I'll split my time with Mr. Petit, if that's okay with you.
Regarding Ms. Jennings' questioning, I just want to confirm, Mr. Solomon, that your understanding—even though you haven't had quite a chance to review it—is correct on the safeguards that are in place. I did want to state that up front. I am referring to your understanding on the suspicion that leads to the standard field sobriety tests, as well as the reasonable and probable grounds that lead to the work with the drug recognizance experts. I did want to put that out there.
I wanted to give an opportunity to Ms. Miller. Is there anything you wanted to say? You've been here for a couple of hours. Is there something brief you wanted to put on the record? We do appreciate all the witnesses' presence here. This is an important bill.
I don't have a major concern with some of the concerns that were raised, because I think people recognize that we have to do more, that we have to tighten up some of these defences. I went through an airport screener the other day, and of course the buzzer went off; I had to subject myself to some things that I wasn't entirely comfortable with. I would argue that you only reach the point you get to with the final blood test—as, Mr. Solomon, you have appropriately characterized--after you've failed at every level. If at some point you do not fail, then you do not go past that stage—you never reach it. But we have to have safeguards in place, and that is in fact a check on all the other preceding testing that has been done to ensure that this person is in fact impaired. I think it's important to have those checks and balances in place.
I did want to comment first, Mr. Solomon, that your characterization of the process is in fact correct.
Ms. Miller, is there something wanted to say?