Excellent.
In fact, you mention a hybrid offence punishable on summary conviction. That is what we understand.
I would like to put a question to the Department of Justice expert.
Last week, we shared a fairly important point with the sponsor of the bill. We indicated that there could be all kinds of shady goings-on in the wake of his bill.
For instance, take the offence of refusing to breathe into a breathalyzer when asked to do so by the police; this will mean that the individual would have a far lesser sentence. So there could be attempts to avoid the impact of Bill C-590.
What does the department have to say about that? Is there not a type of injustice there? Indeed, word will get around. This will make Bill C-590 completely useless. Repeat offenders and people who drink very heavily will spread the word so that they do not go beyond the 160 milligram threshold mentioned in Bill C-590. They could simply and consistently refuse to blow into the breathalyzer.