered to constitute the offence of aggravated assault under section 268. The proposed reform will pertain to those acts of brutality that may be life-threatening and far exceed instances of aggravated assault, a charge that can apply to serious and trivial acts of violence. Section 268 is therefore insufficient.

Torturers aim to rob individuals of their dignity through the intentional and repeated infliction of severe pain, suffering and humiliation over a prolonged period of time for the purpose of intimidation and coercion. These actions have no place in a free, open and democratic society such as Canada.

For critics, the current charges available in the Criminal Code have been said to be sufficient. They believe that existing laws can adequately be applied when torture offences take place. I have already mentioned aggravated assault. Other possibilities include assault, assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm, sexual assault offences, and aggravated sexual assault.

Judges indeed may have the ability to impose sentences that account for aggravating factors when the offence has had a particularly difficult impact on the victim. I understand this argument, but do not accept it. True, it does not deny that torture committed in the private realm can happen, yet it also implies the problem is exaggerated and that existing laws are good enough. Tell that to the victims of torture.

Existing offences are in place and can be used to prosecute perpetrators, I agree. However, they are inadequate because they do not acknowledge that torture has been endured, unspeakable acts, heinous acts, acts so terrible that everyone in the House would be left shaking their heads in absolute disgust. A gap in our Criminal Code therefore exists. Ignoring it does a disservice to the victims of torture.

I will only point to a few examples, and there are many others, that have occurred in recent years. The details while difficult are important.

In 2006, a Calgary man was made to take off his clothes and had his hands and feet tied with cables. He was then left to hang from ceiling joists while his torturers punched, cut and whipped him with a belt before spraying him with butane. This happened over a period of days. Two individuals were found responsible. The first was a youth who could not be sentenced in adult court. The second pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon, and a mere two years was given in what amounted to an example of torture.

In 2008, a Brampton man had his toe cut off, was beaten with a bat, cut multiple times with salt rubbed in his wounds, and had a plastic bag put over his head. This took place over several hours and seemed to have been done with the intent of obtaining information about a theft. The individual who carried out the action was found guilty of aggravated assault and forcible confinement and given a sentence of less than 10 years. The more appropriate choice would have been torture, because that is what took place. In fact, the judge used the word “torture” to describe the victim's experience.

In 2010, Dustin Paxton beat, starved, burned, and cut off the lip and part of the tongue of his victim in a well-known Alberta case. This seemed to have happened for perhaps as long as two years. While a dangerous offender designation was assigned by the courts, Paxton was charged with aggravated and sexual assault even though torture more properly captures what happened.

I have one final example. I received a call to my constituency office recently from a woman who told me that she lived through some of the most despicable actions that anyone could imagine. Her childhood was so terrible that she felt the need to flee to the United States, where she now lives. This was necessary in order to gain the sense of security that she so desperately needed. In repeated acts of torture, this young woman was tied up, hung upside down, and had objects, such as a cattle prod, used against her.

Though extremely hard to hear, the reality that our society requires a charge of torture to be put into the Criminal Code is evident from the cases I have described throughout.

The need to call crimes what they are is not simply an academic matter. In order for victims to heal, their suffering must be acknowledged. Indeed, this fact underlined the truth and reconciliation process on residential schools, and is a basic human rights principle.

Using terms such as “aggravated assault”, which can be applied to the above cases just as easily as it can be to a fist fight, does not adequately speak to the grave human rights abuses that have been committed.

This is why the bill proposes a sentence of up to life imprisonment for those who carry out torture. Some will criticize the bill on this basis because the existing state torture law only offers a maximum of 14 years. It is true that this is inconsistent and I believe strongly that a much stiffer sentence for acts of state torture is certainly warranted.

However, rather than aiming to do everything and, hence, nothing, I have placed my focus on a gap that has been almost completely disregarded by Canadian legislators until this point. I did so after consulting with victims, their families, justice department officials, and civil society organizations.

The legislation was drafted by expert bureaucrats trained in the law. I value the support they have provided and the passion they show for their work every day.

The same line of reasoning applies to the issue of aggravated assault. The maximum penalty for aggravated assault is 14 years. This is appropriate, I admit, for most violations. However, when torture more properly describes the offence, a much harsher penalty is warranted.

