Thanks very much.
I agree with much of what you've said today, but I'm going to try and play devil's advocate here.
Bolus and intervening drinking defences, I take it, are extremely rare. We had the Department of Justice attend before us and I think they said they accepted that. Still, when they were before us, justice said that courts have referred to these defences, this behaviour, as reckless. Who would have drinks and use that as a defence in the wake of a charge for impaired driving?
Is there a way to amend the legislation and eliminate these defences, or significantly curtail them, and keep it constitutional?