Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will continue along the same lines as Ms. Dhillon. In fact, she kind of stole my question.
Don’t you think it somewhat contradictory for an individual to choose to put themselves in a state of extreme intoxication—a very rare situation, according to the minister—then be able to commit a crime, but claim afterwards that they could not be found guilty because they were in a state of extreme intoxication?
In the case of involuntary intoxication, if someone drugged my drink, I can understand. However, we are talking here about an individual who chose to become intoxicated. Not just someone who drank five glasses of wine and whose blood alcohol level is over the allowable limit of 0.08% to drive, but someone who is in a state of extreme intoxication and chose to put themselves in that situation.
I know that this defence can be used unsuccessfully. However, do you have any examples of cases where it could have been used successfully? I am having a great deal of difficulty imagining it.