Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses for being here and sharing your wisdom with us. This is a very important study.
Ms. Dunn, I want to focus on you first. Thank you for the important work that you do in helping women who are the victims of crime.
Today we're talking about whether or not extreme intoxication can be a defence for a person accused of a violent crime. You are a very important witness for us, Ms. Dunn, because, to quote the Minister of Justice when he introduced this legislation, we know that there are clear links between intoxication and gender-based violence, particularly sexual violence and intimate partner violence. As well, 63% of women and girls who were killed were killed by an intoxicated attacker.
In your earlier evidence, it was clear that you did not agree with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Brown, which reintroduced that defence into Canadian jurisprudence. My question is whether in your opinion there was ever a possibility that that defence should be reasonably available. I'm going to take the facts in the Brown case. He had consumed alcohol and magic mushrooms, and he said in evidence that he did not know what the impact of that was going to be. He could not reasonably have foreseen that he would lose control over his ability to know what he was doing.
In those circumstances, would it be reasonable for that defence to be available?