Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would say this is probably about as close as we're ever going to get to that envelope of charter acceptability. My gut is telling me this.
So I'm going to ask a question to Mr. Moore. The section attempts to package procedurally one of the guilt and innocence battlegrounds that's present out there in the battle against the drinking driver. I have an obligation to take note of that ongoing battle—and the battle is ongoing. We're not by any means close to where we want to be. And I hope the court will take note of that as well.
We're not likely to make progress here unless we take risks. Simon de Montfort took risks. He was the first person to invite commoners into Parliament, and six months later he was dead and cut up into six pieces: food for thought, Mr. Moore, or Mr. Bagnell, for that matter.
In any event, I want to ask the question. And I know that before a bill is introduced into the House, the Attorney General signs off that it is charter-compliant. I want to ask Mr. Moore to confirm or the department to confirm that the Attorney General at the time this bill was introduced in Parliament did sign off that the bill in all its components was charter-compliant.
And I also want to ask if there is any comment with respect to charter compliance that would otherwise be public. I realize that advice to a minister isn't always public, but I just want to ask that and confirm that before I finally make up my mind on this amendment.