That's a very good question, Mr. Moore.
There are a hundred ways any defence can be raised, but you could have a situation where an individual is picked up and fails the breathalyzer test. You'd think it would pretty well be conclusive, in the absence of there being a problem with the breathalyzer test. Yet what you might have at a trial is an individual coming in and saying, “The breathalyzer test must be wrong; I've only had one beer or two beers over the course of a couple of hours.” You could even have several witnesses who happened to have been sitting around the table say, “Yes, I remember Charlie; he only had two beers all night.” Certainly that would call into question the reading.
But what we know is this: while it might have been easier 25 or 30 years to challenge the accuracy of the breathalyzer equipment—that's right, Madam Jennings is confirming—today the equipment works, and works very well. So what we want to do is restrict the ability of the individual to challenge it. If they do challenge it; if they say there's something wrong, then they'll have to show that there is actually a problem with the breathalyzer test. They won't be able to raise that doubt by having any number of witnesses come forward to indicate that the individual didn't drink or drank very little. That's the problem with it.
I know my time is up—I'm going to be meeting some people at a quarter to five—but I never like to leave without hearing from Mr. Lee, Mr. Chairman, so I'll accommodate him if you'll accommodate him.