I think it's probably a joint answer between the two of us.
Certainly, the origin of the Convention against Torture was to recognize that there's something particularly heinous about a state and its officials undertaking deliberate infliction of suffering on citizens or non-citizens in order to dissuade them from certain political ends, to get information out of them, those kinds of things.
There certainly was an element around recognizing the pain and suffering being suffered, but the direction was toward calling states to account for bringing the power of the state in inflicting these kinds of injuries, both mental and physical, against individuals.
Our colleagues at Global Affairs are very active in the international community in terms of working with partners and others to make sure that this basic international standard is being respected. From the perspective of international law and international relations, it's certainly far preferable to keep the torture definition related to where there is state activity involved in it.
I would defer to Don on the question of different ways that this particular kind of deliberate causing of pain and suffering by a private actor could be accommodated in the Criminal Code .