Thank you, all of you. Who knew that constitutional law could be such exciting testimony and very lucid as well?
I want to jump in where my colleague left off. I was there on Monday when Professor Hogg testified. He did a report, a legal opinion, several years ago, but it was about checkpoints, where everybody is treated the same. I said to him that here we have random breath tests, where we can arbitrarily, at whim, choose people whom we want to go after. I asked him, if the evidence were like the evidence in Toronto where 8.3% of the population is black yet 25% of the cards police wrote in a three-year period were against blacks, or if the evidence in the context of Ottawa's data race collection program were as you say it was, if that would change his section 1 analysis. His answer was yes, it might. He also concluded that in his judgment, to be fair, that section 8, which is on unreasonable search and seizure, didn't need to go to section 1. He didn't think there would be a problem; he thought the courts would be sympathetic. But he did say the section 9 and 10(b) analysis would go to section 1. If this evidence, the kind that you've described in Ottawa and I've indicated in Toronto were present, he suggested the courts might conclude there would be a constitutional problem.
I needed to put that on the table. That's what he said, in my memory, anyway.
I want to ask you how you would feel and what your legal advice would be vis-à-vis everybody getting stopped at a checkpoint as opposed to randomized breath tests. Would that be satisfactory to you, or would you treat it exactly the same way?