With all due respect, it's the job of honourable members on a parliamentary committee such as this to scrutinize a bill that's been put forward, and to suggest reasonable changes.
When it comes to law, perspective matters a great deal, and the perspective of lawyers is critical. I wonder if you also believe that the perspective of those who have endured tremendous suffering is also important and should be taken into account when we name crimes. An important part of the rationale for this private member's bill is to call crimes what they are. This applies when someone effectively has been tortured, when someone has endured suffering, when an act, if committed by a state official, would have been called torture but is now called aggravated assault. You can see where I'm coming from.
I ask this question not in a combative spirit, but in a spirit that wants to make sure that you recognize—I know that members of the committee recognize this because I've spoken to them about my view, shouldn't we have in law the perspective of human beings who have endured great suffering and violence. Shouldn't that perspective be reflected? Shouldn't we call crimes what they are?