I appreciate all the testimony today.
Mr. Wood, I'm reading your submission and what MADD has provided to us. I don't come at this from a legal mind, but I do understand what our government is trying to do, which is to put forward legislation that's going to prevent people who are impaired by alcohol or drugs from getting behind the wheel and causing bodily harm to other people.
I find your testimony and your assertion a little mystifying. Even with all the steps that we have since 2008, that police have the ability to have a 12-step procedure for SFST, excruciating training to become a DRE, defence counsel still object and succeed in making sure that a lot of that testimony is not eligible in court cases. However, you're putting forward a tandem per se program, which would likely be immediately thrown out by a charter challenge and would be extremely difficult to enforce.
How is it possible that a tandem per se approach could actually keep dangerous offenders off the roads?