With your permission, Mr. Speaker.
In developing the changes before you, we initially sought guidance in legislation in other countries, specifically Australia and New Zealand. In those countries, the two-beer defence is not possible, but this is because people are told that, if they want to contest the breathalyzer record, they must have a blood test. They are told that they can find someone and, if they come back with a different result, they can use it. This is not very practical for the defence. We therefore expressed our legal opinion that an impractical tool had no place in the Criminal Code of Canada. I know that the two-beer defence is not allowed in those countries, but, in our view, the underlying basis for disallowing it is incompatible with the methods we use in Canada.
One of the toxicologists whom we consulted was a former president of their organization. He now teaches at the University of Michigan. He has told me several times that, in the United States, no one could use the two-beer defence, and that you had to find someone to claim that the machine was defective. I cannot tell you that I have examined the legislation and the case law of all 50 states. But I know that in Great Britain, you cannot use the two-beer defence because everything is based on a blood test. This is the situation in other countries as I understand it.