Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate Mr. Bagnell's concern.
I would say to you that, first of all, as with any piece of legislation, a thorough charter analysis is done of the legislation before it's ever presented in the House. The Minister of Justice has to be satisfied that the piece of legislation is in keeping with the charter.
Now, the reforms proposed in this bill with respect to evidence to the contrary do not prevent a judge from assessing relevant evidence. Mr. Bagnell has mentioned a couple of times that you blow into something and you're guilty. Well, no, that's not how it works. They do not prevent a judge from assessing relevant evidence. They're designed to ensure that the judge considers the evidence—the BAC produced by the approved instrument analysis. That is the only scientifically valid evidence on the central issue before the court. That central issue is whether or not the person's blood alcohol concentration is over 80.
It must be remembered also that the over 80 offence is unique in the Criminal Code. There have been attempts to draw analogies—I think we've all done that—but the fact is that the over 80 offence is unique. It's the only offence in the code that is based on a substance being present in a person's body above a permissible concentration. Parliament established in 1969 the offence of being over 80, on the basis that at that level of BAC, the general population of drivers had a significantly elevated risk of collision. Therefore, when it established the offence, Parliament recognized that it was going to be necessary to analyze a bodily substance such as breath or blood to prove BAC.
We heard evidence that we're at the point where they're getting very accurate readings. But we also heard, and this is the problem we're seeking to address in this bill, that in recent decades, drivers charged with impaired driving were able to avoid conviction for being over 80 by calling on witnesses. These witnesses, we have to remember, and we heard testimony to this effect, are their buddies, their friends. These friends and acquaintances and family members perhaps give sworn testimony that the accused drank small amounts of alcohol, only two beers—that's where the defence got its name, although it could be one beer, two beers—which would not be enough to make their BAC over 80.
Time and time again, we heard evidence at this committee that these buddies are called to give testimony that, no, Joe only had....
Sorry, Joe. I was going to use a name that wasn't at the committee.