Okay, so Rob had only two beers.
Not surprisingly, defence lawyers have seized this opportunity to get their otherwise guilty clients off the hook. This defence has become a recurring useful defence. I would see it, as I think the majority of the witnesses who appeared in support of the bill would see it, as a loophole. It's recognized by the police, recognized by crown attorneys, and recognized by prosecutors as a loophole to get people who are otherwise guilty, people who in fact have a blood alcohol level of over 80, off the hook.
Many witnesses also discussed the fact that these approved instruments are an effective and accurate method used to determine the BAC of an individual. In spite of what Ms. Jennings just said, I don't think anyone is actually realistically challenging that the BAC devices we have now are somehow flawed or inaccurate. I think we heard testimony that they're tremendously accurate. But we undermine the instruments and we undermine the readings and allow an individual to present witnesses who are their buddies and friends to contradict the results.
It's important to mention, and I say this to Mr. Bagnell, that we're not in any way eliminating all defences possible to the accused. The person can present evidence to challenge the results, which can include evidence that the machine was not functioning properly or was not operated properly.
We must also remember that although an individual has the right to a defence, we cannot allow loopholes that are well exploited in our system to continue to be exploited. And that's what this has become. It has made a farce, I believe, of our system. We all know that a disproportionate amount of the Criminal Code is taken up by the impaired driving sections. This is a loophole that really does have to be closed. It's allowing people who are in fact over 80 to get off the hook.
So I'll close with those remarks. I think it is fair. I think it's not in violation of the charter. Of course, the protections under the charter are an umbrella under everything we do. The accused continue to have all of those protections under our charter.
I hope that alleviates some of Mr. Bagnell's concerns.