Justice Committee on Feb. 26th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Do you have anything to say? You have 45 seconds.

[Emilie Coyle]

I want to bring us back to the issue that I narrowed in on in my remarks, which is the fact that we have a crisis of mass incarceration of indigenous women and gender-diverse people in this country. In the federal prison system, 50% of the people we see are indigenous. As you all know, they make up only about 4% of our population. In the provincial jails, that number is even higher.

Why? It's because we are criminalizing indigenous people in this country at higher rates than we are anybody else, and the number of women who are being incarcerated is growing faster than the number of men. We need to pay attention to that. If we continue to address social issues with criminal law, we will continue to have this mass incarceration issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Fortin, you have the floor for 90 seconds.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

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?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

There are fewer than 30 seconds left.

Please go ahead.

[Shannon Ritchie]

Thank you.

I think it would be appropriate for the courts to establish that, because it is important—when you are acting in the best interests of someone—that this is not misunderstood. Looking at how that is used in a coercive way, specifically.... It would be helpful to leave it in there and let the courts distinguish that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you.

Mr. Garrison, go ahead with your last 90 seconds.

Thank you.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thanks very much.

I want to clarify that the bill doesn't say that just claiming it's in their “best interests” is a defence. It says that you have to demonstrate “beyond a reasonable doubt” that it's in their best interests. I think we got off...a little there.

I want to go back to Ms. Ritchie.

I think people around the table know that I regard the Okanagan as my second home.

What resources do you find are available? I've heard people talking about how we need other resources, and I think it's a particular problem outside of urban areas. Do you find there are resources available for women seeking to leave those relationships in the communities you serve?

[Shannon Ritchie]

There are resources. They're just not overly collaborative. A very resourceful victim can find resources, but it often takes an enormous amount of resiliency and work to do that. There are resources, but if they were more collaborative, connected and accessible.... We definitely need more.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

Thank you very much to all of our witnesses.

Again, I heard some of you say you will be submitting further information to us. Thank you for being here this afternoon.

Thank you to my colleagues here on the committee. I'll see you on Thursday morning.

The committee is adjourned.