I'll take the opportunity to reiterate that it was an incredibly small gap that the Brown decision created, and I will emphasize again that simply being drunk or being high is not a defence to crimes of general intent, including sexual assault.
What the Supreme Court did here was strike down an unconstitutional provision that prohibited, in all circumstances, people from raising the defence of extreme intoxication akin to automatism as a defence to crimes of general intent, including sexual assault.
What Bill C-28 did was take a look at what the Supreme Court said in its decision about what constitutional responses might look like, and it chose to implement one of those two options that would comply with constitutional rights, which are important. The rights of the accused are important and are to be respected, of course.
I think the implementation of the provisions in Bill C-28 strikes that balance between the rights of accused persons and the rights of women and girls and all those who experience gender-based violence to be free of violence. It provides that pathway where there is some more blameworthiness in conduct and also allows for individual circumstances to be taken into account in the adjudication of these cases, which is why we have found it to be a tailored and constitutional bill.