Extreme intoxication bill was rushed to close legal gap and correct ‘misinformation’: Lametti

Lametti said swift action was needed to ensure offenders who are criminally negligent in their voluntary consumption of alcohol or drugs can be held liable for any harm they cause.

The federal government’s “extreme intoxication” bill was rushed through Parliament last spring and is only now being retroactively studied because immediate action was required to address “misinformation” and close a legal loophole in the law, says justice minister David Lametti.

But some national women’s groups and legal associations say they were not adequately consulted on the bill and are raising concern about how it could affect women who become victims of violence perpetrated by intoxicated men.

Lametti was brought before the House of Commons justice committee Monday to provide testimony on Bill C-28, which updated the Criminal Code to create a new standard for criminal liability when a person commits a crime “in a state of negligent, self-induced extreme intoxication.”

It was brought in response to the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision five weeks earlier that said the previous wording of Section 33.1, which didn’t allow “self-induced intoxication” as a defence, was unconstitutional.

The bill was fast-tracked through both the House of Commons and Senate in June, an effort that required unanimous consent in both chambers.

But while concerns were were registered at that time about the government’s urgency in passing this bill, particularly by some senators who noted it is “peculiar” to pass a law before it is first studied at committee, the bill ultimately passed within a matter of days under the stipulation that it would be more thoroughly studied by both the Commons and Senate this fall.

Lametti explained Monday swift action was needed to ensure offenders who are criminally negligent in their voluntary consumption of alcohol or drugs can be held liable for any harm they cause to others while in a state of extreme intoxication.

Drunkenness or intoxication is not, in itself, a defence, and “extreme intoxication” — likened to a state of being an automaton — is rare and hard to prove, Lametti said.