Furthermore, it is true that torture from an international legal perspective has traditionally been understood as a state crime. I respect this, but add that the definition of torture has shifted. The Committee Against Torture, for example, which is responsible for monitoring the UN torture convention of which Canada is a signatory, has said that torture in the private sphere qualifies as torture.

This view has been accepted by other states. The proposed legislation shares much in common with existing torture laws in Australia and France. Both countries, extremely important allies, have strong torture laws that apply to state and private actors. Canada should follow suit. Recognizing such a change would acknowledge the ordeal experienced by those who have suffered torture and punish torturers accordingly.

Cases of extreme violence and inhumane conduct have happened in Canada and could take place again. Canadians deserve a government that will stand up for their rights and safety at all times. Previous governments had an opportunity to make this change but failed to do. It is time to act and make positive change happen.

This is not perfect legislation, and I am not sure any piece of legislation is ever perfect. However, I want to assure all my colleagues in the House that I am open to any potential amendments that could be examined by the justice committee. This includes lowering the term of punishment and any other concerns that may exist. It would be a sincere shame to have this important bill defeated because of concerns related to technicalities which could easily be altered.

I ask my colleagues, before making a final decision, that they consider these important factors. If they believe that human rights matter, if they believe that torture has no place in our society because it robs individuals of their humanity and dignity, if they believe that the way to ensure public safety is not by building more jails or through the politics of division and fear but through enshrining human rights principles into the law, then I urge them to vote in favour of Bill C-242 for all of these reasons, and allow it to go to committee where it can be further examined.

This bill is not about me and has never been about me. Indeed, this is the most important point I want to make today. I dedicate this bill to all victims of torture. Their voice matters. I have listened to them. Their suffering cannot go unacknowledged any longer, and I will continue to fight for them.

[Bill Casey, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for London North Centre, who has worked very hard on this bill. He is truly motivated by the highest standards and his dedication to human rights. I am moved by his focus on this bill and his intent and determination.

I support the bill, but I would like clarification. The member said that he was open to amendments, but perhaps he could elaborate on the extent of amendments. Some people do not support the bill as it is. It is a very meaningful bill that would have a lot of impact. However, if members have concerns, would the member consider amendments when it goes to the justice committee?

I hope to participate in the debate later on, but I want to clarify that one point on potential amendments.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I am open to amendments. I would invite colleagues to allow this bill to move to committee where it can be studied.

In particular, on the concerns around sentencing, I am open to having the sentence lowered. In this private member's bill, I have called for a punishment of up to life in prison. I believe that is warranted in these cases, and members heard me describe the examples. There are obviously very egregious acts of violence that, in my humble opinion, warrant a term of up to life in prison. However, if that is not the view of colleagues, I am open to having that amendment made and having the justice committee look at that.

Beyond that, on definitional issues around torture, I am even open to that, as long as the underlying principle of the offence is understood and recognized.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for London North Centre on the passionate and vital initiative before us today.

I am very pleased to hear him reiterate his willingness to have amendments considered at the justice committee. I would agree with him that no piece of legislation is perfect, and there often can be changes made at the justice committee. I sit on that committee, and I would be very happy to assist in any way I can to ensure the bill is palatable.

The member mentioned one amendment in response to my colleague's question concerning harmonization of sentences. If there are problems in harmonizing this initiative on domestic torture with state torture, would he be prepared to perhaps remove the word “torture” should there be any ambiguity in simply reiterating the definition of “torture”, but maybe not use that word, should that give any cause for concern to the government of the day?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as long as the underlying essence of the offence is recognized, in other words, the infliction of severe and prolonged pain and suffering for the purpose of intimidation and coercion. I am open to the justice committee looking at the definitional issues.

I know there are concerns around having this offence classified as torture and perhaps that impacting upon our international legal obligations. I respectfully disagree with that view, but it is something that the committee can examine.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member across the aisle on taking the bull by the horns and addressing such an important subject in his first bill. I also congratulate him on making the distinction between a bill like his and other kinds of bills that members can introduce, which often seem somewhat frivolous. My colleague is talking about a very fundamental issue here.

I have a question for the member. I am not a legal expert or a lawyer. What charge is the closest to what my colleague is trying to introduce as a new offence?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my view there is no charge that comes close. There is section 269.1 of the Criminal Code, but that applies only to acts of state torture, acts committed by state officials for the purposes of extracting information, for example, or for some other purpose.

