This is the positive aspect of this bill, about which we have reservations and are likely to have even more, having heard your testimony. Should what is known as the “two-drink defence” not concern us at a social level? We may have gone too far. As you say, this bill may erode the presumption of innocence in a way which is inconsistent with the freedom that we seek to defend. I would like you to talk a little more about that. Is there something that can be done in the medium term or is it irreversible, in its current form? From a social standpoint, it seems to me that there is something here we should be concerned about as lawmakers.
I am 100 per cent in agreement with Ms. Beauchesne's arguments. In terms of revoking drivers licences, I don't know whether, as lawmakers here in Ottawa, we could propose amendments to have an individual driver's licence revoked, while at the same time respecting the provinces' jurisdiction in that area. In terms of the “two-drink defence”, I think that we should be concerned from a social perspective. I would like you to suggest potential amendments. I'm not asking you to do that in terms of the legislation per se, but rather to tell us what you think we should do.