To add to Mr. Yost's response, there was a case, I believe it was in the early 1990s, when St. Pierre went to the Supreme Court of Canada. It was a situation where the person said that the reading was different. It actually still would have been over 80, but it would have been different from what the instrument showed. And in that case, the court said, yes, you have a defence. Subsequently, Parliament amended the legislation so we would take into account that the difference must also show that the person is below 80 milligrams of alcohol.
So this is tracking, in a similar way, trying to avoid that problem.