Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'll turn to Ms. Ritchie.
The issue of the person's best interests bothers me a bit. Obviously, a factor in establishing the absence of mens rea would be that the person exercised improper control over an individual, but that the act was in the individual's best interests. Take the example of a situation where an individual wants to jump off a bridge and a person holds the individual back to prevent them from doing so. In these types of cases, the issue is quite clear.
That said, why is this exception being introduced in the bill? In your opinion, is it a good idea to add to the Criminal Code proposed subsection 264.01(5), whereby an accused who is charged can, as a defence, say that the act was in the victim's best interests? Shouldn't the courts interpret what constitutes an offence, taking into account mens rea and actus reus?
Could you shed some light on this?