Aggravated assault is on the books but for the reasons I outlined in my speech, it does not nearly capture what has happened to these victims of torture. That is how I would answer the question in that regard.

To follow-up on what I mentioned earlier, for me, there is no—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for London North Centre for introducing this well-intentioned piece of legislation. Bill C-242 seeks to establish a Criminal Code offence for acts of torture committed by non-state actors. As the hon. member for London North Centre pointed out, the only section of the Criminal Code that establishes a specific offence for torture is section 269.1, and section 269.1 only deals with acts committed by state actors.

At the outset it is important to acknowledge, as the hon. member did, that those who commit torturous acts for non-state actors are not given immunity in Canada. On the contrary, there are any number of Criminal Code offences that apply to torturous acts, depending on the nature and the scope of the act. Those sections include offences such as aggravated assault, attempted murder, kidnapping, and so on.

The offences that are presently on the books in the Criminal Code are long-established offences. They are well understood. There is a wide body of case law. Those convicted of any one of those offences may spend a very long time in jail. Take, for example, aggravated assault. Someone convicted of aggravated assault may spend 14 years in jail. In the most serious of cases, someone convicted may be designated a dangerous offender, rendering that individual ineligible for parole. Being designated as a dangerous offender is tantamount to being sentenced to life in prison.

That is precisely what happened in the case of the Calgary man to whom the hon. member alluded, who had committed horrendous acts of torture. I will not mention that man's name in the House because it is unworthy of being mentioned in the House or in any other public forum. The fact is that the man took someone for two years and confined, beat, burned, and starved that person. That heinous, despicable individual was charged and convicted and designated as a dangerous offender and will very likely spend the rest of his natural life behind bars, where he belongs.

I mention that simply to say that there are laws on the books at present; and in general, it is my observation that they are largely working. However, the hon. member for London North Centre says that the laws on the books just are not good enough and that torture is a specific crime worthy of a specific Criminal Code offence.

All decent Canadians find torture to be abominable. Torture is vile, inhumane, and evil. The victims of torture, those who suffer at the hands of their torturers, endure physical and emotional pain that is probably unimaginable. They live with that legacy likely for the rest of their lives. To be tortured is tantamount to a life sentence for victims.

When the hon. member for London North Centre says the current laws are not good enough, I take it that he has a point. We, as parliamentarians, have a duty to ensure that the laws on the books do justice by holding perpetrators of heinous crimes accountable and do justice for the victims so that they can begin the process of healing.

Therefore, it is on that basis that I believe that Bill C-242 deserves to go to the next step in the legislative process, to committee, for further review, further study, and further amendment. I want to thank the hon. member for London North Centre for acknowledging that, as with all bills brought before the House in the early stages, there are often modifications and amendments that need to be made to improve the bill.

This is not a perfect bill. In fact, there are areas with which I have some concerns. For example, the definition of torture in Bill C-242 is a different definition from the definition of torture under section 269.1 of the Criminal Code. The definition in section 269.1 of the Criminal Code is the same definition that is provided in article 1 of the United Nations convention against torture. The definition in Bill C-242, as I read it at least, seems to be more restrictive. Additionally, the sentencing in Bill C-242 is different from the sentencing under section 269.1.

We have a situation where, if Bill C-242 passed in its current form, we could have two different definitions of torture in the Criminal Code, two different tests for torture in the Criminal Code, and two different sentences under the Criminal Code, depending on whether the torturous acts were committed by a state or non-state actor. That is a problem.

However, as I say, I will support this bill so that it can move forward, because it is a well-intentioned bill and, as the hon. member says, the victims of torture deserve that we ensure that the criminal justice system and the Criminal Code fully provide the remedies that are necessary to hold perpetrators of those crimes fully accountable.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say at the outset that I am proud that the New Democratic Party members will be fully supporting this important initiative at second reading. I want to thank my colleague from London North Centre for bringing this issue to the attention of the House. I want to also salute him for taking the time to meet with members on all sides of this House to try to explain his reasoning in bringing forth this important bill.

The bill responds to the fact that torture, as it appears in our Criminal Code in section 269.1, applies only to the conduct of state actors like police and military personnel. The member intends through this initiative, I assume, to create a parallel within domestic torture, events that he has described with such clarity and that deserve society's opprobrium, without any doubt at all.

