Justice Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2016

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

In my comments, I made mention of Megan Walker. Megan Walker has been a tireless advocate for women's rights in my community of London, Ontario, and across the country.

When I was consulting on the bill, she referenced domestic violence. In her 30 years of experience, I believe, as an advocate, she has come across so many different cases where aggravated assault has been applied, or charges along those lines, when torture is in fact what took place. If we're talking about creating a just society—we do have a just society, but if we're talking about creating an even more just society—we need to recognize that torture in the domestic realm does take place, and that women are the victims in many of these cases.

I mentioned before the various organizations that have come out in favour of the bill. There are many women's organizations. The Canadian Federation of University Women and the Native Women's Association of Canada are just two examples. On a constituency level, the London Abused Women's Centre, has strongly endorsed the bill.

I'm very happy you asked about domestic violence, because I think this would help to properly acknowledge some of the suffering that women in this country have endured.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thank you very much. I'm going to split my time with Mr. Nicholson.

It is wonderful work you've done here, and with a lot of thought. I hope you won't allow it to be watered down.

First of all, I just want to say that I find it immensely ironic that we're discussing your bill today, considering that at the same time we're discussing an extradition treaty to a country that seems to openly and happily torture and execute its citizens.

That being said, and I think Mr. Falk brought it up, have you given thought to minimum sentencing in regard to your bill, or was it only the maximum?

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

I explained already why I put forward a suggestion of life imprisonment. However, there are a lot of lawyers in the room who could look at this and think of an appropriate penalty. I would even say, and I repeat this point because I think it's important, that if you were to take it down to 14 years, and therefore allow the bill to be more legally palatable, I would still think it a just change because it acknowledges the human rights abuse that has been experienced.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I agree with you on that. I would just say that I hope it will not get watered down to that.

I believe in a lot of what you're saying. Especially with the victims' rights groups it's very important. I'm quite happy with the life sentence. I know you've put a lot of work into it, and you have a lot of great answers. Have you given any consideration to a minimum?

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

No, I haven't, but that is—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Okay, that's all I'm asking.

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

If you wanted to take it down to 14 years—

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Sorry, Mr. Fragiskatos. He's asking you about a mandatory minimum amount. The 14 years is a maximum sentence, or life is a maximum sentence. He's asking you if you have considered a mandatory minimum.

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

No. If you notice that I'm evading questions, it's because I'm trying to be polite. I don't believe in mandatory minimums.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

That's an answer.

[A voice]

Oh, there you go. Just say that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We like frankness at this committee. We don't beat around the bush here.

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

When presenting a private member's bill, one does try to be diplomatic, but I do not believe in mandatory minimums.

There you have your answer, Kelly.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I take it you didn't support the life means life bill yesterday.

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

You saw how I voted, Kelly.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I didn't actually.

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

Oh, okay.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I take it that's a “no”. You didn't support it.

Again, it's day of irony.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Nicholson, welcome back.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you very much.

I apologize for not being here at the beginning of the committee, but I, Mr. Cooper, and Mr. Rankin from the NDP were all in the House today on the motion that's before Parliament with respect to Atlantic Canadian judges on the Supreme Court.

I didn't hear what you had to say but I think you've addressed what I had thought about, so I apologize if you're repeating it again. There is a concept in our justice system that the worse the crime, the higher the penalty. There has been some discussion that if you give a life sentence for torture.... As terrible as torture is, generally in our system of law, to murder somebody is even worse.

Would you consider reducing it from the life sentence?

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

I would consider that. It's up to the committee, of course, to discuss that, but I would be open to that, yes.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

All right.

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

I gave other examples justifying why I put forward a suggestion of life imprisonment as a punishment. Perhaps that was making a statement and I'm proud to have done that. In our Criminal Code, the punishment for murder is life, but the same applies to high treason, in subsection 47(1). There's a complex discussion to be had around that, but I think the statement that I was putting forward was really to condemn the human rights abuses that have been perpetrated.

You're right. I've addressed it. I'm willing to take it down.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

That's excellent news.

I think you addressed this just as I was walking in. Sometimes we use terms that make our laws consistent, either with other countries that we deal with, or consistent with treaties that we've signed. I'll give you an example. When I was justice minister, there were people who suggested that we should change the term “child pornography” to “sexual assault against an infant”.

Part of the problem with that, as I saw it, was that there were a number of countries and they all used the same term. In terms of exchanging information, whether you're communicating with Britain, Europe, the United States, or Australia for that matter, they would all use the term “child pornography”. As you know, in this day and age we have to have co-operation and there has to be shared information, so if we have a slightly different name for the crime, that would raise another possible issue in court. You're getting information on one thing...so we didn't change the name and it continues to be known as “child pornography”.

I thought about that when I first read your bill with respect to torture. There is the United Nations, of course, and there is a certain definition of “torture”. This bill tends to expand that. We all agree that you have described terrible circumstances, and the bill certainly seeks to address that, but I was interested in your comments. I think that Australia is now using the term “torture” and they use it not just for the United Nations' definition of the state-sponsored infliction of torture.

It would be interesting for us, I think, Mr. Chairman, to see if there is some legislation and/or cases in Australia to that effect. Were there any other jurisdictions? Did you say France uses the term “torture” outside of the traditional definition?