Okay, thank you.
Mr. Spratt, I'd like to continue with you on the issue of the bolus or intervening drinking defence. I heard your comments on that regarding how rare it is. I think one of the other witnesses said as well that it's used very infrequently. I'm wondering why that would be. Why wouldn't it be used more routinely if the evidence suggested that the person may not have been impaired at the time they were actually driving or if alcohol was consumed after the point when they were driving. The other part I'm wondering about is the fact that maybe these don't apply very often, because perhaps when the police or the crown realize that there is a big problem and that the person had consumed alcohol after and had spoiled the sample or whatever, they don't end up actually being charged.