Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 1-8 of 8
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Justice committee  That's using an extreme example. To use a better example, if you have some degree of alcohol consumed, there's a multiplicity of other reasons why you may get a falsely high reading for a small amount. For hyperbole, I used an extreme example, but without some actual alcohol, you

June 7th, 2007Committee meeting

Mark Brayford

Justice committee  I have defended hundreds and hundreds of alleged drunk drivers over the last quarter century, and I know of no case in which someone has successfully been able to grab a breath testing device or get their hands on it. But more to the point, the Intoxilyzer doesn't use a wet syste

June 7th, 2007Committee meeting

Mark Brayford

Justice committee  There are many times when there are potential problems with devices, and you can appreciate how you can't prove it after the fact.

June 7th, 2007Committee meeting

Mark Brayford

Justice committee  Perhaps I didn't express myself very well, because what I'm saying is this. If we go back to when Dr. Borkenstein introduced the breathalyzer, his view was that the test should be confirmatory of physical observations and that it should take both to convict someone. What I'm say

June 7th, 2007Committee meeting

Mark Brayford

Justice committee  I only agree with that to this extent: where there is no basis on which the physical observations by the police officer would permit him to say, “I disbelieve the accused”. All a judge needs to have before the court in order to reject the two-beer defence is a basis on which to s

June 7th, 2007Committee meeting

Mark Brayford

Justice committee  I definitely do not believe we should ever remove the two-beer defence whatsoever. Under no circumstances, in my view, should we ever say to an accused person that because of the fact that they might come and lie, we're going to deem their evidence to be inadmissible. Trials are

June 7th, 2007Committee meeting

Mark Brayford

Justice committee  I certainly agree with the suggestion that possession in an automobile is not a major component of this bill. Quite frankly, it doesn't add a lot to the bill. As far as the potential unfairness stemming from a charge for it, I can colloquially say it's one of the most unfair part

June 7th, 2007Committee meeting

Mark Brayford

Justice committee  Thank you. I appear on behalf of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers. We're a national organization, an umbrella organization of all the defence lawyers' organizations throughout Canada. I am personally one of the vice-presidents from western Canada, from Saskatoo

June 7th, 2007Committee meeting

Mark Brayford