Bill C-28

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (self-induced extreme intoxication)

Sponsor

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide for criminal liability for violent crimes of general intent committed by a person while in a state of negligent self-induced extreme intoxication.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-28s:

C-28 (2021) Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

C-28 (2016) An Act to amend the Criminal Code (victim surcharge)

C-28 (2014) Law Appropriation Act No. 5, 2013-14

C-28 (2011) Law Financial Literacy Leader Act

Debate Summary

This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Bill C-28 amends the Criminal Code to address situations where a person commits a violent crime while in a state of self-induced extreme intoxication. The bill aims to close a gap in the law created by a recent Supreme Court decision that struck down a previous provision, ensuring that individuals can be held criminally responsible if they were criminally negligent in becoming extremely intoxicated. It establishes that a person can be found guilty if they departed markedly from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in avoiding the foreseeable risk of a violent loss of control due to intoxication.

Liberal

Addresses Supreme Court rulings: The bill responds to Supreme Court decisions regarding extreme intoxication. It aims to fill a gap where perpetrators could avoid conviction by proving extreme intoxication made them not responsible for their actions.
Not a 'drunkness' defense: Intoxication is not a defense for criminal acts, and extreme intoxication is a rare condition where the person is unaware of or incapable of controlling their behavior. The bill ensures individuals are held criminally responsible if they are criminally negligent in their consumption of intoxicating substances.
Protects vulnerable populations: The legislation aims to protect vulnerable populations, particularly women and youth, who are disproportionately impacted by intoxicated violence. The bill intends to strengthen Canada's legal system and address concerns about the safety and protection of these groups.
Addresses misinformation: The bill combats misinformation surrounding the Supreme Court's decision, particularly on social media, which has caused fear and distrust in the justice system among young women. By clarifying the law, the bill seeks to reassure the public that individuals will be held accountable for violent acts committed while extremely intoxicated.

Conservative

Support with reservations: While Conservatives are allowing the bill to pass, they view it as a starting point and not the end of the discussion. They believe it's important to have legislation in place but insist further examination and improvements are necessary to address the concerns raised by various organizations.
Need for consultation: Conservatives emphasize the need for broader consultations with women's organizations, stakeholders, and experts to ensure the legislation effectively protects vulnerable Canadians. They feel the government rushed the bill without adequate input from relevant parties.
Protecting victims' rights: Conservatives stress the importance of prioritizing victims' rights and ensuring transparency for victims throughout the legal process. They believe the focus should be on holding perpetrators accountable and preventing violence, particularly against women and girls.
Future study: Conservatives have secured a commitment from the government to have the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights conduct a study on the bill in the fall. This study aims to invite expert testimony and improve the legislation based on the contributions and concerns of various stakeholders.

NDP

Supports Bill C-28: The NDP supports Bill C-28, which responds to the Supreme Court decision in R. v. Brown that found section 33.1 of the Criminal Code unconstitutional. The bill aims to restrict the possibility of anyone escaping responsibility for their actions by using the extreme intoxication defence.
Addresses concerns effectively: Bill C-28 effectively re-establishes the principle that extreme intoxication is almost never a valid defence, while respecting the charter. It requires defendants to provide expert evidence of automatism and allows the prosecution to argue criminal negligence if the accused failed to take reasonable measures to avoid causing harm.
Shutting the door: Bill C-28 shuts the door as far as possible on the use of extreme intoxication as a defence while remaining consistent with the Charter of Rights. It makes escaping responsibility for violent acts by claiming extreme intoxication a remote possibility.
Coercive and controlling behaviour: The NDP hopes for similar all-party agreement on legislation regarding coercive and controlling behaviour, which is often a precursor to physical violence, and recognizes it is primarily violence against women. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has twice recommended to the House that the government introduce legislation to make coercive and controlling behaviour a criminal offence.

Bloc

Bill C-28 supported: The Bloc supports Bill C-28's passage to address the legal gap created by the Supreme Court's decision on extreme intoxication. The member notes the bill's hasty passage and potential need for future amendments.
Addresses Daviault decision: The bill seeks to respond to the Daviault case, which allowed extreme intoxication as a defense in general intent offences, such as sexual assault. The previous Section 33.1 was deemed unconstitutional because it conflated the intent to become intoxicated with the intent to commit a violent crime.
Concerns about psychosis: The member raises concerns about the bill's limitation to cases of automatism, potentially excluding cases of psychosis triggered by drug consumption where individuals are aware of their actions. It is suggested that the wording of the proposed section 33.1 may encompass psychosis, which deserves further exploration.
Room for improvement: The member expresses hope that the government will be open to amending the proposed section if issues arise regarding substance addiction, drug types, individual predisposition, or emotional and family circumstances during the ex post facto review.

Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

June 22nd, 2022 / 10:10 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

There being no further members rising, pursuant to order made on Tuesday, June 21, the motion is deemed adopted and Bill C-28 is deemed read a second time, referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed on division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in, read the third time and passed)

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

June 22nd, 2022 / 10:10 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

We have a point of order. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

June 22nd, 2022 / 10:10 p.m.

Liberal