I want to also salute my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton who moments ago pointed out that there would be overlapping sections of the Criminal Code, but like me, he wishes to let this bill go to the justice committee where it can be studied and improved because, as the member so modestly pointed out, it does deserve to be amended in a few key areas.

Sometimes it is important to use words in a Criminal Code to show society's disdain for certain conduct. We could charge people with aggravated assault—and we do currently—for things that the member has described, but they amount to torture, and everybody knows it is torture. Yes, it is true that the words are slightly different in the international covenant, and they are a little different in the Criminal Code from what my colleague has put in his bill. However, those are technical points that can be readily addressed through review at the committee.

Members may recall that several years ago a politician was charged with gangsterism. The authorities did not need to charge that individual with gangsterism. They could have charged him with fraud and breach of public trust or a whole bunch of other sections of the code. However, that word will never be forgotten. Similarly, many of the things we call terrorism are nothing more than criminal offences, but by calling them terrorism, we attach to them the weight that society needs to have attached to them, because they are of a different calibre than simple crimes like assault, kidnapping, or the like. We call them terrorism for a purpose and we call it gangsterism for a purpose, even though they amount to other crimes under other sections of the Criminal Code.

That is why I think the bill is so important. Let us call a spade a spade. It is not aggravated assault when we hear the heinous acts that were described by my colleague. It is torture. If we want to say that, because of some technical reason and our international commitments somehow not squaring perfectly with this domestic bill my colleague has brought forth and we do not even want to use the “t” word in the bill, who cares? The public will call a spade a spade, and call it torture. To not let this bill pass because of technical concerns that can be readily addressed at the justice committee would be very unfortunate.

I have consulted with criminal lawyers about this bill and I have looked at case law, and the fact situations are just chilling, as members know. We are talking about victims of the most prolonged and sadistic physical and mental abuse. For those who survive, the physical and mental consequences can be permanent: PTSD, etc.

In some cases, the possibility of bringing other charges such as kidnapping, forcible confinement, or assault with a weapon can ensure that the offender faces a lengthy sentence, even a life sentence. In other cases, however, the sentences have not seemed to many to meet the gravity of the crime. This bill would ensure that the gravity of the crime is matched by the appropriate sentence.

In all cases, survivors and their families may question why the acts of torture they endured are not acknowledged as such by the law. That is what I said earlier when I said that we as a society should call a spade a spade and attach terms that match what the public says about the crimes. It is up to us to make the Criminal Code be our servant, not our master.

There are many dimensions to this issue beyond the name change or the severity of a sentence. Canada is party to the United Nations convention against torture. As such, we are obliged to take effective measures against non-state torture within our borders.

It is certainly worth debating whether the existing offences in our Criminal Code, which do not mention torture by name, are the most effective and appropriate means to prosecute these crimes. However, this international dimension also gives rise to some technical concerns that have been raised about the bill.

Again, specifically, it is vital that any amendment we make to the Criminal Code under the rubric of torture not create discord, either in definition or sentence, with our international commitments under the convention and with our domestic prohibition against state torture.

I know the member for London North Centre is familiar with these concerns. I thank him again for taking the time to educate us all on the initiatives that he has taken and the work he has done.

Of course, as we consider what more Canada can do to eradicate torture, I would like to take this opportunity to call upon the government, once again, to ratify the optional protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture.

Despite promises in 2006 and 2009, and repeated calls from Canada and international NGOs, the government has yet to take this crucial concrete step to affirm our commitment to upholding human rights at home and around the world. There is simply no excuse. We cannot condemn torture and ignore effective measures to prevent it. As ever, the world is going to judge Canada by our actions, not just our words.

Of course, the bill speaks to the reality that acts of horrific and repeated abuse and violence do not just happen in foreign jails far from Canadian shores. They take place within our borders, in our communities.

As organizations like the BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition and the Canadian Federation of University Women have rightly pointed out, these abuses disproportionately target women and girls. I am thankful to those organizations and others for their advocacy on this issue.

As we sit here and debate the bill and its connection to gender-based violence, we must recognize that far more action is needed to not just reduce but end violence against women and girls in Canada.

My colleague, the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski proposed a motion in this House to develop a national action plan to end violence against women. She presented a wonderful town hall in my community of Victoria, where we addressed these issues about violence against women and girls. That action plan I commend to this House to this day as still being vitally necessary.

The motion would have led to better policies to prevent violence and support survivors, and more action to address socio-economic factors that contribute to violence, among many other things.

