Justice Committee on Oct. 24th, 2022

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

You said that negligence during consumption must be proven. Do we have any data on the quantity of alcohol or drugs that a person must consume before we can talk about extreme intoxication?

[Joanne Klineberg]

The science on this issue is constantly evolving. It’s a complicated issue.

The level of intoxication depends specifically on the nature of the ingested substance, which may have a different effect on each person. The individual’s mental state when consuming an intoxicating substance can also have an effect. During a trial, the Crown must prove it.

There is a great deal of public documentation showing people how to consume these substances safely.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

We cannot forget that we’re talking about the self-induced nature of the intoxication, because…

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Ms. Brière.

Last, we will now have Mr. Fortin for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will continue along the same lines as Mrs. Brière.

It seems to me that this situation is so rare, we cannot find a single example where someone could successfully use it as a defence. Aren’t you concerned that, since this defence is so difficult to use, the Supreme Court will end up telling us yet again that it’s unconstitutional? Doesn’t the difficulty of imagining a situation where this could apply mean that the provisions under section 33.1 could be deemed non-charter compliant?

[Matthew Taylor]

I'll ask Ms. Klineberg to answer.

[Joanne Klineberg]

Unfortunately, I didn't quite understand your question, Mr. Fortin. Could you ask it again, please?

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

We're having trouble finding good examples. I consider all of you to be experts in this area, and there are even a few legal experts on the committee, but I don't think anyone has been able to come up with examples of situations where this defence could be used.

There is a principle of interpretation. It is said that legislators are never supposed to speak for nothing and that the legislation we pass must serve a useful purpose.

Are we putting ourselves in a situation where section 33.1 could be struck down because it's impossible to use that defence? Could section 33.1 be considered to be without legal force? Is there not a fear to that effect?

[Joanne Klineberg]

I think I understand your question.

The Supreme Court rendered its decision in R. v Brown just a few months ago. The Court believed that there might be circumstances in which a person would be able to establish that they were in a state of self‑induced extreme intoxication akin to automatism, but that they were not able to foresee that they might fall into that state.

Section 33.1 doesn't create the defence. It doesn't define the defence or the process for invoking it. Therefore, section 33.1 doesn't directly affect the availability of the defence. Rather, it creates a rule of criminal liability and defines the elements of culpability.

Instead, the question is whether or not the elements of culpability in section 33.1 are constitutional. As the Minister said, it was the Supreme Court that suggested this option as constitutional.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr Fortin.

I want to thank all the witnesses for their great testimony today and for helping us to understand Bill C-28. We thank you for that.

I have some members work to do, some housekeeping. The witnesses are dismissed. You are more than welcome to stay and listen to this, but you are free to go.

I wanted to give an agenda for the coming few meetings. For Thursday, October 27, in the first hour we have professors Elizabeth Sheehy, Kerri Froc and Isabel Grant. The second hour so far is Suzanne Zaccour.

For Monday, October 31, we have Hugues Parent, from Action Now Atlantic. In the second hour, we have the Women's Legal Education & Action Fund with Farrah Khan.

So far, we have three witnesses who declined our invitation. They are the Canadian Bar Association, the Barreau du Quebec, and Robin Parker.

I also want to let you know that the Manitoba Prosecution Service would like to be a witness for this, although they were not invited. I will ask if there's consensus to invite them. Unless I hear otherwise, I will invite them and have them appear either then or on November 3. I think we have a slot on November 3.

Hearing no objections, I'll invite them.

That leaves us with this additional witness for our November 3 meeting, which should be a two-hour meeting. After that, we'll get drafting instructions from our analyst on that.

Mr. Clerk, is there anything I've missed?

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, there might be some other suggestions for November 3.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Sure. Do you have any suggestions, Mr. Anandasangaree or Mr. Moore?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Since we're not filling all the slots, I'm wondering if maybe the clerk could give us a sense by party distribution of how many witnesses we can add on, just to have a full two-hour panel on November 3.

[The Clerk]

Sure. Yes. If November 3 is a full two-hour meeting, it would be good to have five or six more witnesses, in terms of giving us room if any decline or whatnot.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Mr. Clerk, can you distribute that among the parties? Is there any party that has not given their full roster or how many each of us should give? I think that's what Mr. Anandasangaree is trying to establish.

[The Clerk]

Do you mean who has confirmed for November 3 so far?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Basically, it's based on who has confirmed and those who have declined. If there is a party.... Maybe you can send just a breakdown to us this afternoon. If we're giving you six names, then it should be two Liberals, two Conservatives, or what have you. If you could break that down for us, then we could maybe have the names to you by the end of day, Wednesday, by five o'clock.

[The Clerk]

Yes, I can do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Is there anything else that I might have missed, or is anybody in the room wishing to speak?

Mr. Clerk, can you have a look? No? We're good?

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. We'll see you on Thursday.

The meeting is now adjourned.