Justice committee  It's the one time I hope I'm proven wrong on it.

Justice committee  Yes. I hope I missed something. I hope I'm wrong on it, because it doesn't make much sense, but the combination of proposed section 320.28 eliminating three hours, allowing samples to be taken hours or even a day after on reasonable and probable grounds, that seems clear. Those s

Justice committee  I think if you want to really tackle delays, look at the minimum prohibition period.

Justice committee  I'm sure I can make that work.

Justice committee  Yes. In Ontario we actually have seen that, because if you plead guilty in first 90 days, you can take advantage of the interlock system and get your licence back early. There is a lesser prohibition. There are a few problems with that. It's available only to people who have mone

Justice committee  Not that last one for sure.

Justice committee  These people are charged. It's crown policy in Ontario that these are proceeded with in all cases. I think one of the reasons we don't see it that often, and don't see it successfully that often, is that defence relies largely on the credibility of an accused person who has to e

Justice committee  Can I add something?

Justice committee  With respect to seasoned drinkers who aren't detectable on the roads, stopping cars at random isn't going to assist in detecting them. Reversing the onus and creating this new impaired after driving provision isn't going to detect those individuals. Removing the three-hour time l

Justice committee  It certainly would be preferable. That's the ideal solution: treating everyone the same. Then there can be no argument that police are using it as a ruse to pull people over or further other investigations. It would take that distasteful notion right out of things. But we would n

Justice committee  If I could add to that, if the argument is that there are so many drivers who are very intoxicated, but such seasoned drinkers perhaps that they can escape even this very low standard, the problem is that randomly stopping people isn't going to catch those drivers. You're fishing

Justice committee  I think if you look at the rosiest, most positive example you can, Professor Hogg might be right. If we're talking about a very brief interaction with somebody on the roadside that happens infrequently, I think there's an argument that it could be saved under section 1. Arguing f

Justice committee  Thank you. My name is Michael Spratt. I'm a criminal defence lawyer. I practise here in Ottawa, and I'm here for the Criminal Lawyers' Association. In typical defence lawyer fashion, I filed a written brief, and I'll have to ask for an extension of time so that this committee