Despite the defeat of that initiative at the hands of the last Conservative government, I assure members we are going to keep pushing in this House for that action plan to end violence against women. We hope the new government understands the necessity to take that action and makes the investments in shelters, affordable housing, and emergency resources, so no woman is denied the help she needs to escape an abusive and sometimes torture situation that she faces.

There are many steps we can take to uphold our international commitment to eliminate torture, to prevent the most horrific acts of violence within our communities, and to support the survivors.

In my view, the bill is an important step along that path. It definitely merits further consideration in this House. With the help of the member for London North Centre, I am sure we can do a better job to ensure that the bill meets our international obligations, does not contradict sections of the Criminal Code, is appropriately harmonized with the sentences, and that we can get it right. Technical amendments should not stand in the way of justice.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to private member's Bill C-242, an act to amend the Criminal Code, inflicting torture.

I would like to begin by thanking the member for London North Centre for his advocacy on this very serious issue. We can all agree that torture and all forms of violence have no place in our society.

The bill before us seeks to amend the Criminal Code to create a new offence, specifically prohibiting any person from inflicting torture on any other person—that is, private torture—for the purpose of intimidating or coercing that person. This new offence would be punished by a maximum term of life imprisonment.

As I have said, we do condemn all acts of torture; however the government has issues with this particular bill. Briefly, this bill aims to prohibit torture committed by non-state actors. The new offence would be punished by a maximum term of life imprisonment.

In contrast, the existing crime of torture, found in section 269.1 of the Criminal Code, is restricted to state-actor torture, which is torture committed, instigated, consented to, or acquiesced in by a public official.

This bill aims to specifically denounce the worst kind of assaults, those that cause severe pain and suffering over a prolonged period of time. Victims of such attacks could include women victimized by the most abhorrent kinds of sexual assaults, and our hearts go out to anyone who has suffered these deplorable acts.

The amendments proposed by this bill, while put forward with good intention, are already addressed in our criminal justice system, and they create an inconsistency by proposing a punishment that is not consistent with how the Criminal Code already addresses torture; and it overlaps with the already existing crime of torture set out in section 269.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Criminal Code currently has numerous assault provisions. For example, there is the basic crime of assault in section 265 of the Criminal Code, which has a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment. There is the crime of assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm, which has a maximum punishment of 10 years' imprisonment. Bodily harm is defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code to mean any hurt or injury to a person that interferes with the health or comfort of the person and that is more than merely transient or trifling in nature.

There is also the crime of aggravated assault, which has a maximum punishment of 14 years' imprisonment. Aggravated assault is defined as wounding, maiming, disfiguring, or endangering the life of the victim of the assault.

Also there are offences of sexual assault in the Criminal Code. For example, there is the crime of sexual assault in section 271 of the Criminal Code, which has a maximum punishment of 10 years' imprisonment. There is the crime of sexual assault with a weapon or threatening or causing bodily harm to the victim, which has a maximum punishment of 14 years' imprisonment. There is the crime of aggravated sexual assault found in section 273 of the Criminal Code, with a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. Aggravated sexual assault is defined as, when committing a sexual assault, wounding, maiming, disfiguring, or endangering the life of the victim.

As well, there is the crime of state-sanctioned torture set out in section 269.1 of the Criminal Code, which has a maximum punishment of 14 years' imprisonment.

Furthermore, the Criminal Code contains sentencing principles that can apply to non-fatal violence inflicted on victims. For example, section 718.2 of the Criminal Code sets out a number of aggravating factors that must be considered by a judge before imposing a sentence in relation to any crime.

Among these aggravating factors are the following: evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender's spouse or common-law partner; evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation.

In other words, the Criminal Code already contains crimes that capture the kind of conduct that Bill C-242 wishes to specifically catch, perhaps most notably the crimes of aggravated assault and aggravated sexual assault. Existing sentencing provisions do already provide a range of aggravating factors that could apply in a case of private torture.

In effect, I believe there is no gap in the criminal law that requires the creation of a new offence of private torture to provide for a remedy. The proposed torture offence in Bill C-242 is therefore not necessary. It is also useful to know that these existing laws can and do work effectively to address these types of cases.

Next let me address the issue that this would create an inconsistency in punishment. The proposed penalty for this new offence of private torture would be a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. I start with a basic proposition that similar crimes should be dealt with similarly.

