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

Sponsor

David Lametti  Liberal

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 often publishes better independent summaries.

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 the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Sitting ResumedBudget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1Government Orders

June 5th, 2023 / 8:50 p.m.
See context

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Salaberry—Suroît, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C‑47.

Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation.

I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi.

Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times.

Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf‑sur‑Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished.

Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed.

I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C‑2, C‑3, C‑4, C‑5, C‑6, C‑8 and C‑10, as well as Bill C‑11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians.

We also passed bills C‑12, C‑14, C‑15, C‑16, C‑19, C‑24, C‑25, C‑28, C‑30, C‑31, C‑32, C‑36 and C‑39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C‑43, C‑44 and C‑46.

We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C‑9. Bill C‑22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit.

We are also examining Bill C‑13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C‑18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C‑21, C‑29 and C‑45.

I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House.

I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard.

We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed.

I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C‑47 in time for the summer break.

What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—

JusticePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

April 26th, 2023 / 3:55 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the Seabird Island First Nation.

On June 23, 2022, Bill C-28 received royal assent. It allowed for extreme intoxication to be used as a defence for violent crimes, such as sexual assault, where a “reasonable person” would not have foreseen the risk of a violent loss of control. Residents are concerned about the impacts this will have on first nations communities like theirs, which are often in rural areas that are underserved by law enforcement.

The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to repeal the amendments made to the Criminal Code in Bill C-28. They call on it to uphold its commitment to protect the safety of first nations and a right-to-justice system that honours victims by holding offenders responsible for violent crimes.

December 12th, 2022 / 12:30 p.m.
See context

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai

Perfect.

We will suspend for a few quick minutes—hopefully, we'll do this in the next one or two minutes—for our second review of the draft report of the subject matter of Bill C-28.

Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

December 12th, 2022 / 11:10 a.m.
See context

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 44 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of November 24, 2022, the committee is meeting to begin its study on Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts in relation to the COVID-19 response and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and by using the Zoom application.

I would like to take a few moments for the benefit of the witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating via video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

There is interpretation. For those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of “floor”, “English” or “French”. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

On our agenda today, we will proceed with Bill S-4. First we'll hear from the Barreau du Québec. Then, right afterward, per the motion adopted last Thursday, we'll do the clause-by-clause study. We also need to reserve a few minutes to complete our review, in camera, of the draft report on the subject matter of Bill C-28. As you all know, we have to report it before December 16.

Before Mr. Fortin asks me, I believe all the witnesses' mikes have been tested.

November 14th, 2022 / noon
See context

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank both of the witnesses for bringing our attention back to the larger challenges that we face in the justice system beyond those that we are addressing in Bill C-28. I particularly want to thank Ms. Thomas for reminding us of the interaction between poverty, systemic racism and access to justice in our system.

Since time is drawing to a close here, I'd like to briefly give each of the witnesses a chance to add anything that they want to say at this time in these hearings.

I'll go to Ms. Thomas first, and then to Dr. Roebuck.

November 14th, 2022 / 11:45 a.m.
See context

Conservative

Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Thank you, Chair.

Ms. Thomas, thank you for your work. My wife does work on behalf of women in a similar capacity, so I'm obviously appreciative of your work.

Thank you, Dr. Roebuck, and congratulations on your appointment.

I'm going to begin by talking about something that came to me earlier here today when I was listening. There's a crucial distinction that I think needs to be made here, and that is the raising of a defence versus the success of a defence, two very different things. The raising of a defence is dependent upon the threshold that has to be met, as in when somebody can raise this defence, in what circumstances. Here it's a question of whether there is extreme intoxication. The Minister of Justice came forward and said this defence will rarely be successful. But that's very different from saying this defence will rarely be permitted to be raised. They're very different things.

Now when I look at the Criminal Code, particularly sections 266 to 278 and onward, this is what we see: If a person wants to raise evidence of prior sexual activity, for instance, as part of their defence on a sexual assault or sexual interference or the like type of allegation, or if somebody is pursuing a record that relates to the victim, they have to go through an evidentiary hearing that is separate. In this case, we don't have a separate evidentiary hearing. We just have the defence that can be raised. In those two examples that I cited, as I recall, the victim is actually entitled to standing in the courtroom. What that means is that the victim is entitled to a lawyer and the victim is entitled to make submissions or make an argument to the judge.

On the one hand, we have this robust system that says we're going to have a high threshold, and before we even get to that threshold we're going to have the judge hear whether this is appropriate. On the other hand, we have extreme intoxication, and that defence can simply be raised and the victim isn't heard. That's what I see in Bill C-28.

