Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I, too, want to thank the witnesses for taking part in our study. As Mr. Moore said, it's pretty unusual to be studying a bill after it has come into force, but that's how we have to do it.
As the witnesses have seen, we have a limited amount of time, so I want to use my six minutes to talk about subsection 33.1(2).
Ms. Froc, you talked a bit about objective foreseeability. In the bill, it says that, in order to determine “whether the person departed markedly from the standard of care, the court must consider the objective foreseeability of the risk that the consumption of the intoxicating substances could cause extreme intoxication and lead the person to harm another person.”
I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment. Objectively, when someone consumes an intoxicating substance, isn't there always a risk? The provision isn't about determining whether it was obvious that consuming the substance would cause extreme intoxication; it's about determining whether the risk was objectively foreseeable. When I first read it, I thought courts might determine that, when someone consumes an intoxicating substance, there is necessarily an objective and foreseeable risk that they are putting themselves in a situation of extreme intoxication.
I'd like to hear your view on that, Ms. Froc.