Evidence of meeting #25 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 state.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I appreciate that, but I would like to have clarity for members of the committee, so I'm going to ask some pointed questions.
You've expressed concerns with having a name that is similar to the word “torture”, correct?
12:15 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
Correct.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
You've expressed concerns with the amendment, because the amendment replicates 269.1 and there are significant areas of 269.1 that would not involve non-state actors. Correct?
12:15 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
I'll turn it around. There are significant areas of the proposed amendment that only make sense in the context of 269.1.
12:15 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
Yes.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Ergo, from what I understand, the original proposal where there were those nuances taken, where there was a look at what was state and non-state, and they were removed, would not cause the same confusion as if they were left in as the amendment does.
12:15 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
That's correct. The more you avoid the confusion, then you're simply left with the question of a domestic offence. Then you look at the offence and decide whether the elements are appropriate.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Got it.
The final thing I got from you, I think, is that you do not see any area where somebody who could be charged under the new offence couldn't be charged under an existing provision of the Criminal Code. Correct?
12:15 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
The existing code could apply to this conduct. The proposal for the new offence is really just to have a more specific definition of denunciation. But the existing offences would cover the conduct.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Given the proposed new offence would have a higher evidentiary burden than the existing offence of assault, what you would be saying would be in order to have a rationale for proving a higher burden, theoretically, there should be a higher penalty. Otherwise, what would be the point to proving an offence with a higher evidentiary burden? Correct?
12:15 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
Or it signals to the courts that they should be looking more at the higher end of an existing range of penalty, if you go as an aggravating circumstance.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much. You've answered my questions.
Is there anything further?
Thank you so much to all four of you for having come before us. We appreciate it very much. I really appreciate your testimony today.
We're going to have an in camera session, which will be brief, as soon as the witnesses leave.
[Proceedings continue in camera]