It would be my pleasure.
The first issue is whether or not the bill, as constituted, would limit the defensibility to testify that I only had two drinks. I think it's perfectly permissible for Parliament to decide to prefer the evidence of a scientifically established machine after the fellow has already failed a roadside screening test, after the officer has reason to suspect the fellow has alcohol in his body, and to prefer the results of the machine over the unsubstantiated denial of guilt of the accused. It's my view that Parliament is perfectly entitled to make those choices as to the weight that evidence is to be given.
If in fact the Supreme Court of Canada ultimately decides, in its infinite wisdom, that the legislation goes too far, it no doubt can narrow the scope of the limitations on the evidence. I'm not particularly troubled by this limit on the defensibility to testify. If the Supreme Court ultimately says it has gone too far, then I'm sure the Supreme Court will suggest that this evidence may come in. In other words, it may modify the legislation as passed, by use of the charter.
There are a number of other jurisdictions that use other means of narrowing this kind of defence, such as the U.K. and other jurisdictions.
The second question you raise relates to what happens to the individual who is in possession of a steroid under this legislation. Unless the individual admits that he has drugs in his body, it's very unlikely the officer is going to have a suspicion that he has drugs in his body. Once the individual says he has taken a steroid and has a drug in his body, the police officer is then going to have to.... I don't think most police officers have had the experience of saying to people, when they're pulled over, “How are you?” and then immediately having those people confessing that they have drugs in their body, but theoretically it could happen. If he says, “Yes, I'm a bodybuilder and I take a steroid”, the officer may simply reach the reasonable conclusion that there are no signs of impairment, that the drug doesn't impair, and simply say, “Thank you very much, you're on your way”.
I go to Starbucks. When I come out of Starbucks, I'm drinking caffeine. I think the bold coffee has sufficient caffeine in it. I have a drug in my body. Am I concerned about officers pulling over people—