As I have previously outlined, the crimes of aggravated assault and torture in sections 268 and 269.1 of the Criminal Code have a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. Even if the crime of aggravated assault is omitted from this equation, leaving us to compare just the offence of torture in section 269.1 of the Criminal Code to the offence proposed in the bill, the stark contrast in punishment remains: maximum punishment of 14 years in relation to section 269.1 versus life imprisonment in relation to the proposed offence.

Creating an offence of private torture could have the unintended effect of seriously weakening Canada's contribution to the focused global effort to prevent torture under the convention against torture. This could cause confusion as to what Canada considers to be its international obligation when it comes to the effective prevention of torture. This is because, as was indicated earlier in debate, there would be two definitions of torture, one of which, in the private torture offence, would be narrower than the internationally accepted definition of torture set out in section 269.1.

States that are reluctant to abide by the obligations set out in the convention could argue that they need not accept the internationally accepted definition of torture because Canada has enacted a private torture offence that contains a narrower definition.

It could be argued that this inconsistency could best be resolved by increasing the maximum punishment for torture in section 269.1 to life imprisonment. However, such a change would result in yet another inconsistency being created. The maximum punishment for aggravated assault would no longer be the same as that for torture under section 269.1 of the Criminal Code. It would remain at 14 years' imprisonment.

The result would be that someone who maims another by, for example, cutting off his or her hand, would be seen as less blameworthy than the state official or private individual who whips someone repeatedly.

In my view, it is far better to have the norm for maximum punishment for the most violent forms of non-fatal violence to be 14 years' imprisonment rather than to erode this norm by seeking higher maximum punishments for such conduct.

Let me address the final effect that the proposed offence would have on the Criminal Code. It would not complement the offence of state-sanctioned torture found in section 269.1. Instead, it largely overlaps with section 269.1 and thereby undercuts the exclusive jurisdiction of section 269.1 to address state-sanctioned torture. This is because it is defined so broadly that it captures anyone who commits the conduct defined as torture by the offence, whether private citizen or public official. Put another way, it is not restricted to torture committed by a private citizen.

The effect is that, if a case should arise where a public official commits torture as defined by the bill, a prosecutor would have the choice of prosecuting either under the new offence or the current offence found in section 269.1. Such a result is possible, especially if the prosecutor wishes to obtain the most severe sentence possible. He or she could avoid the 14-year maximum punishment for torture under section 269.1 of the Criminal Code by prosecuting under the proposed offence, which has a maximum punishment of life imprisonment.

In my view, creating this crime would likely have immense symbolic value to some of the most vulnerable persons in our society. However, symbolism alone is not enough reason to add yet another offence to the vast array of offences and sentencing procedures that already catch the most harmful kinds of assault and that already speak to Canada's ongoing efforts to protect the most vulnerable among us.

For these reasons, I am opposed to the bill, and I call on other members of the House to also oppose it.

I do wish to say in closing that the goal of the bill and the intent of the member is to advocate against violence, and that is a goal which we can all support.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his speech. He demonstrated an impressive familiarity with the relevant laws in question.

What I would say to his great technical speech is that the symbolism does matter here. I agree that more than symbolism is important, but we are here to debate the principle of the bill. If we deem the principle of the bill worthy, then we should send it on to committee. Hopefully, at committee those two things, the technical aspects as well as the symbolic aspects, could be reconciled.

I would say that at this stage of the debate, that symbolism is sufficient for me to say that I support the bill. With all of the intelligence and resources of the House, if we decide that it is important to have language in the Criminal Code that reflects the strong feelings that heinous acts of torture compel in us, we have the capacity to find technical solutions to allow us to express those feelings properly in the law and attach consequences that are in keeping with those feelings.

It is my confidence in the House that allows me to say that what we need to decide today is whether we affirm the principle of creating a separate offence within the law. If there are problems with technical aspects of the bill, we should at least give it due consideration at committee to see if those cannot be resolved, and they may well be resolved.

Language is very important, and we have already come to this theme in a couple of ways in the House. One we heard in question period, for instance. Regardless of what side of the issue one falls on, because I do not want to complicate it too much, we have talked about the word “genocide” and the importance of giving a proper name to things. Whether that name is proper on that issue is certainly a subject of debate, but we have had other debates in which language was very important. I guess that is what I am trying to highlight.