As I was thinking and listening, what I was left with was this: Wouldn't it be prudent if we developed legislation that mirrors, say, section 276 to 278 and onward, saying that before you raise this defence, you actually have to have a threshold hearing before a judge, and at that threshold hearing the victim could actually get their own lawyer? Would that be something that would perhaps diminish the use of very questionable defences of this kind being raised—not being successful, but being raised—and would it take into account victim concerns more greatly?

I appreciate this is quite a loaded question, so I know that will probably take up most of our time.

Ms. Thomas and Dr. Roebuck, I'm happy to hear from both of you on that point.

November 14th, 2022 / 11:40 a.m.
See context

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

In the context we were using before, it may have been good to have action, but it's not sufficient to stop with Bill C-28. There's a lot more we need to do in terms of supporting victims of sexual violence.

In your opening statement, you talked about the challenges faced by women in general within the court system but also by marginalized women, including those who might use substances. Could you talk a little bit more about those challenges and what's being done, if anything, to meet those challenges?

November 14th, 2022 / 11:35 a.m.
See context

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

What do you think of the approach used in Bill C‑28? The minister had two choices: create the offence of extreme intoxication, or require that a risk of loss of control and risk of harm due to the loss of control be demonstrated.

I noted during previous testimony that some people had expressed doubts as to the effectiveness of this clause. This was the case in particular for Mr. Hugues Parent, full professor of law at the Université de Montréal, who said that the proposed wording did not include the risk of a defence lawyer invoking psychosis, for example.

What do you think about this? Do you believe there is a significant gap to be addressed before moving forward with this bill?

November 14th, 2022 / 11:30 a.m.
See context

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank the two witnesses for being with us this morning.

Mr. Roebuck, congratulations on the important position you hold. I cannot believe the position was vacant for so long, as my Conservative colleague mentioned. In any event, you are here.

In your statement, you made recommendations and used clear language. You said that there needs to be meaningful consultation and that a formal review should be conducted after two years. In your recommendations, I sense that you have significant concerns.

With Bill C‑28, do you think we achieved the desired balance between defending individuals and protecting victims, or do you instead think that the bill will not be effective?

November 14th, 2022 / 11:20 a.m.
See context

Conservative

Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON

Specifically I asked, sir, what your office is doing to contribute to the overall knowledge component as part of your recommendations moving forward. You mentioned knowledge, greater consultation, making revisions to the legislation and monitoring the data. Those are the four highlights I heard from your presentation.

I've heard from other witnesses that it was important for the government to respond appropriately to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. I am not critiquing the government. It was appropriate they do that, and we urged them to do that, but there's been a great deal of criticism in terms of the speed with which they pass the legislation without proper consultation and without proper public announcements to victims' groups so that the public can be informed that this is not going to be opening up the floodgates for future litigation.

As I indicated at the outset, it's bad enough to convince a victim to participate in this process. I personally engaged in a number of round table discussions, and notwithstanding my highlights of Bill C-28, there is still that fear out there that the defence now has another tool available to them to litigate.

I'd like to know what your office is doing to assuage those fears.

November 14th, 2022 / 11:15 a.m.
See context

Conservative

Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Roebuck. Thank you so much for your appearance today to help us in this important study.

I'm going to try to balance my questions with respect to both witnesses. It really depends on the timing. I know I have only six minutes.

I'll go first to you, Mr. Roebuck. I want to personally congratulate you on your appointment to this particular role. It is a role that is so vastly important to victims in this country of ours from coast to coast to coast. I would be remiss if I did not highlight the fact that this particular position was left vacant for close to 13 months, notwithstanding the cries from the official opposition and other members of the House of Commons to fill it, because there was a need for victims to be heard.

As you have indicated in previous testimony—I've done a little bit of research—there is a real disconnect in terms of equality in the criminal justice system between the rights of the accused and the rights of the victims. You have opined specifically with respect to section 15 and section 28 of the charter, how there is that particular imbalance. It's so important to have you here filling this particular role. It would have been so helpful to have your knowledge and your background when we studied Bill C-5, and also when we studied, most recently, victims' rights with respect to participating in the criminal justice system.

That being said, I want to give you an opportunity to perhaps expand on some of the recommendations that you spoke about. As a former Crown attorney, I am so acutely aware of the abysmal statistics we have in terms of successful prosecutions in this country. It stems from a lack of reporting. It stems from a lack of knowledge of rights. It stems from a lack of trust that the victims have with police authorities, with participants in the criminal justice system. You yourself have opined that there was a great deal of misinformation that was largely alarmist the moment the Supreme Court of Canada released the decision.

