Evidence of meeting #24 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was non-state.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
To be absolutely clear, it's the state of Queensland in Australia that uses that. It's still important, and France is another example.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Yes, indeed, and I want to thank the Library of Parliament for helping me do that research.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
In terms of Mr. Nicholson's suggestion, when the subcommittee met for our next group of witnesses, we did seek to find a comparative law professor who would also talk to us about other states that use “torture” for internal domestic non-state actors. We are researching exactly this question. There are some U.S. states that do this. There's Queensland, there's France, and a couple of others. We're seeking to find that out.
Conservative
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Thank you very much, and again, I apologize that I wasn't actually here for your earlier comments.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you, Peter, for coming in today and making this presentation.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I'm very glad women's rights and abuse were brought up earlier by my colleagues here.
You mentioned from the get-go that you're very passionate about the bill because of the impact on victims, and you want the crime to be named as such. If it was torture then it should be called torture.
I notice that in the bill as drafted, there is a higher burden on a prosecutor to prove in court whether or not torture occurred. We already acknowledge that in the justice system that women, specifically, and vulnerable people go through a lot of stress, especially in trying to get a conviction. I think victims suffer a lot in the courts. How do you think this extra element, with respect to proving that torture occurred, will impact victims, and how does that outcome compare with what you wanted the outcome of the bill to be?
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
As for why the definitions don't line up completely, that came as a result of consultation. The view was that since there is a state torture law on the books in Canada, my proposal would have to differ from that in some substantive and meaningful way. If that has created a higher burden, then that is obviously problematic. It will be up to the committee, I hope, to look at rectifying that.
As I mentioned before, I will be distributing a suggested change that I think will overcome that problem.
Liberal
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Let me read subsection 269.1(1) of our Criminal Code, so we're all on the same page. Then I'll read the proposed amendment in terms of the “torture” offence.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
You can just read the proposed amendment, if that's okay.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
The existing torture law says:
Every official, or every person acting at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of an official, who inflicts torture on any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
That's how the existing law reads. I'm glad you asked the question, because I wasn't sure if we were going to deal with my proposed change, so thank you.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Just to clarify, my question was specifically to do with the difference between aggravated assault and the proving of that versus proving torture under your proposed change.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
It's a more specific offence, but it acknowledges the fact—and it is a fact—that torture takes place. It's relatively rare, thankfully.
Let's think of the standard understanding of torture. It's the imposition of severe physical or mental pain onto another human being. When that has happened, then it needs to be acknowledged. Also, if it has happened, then it's up to the crown to gather the evidence that would allow for the offence to be prosecuted.
In terms of burden of proof, you pointed to a potential problem with how the bill was originally written. I've made a revision. If you compare page 1 with page 2, I've dropped the word “official”, basically, so that we're dealing with a generalized torture offence that applies to every person.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
So are you saying that if somebody may have been a victim of aggravated assault—was, say, punched a couple of times in an aggravated manner—more people could now potentially be charged with torture as well, if the definition is broadened by the amendments you are proposing to your bill?
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
No. If you follow onto page 3, it is clearly defined that torture is carried out for the purpose of obtaining information from the person or for intimidation or coercion, and it's clearly set out as the imposition of severe pain or suffering onto another human being. It matches exactly with the understanding of torture in subsection 269.1(1).
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I'd like to clarify something now for the committee, since we have your proposed amendment.
Mr. Fragiskatos, do I understand correctly that you are proposing an alternative to the bill before us whereby we would simply amend subsection 269.1(1) of the Criminal Code to remove the requirement that it be an official or somebody acting as a director of an official, so that we would have a consistent definition of torture throughout the Criminal Code for public or private acts and thereby deal with the international obligations and the so-called objection to a differential definition? Is that what you're now proposing to the committee?
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
It's up to the committee. You could go down that road. However if it's the committee's view that doing that would indeed pose a concern regarding international obligations, then I propose a new section 269.2, which would deal with a torture offence applicable to the private realm. It's basically the same wording except that if you look at the first paragraph of the amendment—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I understand that you're doing this to deal with the so-called objections to having differential definitions and international obligations.