This bill highlights very well how important it is to people who experience terrible acts of torture—acts that go above and beyond what would be a typical assault and are particularly cruel and long-lasting—for us to call it what it is. It is difficult to understate how much it can mean to victims and their families when what actually happened is recognized for what it is in the language of the law in court.

There have been other times in my life, in various roles, when I dealt across a range of issues with people who felt that an injustice had been committed, and sometimes the worst part was not so much what happened or the consequences of what happened: it was that government or other authorities did not recognize it in the language that victims felt was needed and to the extent they felt it needed to be recognized. The language did not match up with the reality of what had happened to them.

Changing the law to create an offence called “torture” can go a long way when we think about victims and the effects after the terrible event. This is something we can do, if we get the details right, to help alleviate the effects after the events. I think that is the most laudable aspect of this bill.

It is important to any victim, but I think my colleague spoke earlier to the fact that instances of torture, unfortunately and predominantly, tend to happen to women. Therefore, it becomes an issue of also making sure that we have the right language to address something that is happening to women in Canada, including indigenous women, and calling it what it is. In that way, when people hear it, even if it is a passing report on the news, as is the case so often when we hear terrible things, the word being used will really capture what happened. It will not be passed by as another case of aggravated assault. People will realize in that 15-second clip, or however long it is, that what happened was actually worse than that. It was an act of torture.

I want to emphasize the extent to which I appreciate the arguments about the technical aspects of the bill, but I really think that what we will be concerned about at second reading is the principle of the bill. Making this change can do a lot for victims and their families. It is worth sending the bill to committee to see if those technical details cannot be hammered out. That is why I am pleased to support the bill today.

[Bill Casey, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for London North Centre for his work in bringing this legislation forward. He has been very determined and committed on this.

Perhaps a lot of people have not heard of the term “non-state torture”, but I was introduced to it by two incredible women in my riding, Linda MacDonald and Jeanne Sarson, both of whom are nurses. They are the founders of an organization called Persons Against Non-State Torture. They came to my office years ago, and since then I have tried to help them in any way I can to raise public awareness on this issue. These women are tireless. They are committed. They will leave no stone unturned to make progress in this mission.

I will mention some of the things I know these two incredible women have done in the interest of raising awareness about non-state torture and trying to make progress on the issue.

They have come to this Parliament and made presentations to the Standing Committee on Human Rights. They have spoken at several universities. They have been invited by the United Nations twice at two different locations to make presentations on non-state torture. These women have made presentations in several states in the U.S. They have been to Geneva, Switzerland to make a presentation. In London they spoke at the Feminism in London conference about the non-state torture aspect of the impact on women and girls. They have made submissions to the federal U.S. State Department. They have been on CBC and many other media. They have made submissions to Australia, New Zealand, and Edinburgh. They have been on op eds and news articles.

These women, as I mentioned, are tireless. They have been doing this over many years and mostly at their own expense.

The fact that all of these organizations are interested in hearing from them to me justifies us studying the bill at committee. Both of these women have spent their lives helping others as nurses, volunteers and advocates for victims of torture. They are incredible people and I am grateful to them for teaching me about non-state torture.

They have pointed out to me that victims of non-state torture know that torture is distinct from assault. It is delivered in a prolonged and dehumanizing nature. The impact of non-state torture is usually on women and girls, and it is usually permanent. It is different from almost any other.

I call on the government to work with the hon. member for London North Centre to acknowledge the unique and terrible impact of non-state torture. The member says that he is open to amendments so let us get the legislation to justice committee. I support it going to justice committee, and I thank the member for bringing this forth.

I also thank Jeanne Sarson and Linda MacDonald for their tireless work on this very focused human rights issue.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the statements of my hon. colleague who just spoke. Linda MacDonald and Jeanne Sarson have been tireless advocates on this issue.

I would also like to thank in addition to Jeanne and Linda, the Native Women's Association of Canada, Amnesty International for supporting the bill in principle, the Canadian Nurses Association of Canada, and the Canadian Federation of University Women. All have voiced either complete support, or support in principle in the case of Amnesty International, for this legislation.

It is better to put forward to committee a bill that is flawed. I am even open to definitional issues, difficult as it is for me to accept because these are acts of torture. It is better to pass imperfect legislation than to leave an unjust status quo in place. That is the message I would like to deliver to my colleagues.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?