I'd like to hear from you, sir, as to the particular steps your office is taking to perhaps assuage some of these fears and some of the concerns that victims have, particularly as they relate to the Supreme Court of Canada decision and the government's response with the passing of Bill C-28.

November 14th, 2022 / 11:10 a.m.
See context

Rhiannon Thomas Women and Harm Reduction International Network

Thank you to the committee for your invitation to have Women and Harm Reduction International Network—WHRIN for short—speak about Bill C-28.

My name is Rhiannon Thomas. I'm here as the representative to speak about considerations similar to the previous speaker's.

Here is an introduction and our context. WHRIN was formed in 2009 as a response to a worldwide scarcity of services, research and training programs that are inclusive of women, female-identified and gender-diverse people who use drugs, by the global community of women who use drugs, as well as drug policy and human rights activists. WHRIN has spent the past 15 years working to improve the availability, quality, relevance and accessibility of health, social and legal services for women who use drugs.

WHRIN reminds the committee that drugs, including alcohol, while sometimes associated with violence, cannot be seen as the direct cause of violence. WHRIN would argue that drug dependency is not a disease or illness, nor does drug use per se negate free will and intention.

I am certain that the honourable members on this committee will be very aware that women are most often the victims of violence, including physical, sexual and socio-economic. By that, I mean that women in relationships in which gender-based violence occurs often do not have the economic means to freely or safely exit them. Children, as the committee knows, are often caught up in these situations as well.

As the previous speaker said, it is most likely that men who engage in intimate partner and gender-based violence will attempt to use this defence if it is made available to them.

For some men, both drug use and intimate partner violence may be expressions of a need for power and control related to gender-based insecurities. Intimate partner violence is usually inflicted by men who, buoyed up by patriarchal contexts, believe that violence is apposite in certain situations. Such violence occurs in settings where the perpetrator is in control. It must be understood as deliberate and, at some level, premeditated, independent of the amount of alcohol or other drugs consumed, if any.

Incidentally, this insight has implications for services designed for violent perpetrators, in which drug use should evidently be considered as a secondary factor in violence prevention interventions, given that the intention to inflict violence invariably precedes alcohol or other drug use.

Sexual violence is a place where we must be particularly careful with the use of this defence. Women are overwhelmingly the victims of sexual violence. This type of crime is one of the most under-reported, due to the burden of not having police believe narrative evidence. Even when cases get to court, survivors are cross-examined without trauma-informed approaches. If a survivor is a noted person who uses drugs, for example, their memories of the events are often discredited. In this way, a survivor can be blamed for a sexual assault, while the perpetrator—using this defence—has the potential to be acquitted for being intoxicated.

Additionally, if we consider gendered socio-economic realities, women have less access to legal supports. In most provinces, legal aid supports have been slashed for many years, so they are accessible only to the accused who are facing jail time, and not to survivors. Further, as parents and, often, the primary caregivers, women who may want to invoke such a defence may be reluctant to do so, due to the threat of losing child custody.

Importantly, due to the criminalization of many commonly used drugs, research on their physiological effects is limited, which would also impact the limitations of the use of this defence. To properly study if and how many drugs affect perceptions and the ability to make informed decisions is difficult, if not impossible, given the exemptions required. One drug we know a lot about is alcohol, since it is legal. We know that it affects inhibitions, perceptions, judgment and so on, and it has been clearly linked to violence—perhaps not causally—in many studies.

Finally, the criminalization of drugs, drug use and people who use drugs must also be considered. How will this affect communities that are most impacted by prohibition? Black, indigenous and poor people in this country—who are most often disproportionately incarcerated and have less access to pricey lawyers—certainly are not going to be in a position to pay for expert witnesses who can make assertions about the levels of intoxication and their relation to criminal intent.

I also would refer to the rising numbers of women, particularly indigenous women, in the federal prison system. You can easily find these numbers on the Canadian government website. I would encourage the honourable members of this committee to also read the report from the Office of the Correctional Investigator that was released last week, which pointed to how those numbers are increasing and how indigenous prisoners, especially female prisoners, are in prison longer and in maximum security more often. I ask this: Will this defence be accessible to these Canadians?

In summary—

November 14th, 2022 / 11:05 a.m.
See context

Dr. Benjamin Roebuck Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime

Thank you.

Honourable Chairperson and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation today. It's very nice to meet you all.

