That's right.
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.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Would you now prefer this to be what the committee will do, or is your preference that it be the original bill that we were discussing?
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Yes, indeed. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I handed it around and said “the proposed amendment”. Certainly this is what I'm okay with.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We'll recognize that this is now what you're proposing. It's essentially identical to the definition in section 269.1 with an identical sentence except for the fact that it is not at the behest of or done by an official.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Okay.
We're going to move to the Conservatives' round of questions to see if Mr. Cooper or Mr. Falk has anything.
Mr. Cooper.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.
Unfortunately, I had to be at the House so I missed your presentation and missed all the questions up until now, so I hope I'm not too repetitive.
It goes without saying that although there is no specific Criminal Code provision, other than section 269.1, that expressly refers to torture, that torture, depending on the scope and nature of the act, could fall under a whole series of different sections of the Criminal Code whether it be forcible confinement or kidnapping or aggravated assault. Those various sections are routinely used. The tests are clear. The case law is well developed.
Perhaps you could explain where exactly the void in the Criminal Code is that would form the basis for your private member's bill.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Sure, no problem, and it's perfectly fine that you were in the House. You were doing your job.
You ask a very good question. If you go back to the minutes after today, you will see exactly how that question was answered at the outset. Mr. Falk was, I think, the first person who asked me that question.
I quoted Theodor Adorno, the philosopher, who said that the condition of truth is allowing suffering to speak. When we apply a term such as aggravated assault, we're not allowing suffering to speak. If torture has happened, we ought to call it torture, because that reflects the victim's experience. Once that happens, meaningful healing can take place. That is how I answered that question.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
I want to ask, and perhaps you've already addressed it, because, again, I haven't had a chance to go through your proposed amendments....
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Another concern I had, and I raised it when I spoke in the House on your private member's bill, was the difference in terms of sentencing under Bill C-242 and section 269.1 of the Criminal Code. Under section 269.1, the sentence is up to 14 years' imprisonment, whereas under your bill, Bill C-242, it would be life imprisonment.
Arguably, you would be creating two different tests, two different standards, and two different sentences, depending on whether the act was carried out in the state context or the non-state context. Have you been able to reconcile that issue?
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Michael, when you have more time and have examined the amendment I proposed, you'll see that 14 years is what I'm okay with.
With regard to the call for life imprisonment, some have asked whether I was trying to make a statement with that. I suppose perhaps I was, but I still think that kind of an offence is....and I would say the same for state torture. When torture happens, whether it's by a state official or carried out in the private realm, I think it warrants a discussion as to the punishment, and I think life imprisonment is appropriate.
However, to deal with some of the concerns that exist from a legal perspective, I would be open to an amendment that would take the punishment back to 14 years.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Well, I have a short question, and it's a broad question dealing with the question of certainty.
I guess there is some concern about the uncertainty of the test. This is a new test under your private member's bill, so perhaps you could comment on the concern about the uncertainty in terms of applying this new section.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Sure.
As for certainty, I would say it's up to the courts to determine. If an offence falls within the definition that's proposed, then that test has been passed. I'm not sure what else to say on that. If an act of torture has taken place, if it is found that an offender has carried out a crime that matches with the definition that is proposed, then it should be provable in court. I don't think it creates any negative consequence from a legal perspective. I don't think it causes a burden issue at all.
Colleagues, that's my humble perspective. I've enjoyed the back and forth—I really have. That's a humble perspective, and you're free to debate it between yourselves whenever you like.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
Ms. Hardcastle, do you have anything further?
It's your round, and that will be the last round for Mr. Fragiskatos.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Quickly, in light of the amendment—and I appreciate that everybody is getting their heads around it and I don't have the continuity of being at the past meetings—let's just take another minute.
What's the difference if I'm saying we're expanding the definition of torture or I'm saying we're adding it to the Criminal Code? We're adding private torture to the Criminal Code. Is it the same thing essentially, or is there a nuance that you're trying to—
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I proposed section 269.2 as an amendment because there could be concerns around Canada's international legal obligations. If you were to merge the two, perhaps it could create some issues, although France has done that and there doesn't appear to be a problem.
It's up to the committee to consider. This is my humble suggestion. This is an amendment I've put forward in good faith; it comes from a good place. If it's the view of the committee to look at section 269.1 and provide a generalized definition, then it would match with what exists in France and in the state of Queensland. Granted, it is a state, but it does have international obligations as well, and there's obviously a precedent there. I don't think Canada would be condemning itself in any way, but that is my humble view, and again, you're free to debate it.
I'm trying to be as careful as possible in dealing with the concern around international legal obligations.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Ms. Hardcastle, for clarity, what was happening was that a new section was being inserted as proposed subsection 268.1(1). In that section, there were subtle differences between the definition of torture and some of the wording in the existing subsection 269.1(1) related to public officials and people acting at their behest.
Mr. Fragiskatos is now proposing that we simply replicate the language of subsection 269.1(1), creating again a new section on private acts. However, there would be no distinction in language, other than that we would be taking out the requirement that it be done by a public official.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Mr. Fragiskatos, I want to thank you for being our guinea pig. You are the first member of Parliament who has been here as a private member presenting a private member's bill, so we have all practised on you.