Mr. Chair, in answer to the question that has been posed, I would make this observation that has come to us from forensic scientists who work on the alcohol test committee, and that comes to us as well from police officers. That is this: if one were to believe from the number of two-drink defences that arise in the courts across this country that the number really is valid—and this defence is raised in a huge number of cases, according to them—then we have a situation in which the operator error by the qualified breath technician or the machine inoperability—meaning that the machines aren't in good working order—is epidemic in this country.
These officers and these forensic scientists tell us this is just not the case. In their estimation, the two-drink defence is the most prevalent defence used in an “over 80” case.
For argument's sake, 60% of the time that people plead guilty, maybe 5% of charges are withdrawn for whatever reason before trial; so if another—whatever that leaves—35% are going to trial, the majority of those cases are going on a two-drink defence.