Today we are here on the traditional, unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I acknowledge our shared responsibility and my personal responsibility to work to address historical and ongoing colonialism, racism and oppression of indigenous peoples. This includes working together to dismantle the criminalization of indigenous peoples and learn from the resilience and vibrancy of diverse indigenous cultures.

As you may know, I have been recently appointed. I am so thankful for this opportunity to serve victims and survivors of crime in Canada. I am brand new, just three weeks in, so please be patient with me as I get caught up to speed.

I would like to thank the members of this committee for the tireless work on justice and human rights that you do. I know that there have been many recent decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada as well as government and private members' bills that require your attention.

The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime is an independent resource for victims in Canada. Our office was created to help the federal government honour its commitments to victims of crime. Victims contact our office to learn about rights under federal laws, to learn more about federal services available to them or to make complaints about any federal agencies or federal legislation dealing with victims. We help to problem-solve and find solutions when victims' rights have not been respected, and we collaborate with stakeholders across the country to identify emerging trends or issues that affect victims of crime. Based on this work, when appropriate, we offer recommendations to federal agencies and help to ensure that victims' concerns are considered in the legislative process.

When the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R. v. Brown that section 33.1 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional, it had immediate and adverse effects on survivors of violent crime. The wording of the law and the language used by the SCC are difficult to understand and contributed to widespread misinformation about highly traumatic and personal experiences in the lives of Canadians.

Organizations supporting women who have experienced gender-based violence and many young survivors of sexual assault, in particular, believed that the government had allowed space for intoxication to become an allowable defence for violence imposed on the bodies of women and girls. This belief caused considerable distress, resurfacing of traumatic memories, and protests in high schools where young survivors shared personal experiences, sometimes without the resources to do that safely.

As ombudsperson for victims of crime, I believe that there was an urgent need to act, and I am thankful for the way the whole government moved quickly to respond to the SCC ruling. I also appreciate the clear messaging from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the Honourable David Lametti, when he said repeatedly, “Being drunk or high is not a defence for committing criminal acts like sexual assault.” I think that this showed empathy and it reflects a hopeful posture to act on other concerns raised by victims of crime.

I also understand that the unconventional approach to passing this legislation before it could be fully considered and weighed in our parliamentary committees has created an obligation to meaningfully engage in that process now.

The full continuum of intoxication caused by alcohol and other substances is a very present reality in many of the contexts that lead to criminal victimization. In the messy realities of these situations, people can slip in and out of their awareness of their behaviour and their impact on others, making it difficult to establish objective criteria about culpability. Other witnesses will explain that the defence of extreme intoxication is predominantly advanced by men perpetrating violence against women. As the Government of Canada launches its national action plan to end gender-based violence, I urge you to consider this legislation through that lens.

Our office has a few simple recommendations that I will leave you with. Number one is clear language. Continued misinformation about this legislation will have consequences on women and girls. The wording of Bill C-28 is complicated, and we recommend continued and clear messaging to the public.

The second recommendation is meaningful consultation. The diverse perspectives of Canadians emerging in the committee need to shape the legislation. We recommend making revisions to the legislation if significant concerns are identified.

Number three is monitoring. Intoxication is very common in contexts of violent crime, and you've heard significant concerns from women’s groups and survivors about the possibility of this defence being abused. We recommend a formal review after two years to evaluate how the defence has been used in court.

Thank you again for your time. I look forward to the conversation.

November 14th, 2022 / 11:05 a.m.
See context

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai

I'd like to call this meeting to order. Welcome back after the break week, everyone.

Welcome to meeting number 36 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on September 22, the committee is meeting to begin its study on the subject of Bill C-28, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding self-induced extreme intoxication.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I'd like to take a few moments now for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. For interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. I also will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding.

Mr. Perron has a question.

October 31st, 2022 / 12:45 p.m.
See context

Executive Director and General Counsel, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund

Pam Hrick

I appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak to this.

My concern with any sort of reverse onus at this point is the large risk that the Supreme Court would find that to be unconstitutional. What I do appreciate about how this particular bill was tailored and implemented is the nuance that it allows to be brought to consideration of the defence. All the relevant factors that are able to be properly taken into account I think ensure the constitutionality of the legislation.

As to whether this sets too high a bar, or a nearly impossible bar.... I only caught part of the last panel, but I believe you had representatives from the Manitoba Prosecution Service, who were speaking to the extent to which they thought it would be possible to prosecute under these new provisions that have been implemented by Bill C-28. I'd defer to their prosecutorial expertise on that particular issue.