Thank you, Mr. Liepert.
Are there any other short questions? If not, I have one, colleagues, if that's okay.
I have a short question for you, Mr. Wood. I want to understand your testimony a bit better.
You're aware, Mr. Wood, that Mothers Against Drunk Driving has stated that they're very disappointed with your recommendations. They say, first, that your assertion that Bill C-46 may make matters worse for drug-impaired driving victims is unfounded, and second, that your proposed alternative, the tandem per se drug-impaired driving legislation, would pose major enforcement problems and would likely be subject to serious legal challenges under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
You spoke about something concrete, though. You said, and I want to get your words absolutely correct, that it was “very, very rare” that there would be a prosecution if you were under the per se limit. Did I get that right? I believe you stated that in Colorado you had spoken to a number of prosecutors and they said that was very rare.
What I don't understand there is that, as Mr. Nicholson rightly said, proposed subsection 320.14(1), in paragraph (a), says this:
Everyone commits an offence who (a) operates a conveyance while the person's ability to operate it is impaired to any degree by alcohol or a drug or by a combination of alcohol and a drug;
It's a totally different offence from the ones that have the per se limit. I'm wondering about this. Have you done any study in Canada or do you have any information about people charged in Canada under this section or under the preceding section that related to this in today's Criminal Code when they were charged? Do you have evidence that such a prosecution very rarely succeeds if they actually do a test and they fall under the limit?