The federal Liberals tabled a bill Friday that seeks to eliminate BԪַself-induced extreme intoxicationBԪַ as a legal defence for violent crimes, after the Supreme Court struck down a similar provision in May.
Bill C-28, introduced by Justice Minister David Lametti, would add new language to the Criminal Code that creates criminal liability when a person who commits a violent crime is BԪַin a state of negligent self-induced extreme intoxication.BԪַ
For a person to be found liable for their actions under the drafted update of Section 33.1 in the code, prosecutors would need to establish that they were criminally negligent.
The court would need to consider whether a reasonable person in that situation could have foreseen the risk that ingesting intoxicating substances could BԪַcause extreme intoxication and lead the person to harm another person.BԪַ
The specific circumstances of the case would factor into the analysis, such as the substance itself and the quantity that was consumed, the personBԪַs state of mind at the time and anything they may have done to mitigate such a risk.
BԪַExtreme intoxicationBԪַ is defined in the bill as intoxication that renders a person unaware of, or incapable of consciously controlling, their behaviour.
It is not a presumed defence, meaning that the test would only apply if a defendant specifically raises it.
This has only ever happened a handful of times, Lametti said.
It would not apply to the vast majority of cases where drugs or alcohol are involved BԪַ and BԪַalmost neverBԪַ in situations where only alcohol was consumed.
BԪַThis is not about being really drunk or really high,BԪַ he said, repeating several times: BԪַBeing drunk or high is not a defence for committing criminal acts like sexual assault.BԪַ
Marci Ien, the Liberal minister for women and gender equality and youth, told reporters the government has been increasingly concerned about online misinformation suggesting that the recent Supreme Court decision meant that being drunk could be a defence for sexual assault.
She cited social media posts with hundreds of thousands of likes and views, including one that suggested BԪַrape is now legal if youBԪַre intoxicated.BԪַ
Lametti said one of the motivations for closing the gap in the law so quickly was to address some of the rising fear and confusion around the decision.
BԪַYou donBԪַt want someone to think, BԪַOh, I can have a few drinks and do whatever the blank I want,BԪַBԪַ he quipped.
In its unanimous May ruling, the Supreme Court made it clear that being drunk will never get someone off the hook for a violent crime.
Justice Nicholas Kasirer wrote in the decision that under the previous wording of Section 33.1, convicting someone for how they behave in a state of automatism, or when they are too intoxicated to stay in control of themselves, violates principles of fundamental justice.
The wording had been added by the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien in 1995, in response to a 1994 Supreme Court decision that acquitted a man of sexual assault because he was blackout drunk at the time of the offence.
But it failed the constitutional test because a person could be convicted without the prosecution having to prove that they acted voluntarily or that they ever intended to commit a crime BԪַ even though a BԪַguilty actionBԪַ and a BԪַguilty mindBԪַ must ordinarily be present for someone to be found criminally responsible.
On that basis, the court upheld two acquittals of men who committed violent acts after voluntarily consuming drugs, and ordered a new trial in a third, similar case.
Some groups expressed concern about the court ruling, with Kerri Anne Froc of the National Association of Women and the LawBԪַs steering committee urging action to rectify a gap in the criminal justice system and protect women and children, often the victims of these crimes.
The court suggested Parliament could enact new legislation to update the language of the Criminal Code in such a way that BԪַextremely intoxicatedBԪַ people could still be held accountable for their violent crimes.
LamettiBԪַs office reacted with what he called BԪַlightning speed,BԪַ consulting with stakeholders, court interveners and members of Parliament to come up with a solution that could get broad support.
Pam Hrick, the executive director and general counsel of the WomenBԪַs Legal Education and Action Fund, appeared alongside ministers at FridayBԪַs news conference and praised the governmentBԪַs BԪַthoughtful, nuanced and constitutional response.BԪַ
Asked whether he expects the bill to be passed by unanimous motions before the House of Commons and Senate rise next week for a summer break, Lametti said he is optimistic.
BԪַThere is a point of agreement here, and I hope we can move this forward.BԪַ
The NDPBԪַs justice critic, Randall Garrison, said in a statement that his party will push to have the bill passed quickly.
The Conservatives say they are still reviewing the legislation.
BԪַ Marie-Danielle Smith, The Canadian Press