On Clause 8,
Rob Moore moved, — That Bill C-32, in Clause 8, be amended by(a) replacing lines 20 to 27 on page 8 with the following:
“preuve tendant à démontrer à la fois que les résultats des analyses montrant une alcoolémie supérieure à quatre-vingt milligrammes d’alcool par cent millilitres de sang découlent du mauvais fonctionnement ou de l’utilisation incorrecte de l’alcootest approuvé et que l’alcoolémie de l’accusé au moment où l’infraction aurait été commise ne dépassait pas quatre-vingts milligrammes d’alcool par cent millilitres de sang, de l’alcoolémie de l’accusé tant au moment des analyses qu’à celui où l’infraction aurait été commise, ce”
(b) replacing lines 2 to 16 on page 9 with the following:
“made is conclusive proof that the concentration of alcohol in the accused’s blood both at the time when the analyses were made and at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed was, if the results of the analyses are the same, the concentration determined by the analyses and, if the results of the analyses are different, the lowest of the concentrations determined by the analyses, in the absence of evidence tending to show all of the following three things — that the approved instrument was malfunctioning or was operated improperly, that the malfunction or improper operation resulted in the determination that the concentration of alcohol in the accused’s blood exceeded 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood, and that the concentration of alcohol in the accused’s blood would not in fact have exceeded 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed;”
(c) replacing lines 3 to 19 on page 10 with the following:
“evidence of the result of the analysis is conclusive proof that the concentration of alcohol in the accused’s blood both at the time when the samples were taken and at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed was the concentration determined by the analysis or, if more than one sample was analyzed and the results of the analyses are the same, the concentration determined by the analyses and, if the results of the analyses are different, the lowest of the concentrations determined by the analyses, in the absence of evidence tending to show all of the following three things — that the analysis was performed improperly, that the improper performance resulted in the determination that the concentration of alcohol in the accused’s blood exceeded 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood, and that the concentration of alcohol in the accused’s blood would not in fact have exceeded 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed;”