I will do recommendation two.
Criminalizing non-state torture must occur, given that human traffickers could also be non-state torturers.
Our rationale for this recommendation is that the RCMP and police reports identify that human traffickers and buyers commit torture. This recommendation would provide a legal tool for them.
Canada has been asked twice by the UN Committee Against Torture—in 2012 and 2017—to incorporate torture by non-state actors into Canada's law.
In 1994-95, the UN resolution titled “1994/45 Question of integrating the rights of women into human rights mechanisms of the United Nations and the elimination of violence against women” started global recognition that women's rights are human rights and they suffer extensive forms of violence simply because they are women or girls.
In 2008, the Human Rights Council resolution 8/8 on CAT asked the special rapporteur on torture and state parties—Canada—to integrate a legal gender perspective that included torture perpetrated by non-state actors.
In 2010, the General Assembly resolution 65/205 called upon states—on Canada—to adopt a gender-sensitive framework in relation to the CAT, so all acts of torture are specifically criminalized “under domestic law”.
In 2012, the UN committee explained, in conversation with the Canadian governmental delegation, that it was essential to remove the discriminatory treatment of women or men who suffered non-state torture.
Criminalizing non-state torture occurs in many countries, or states within a country, such as Queensland, Australia; Michigan and California, USA; Belgium; and Rwanda, to name a few. This is based on the human right principle that it is not the status of the person that defines who a torturer is, but is defined by the acts they commit.
In closing, the UN Committee Against Torture makes the distinction that forms of human trafficking can amount to torture. It is our opinion that political perspectives that dismiss torture by non-state actors, such as human traffickers and buyers, are institutional betrayal and express attitudes of structural cruelty. Thus, we close with this quote from our chapter in Gender Perspectives on Torture: Law and Practice:
Canada's actions to legally misname non-State torture as another crime, such as aggravated assault, to reject [the] United Nations resolutions that encourage the Committee against Torture to practice human rights non-discrimination by becoming inclusive of gender-sensitive manifestations of violence that amounts to torture, to ignore that soft law sets standards of conduct not completely lacking in legal significance, and to refuse to consider evolving international law standards that address due diligence in a gender-sensitive manner mean that Canada is no longer a human rights global leader working to eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls.
We end by asking this committee to take responsibility to change Canada's future human rights treatment of all persons who have suffered non-state torture and human trafficking by naming and criminalizing non-state torture.
Thank you.