Yes, I do.
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.
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.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Bill Casey Liberal Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you, it's a pleasure to be here.
I want to say that Jeanne and Linda are members of my riding, and I've known them for over 20 years. They are the most dedicated human rights workers in my riding, maybe anywhere I've ever seen. They're so committed and persistent in this cause, but it's not their day job. Their day job is helping the sick and the disabled in Colchester County, Nova Scotia. This is their.... You can't call it a sideline because it's more than that. They provide a great service in Colchester County in every way. I just want to make it clear that they are valued members of our community, and we're very grateful for the work they do.
I just have one question. If this passes, what will the impact be on society? How will it change?
12:50 p.m.
As an Individual
I think society will change in many ways, because if we name a crime then we make it visible in our country. We start gathering data on the crime. We start to know how prevalent it is in our country. We have statistics. Then we change the interventions with police and in the court system. We change the interventions with the first responders. They'll understand the suffering they're witnessing and hear it differently. We'll educate children to know that non-state torture does happen in our country. For instance, with Lynne, it was her goal to educate young women. She'd never for a moment dreamt that the man she married would torture her. Young people have to know that's a reality that can happen in an everyday relationship.
I think it will make us a better society. We'll evolve. We'll follow the recommendations of the committee against torture and be a guiding light in the global community.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Bill Casey Liberal Cumberland—Colchester, NS
As much as you and I have talked over the years—it's been over 20 years—your words are hard to hear. Your presentation today is hard to hear.
I'm sure, in some cases, you've had a hard time convincing people of the seriousness of this torture issue.
Do you have a thought on that? The words you used today are words that a lot of Canadians have never heard.
12:50 p.m.
As an Individual
I guess, Bill, I'd go to the positive.
This is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and I'm surprised how many people in Canada do not even know that it exists in this context. We take it to schools. When we educate in the schools, we take the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We're trying to educate children about equality.
You put it up there and go to article 5, which reads, “No one shall be subjected to torture”, and you have say it's only the people who are state tortured who have that human right. They'll look at us and ask how that can be.
We educate different ages: grade 7, high school. Some of them take the universal declaration, kind of hug it, and say that we have something there. They question the inequality that exists when we don't have article 5 applied to every person, regardless of who they are in this country. I would add that it is very significant in how we change our society, our young children.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
It's good to remember that John Humphrey, a Canadian, was the author of the universal declaration.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
He was a former law professor of mine at McGill, and a very great man.
Ms. Hardcastle.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you.
There's so much for this whole committee to deeply reflect on.
I know you were here earlier. One comment I'd like to give you a chance to respond to is with regard to equating torture and what you've described with someone getting a life sentence. I hope you know what I'm getting at without my having to say it.
It was mentioned earlier how our sentencing reflects this hierarchy of crimes. I know there will be more that this committee will have to deeply reflect on. However, on the idea of torture as equated to murder with regard to the small pieces, however you want to go into it, I would like to hear you talk a bit more about how this can be named torture but will still have just an aggravated assault definition on it. You've just changed the name. Is there something problematic with that? I think it's a deeper question for the committee.
You heard some of the comments earlier today. I'd like to hear you respond to that.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Yes, around the sentencing issue. It's not taking away a life, so why should you have a life sentence?
12:55 p.m.
As an Individual
I feel that the bill is so important that if members in the House are concerned about the inconsistency between state torture sentencing and non-state torture sentencing, I'm willing to let that go. I think it's fair to be consistent. We can't say you're going to have a higher sentence for non-state than state, in my opinion. I'd like to see them both go to 30 years, but that's another issue.
I feel that the bill is so important to go forward, and if that's a blocker, I'm fine with the 14-year sentencing for both. That's my answer.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much for your very moving testimony today. We don't often see the impacts of violence, and I'm very grateful for the work you're doing with respect to that.
I have a question with respect to your work with victims. Have the people you've been working with gone through the justice system, and have their perpetrators been convicted of any offence?
12:55 p.m.
As an Individual
No. There are several reasons.
Number one, we don't have a law. If there is no law, they can't go forward and say they have been tortured. As Linda said, their statements are redacted even if they tried to say something.
The women we have worked with don't even know they are human beings, so they don't know they have legal rights and human rights. That is all foreign to them. Many would not have the capacity to withstand what a legal system would do to them until society is open to understanding the brutality that can exist in relationships. None of them have come forward for those reasons: no law, no support, and no social realization of what they have endured and what the impact is of the non-state torture they have endured.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
The sponsor of the bill mentioned a few people who have been convicted of aggravated assault.
Having victims who are so sensitive and going through a lot of disabilities with respect to what they have gone through and their experience, putting those victims through the justice system, and having them now prove an offence that carries a very high burden of proof, how do you think that will impact victims going through the justice system?
12:55 p.m.
As an Individual
The women tell us that they want the bill. They really want this bill so that they can be understood and start speaking fully about the atrocities they have endured. If I go to their voices, I know they are willing to try. If we open up our court system to thinking about non-state torture in the everyday sense and educate lawyers, judges, the police, and all of us, then we will evolve through that. But we won't even start if we don't have the law. I think they are ready.
