Justice committee  The training is being done by trained police officers. This program was basically designed by the police. With a standardized lesson plan, specific instructors go and do the training.

Justice committee  Yes, they do.

Justice committee  The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that although arbitrary stops are a violation, the police have the authority to stop a vehicle to check vehicle fitness and driver fitness at any time. That really falls under the scenario you're giving, that we've stopped a person because of a licence plate you can't read, or it's just a simple road check where we're running vehicles through, but by the time the person gets to you, they may have been twelfth to thirteenth in line, and we'd have no driving evidence.

Justice committee  It could be something as simple as the odour of alcohol on the person's breath or coming from the vehicle, empty containers.

Justice committee  Yes, it is. The tests are done roadside to elevate suspicion to reasonable and probable grounds. As far as the Supreme Court ruling on whether or not it's incriminatory is concerned, if we're using it just to elevate the suspicion to grounds for a breath demand, we're not required to provide the charter warning.

Justice committee  Intoxilyzer or DataMaster, yes.

Justice committee  I don't think so. I believe the article you're talking about was out of Edmonton last November. Part of the training is testing people who are under the influence of drugs, and after a course in Edmonton last November, we partnered with the Métis Child & Family Services Society in Edmonton, whereby they had volunteers who are drug users come in under the influence.

Justice committee  This program is being used right across North America. It falls under the auspices of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. They have a drug recognition expert section which, in turn, has a technical advisory panel. The technical advisory panel is composed of police officers, members of the bar, toxicologists, physicians, and ophthalmologists.

Justice committee  He could, but there's really no point in doing so. If we have the evidence for a charge under paragraph 253(b), being over 80 milligrams percent, then there's no need to go through the drug evaluation.

Justice committee  Yes, as long as the person's blood alcohol concentration is over the legal limit, we would go with the alcohol impaired driving charge. The only way we wouldn't is if the blood alcohol level is either right at the 0.08 or 80 milligrams percent, and that's just because the courts have a hard time accepting 80 as the actual number for charging, or if the end issue was so grossly inconsistent with the blood alcohol concentration.

Justice committee  Again, if it's over 0.08 they generally go straight to it. If it's close or borderline, then it would be either the officer—if he's had some training in drug impairment—or the DRE who would make that call, yes.

Justice committee  To be honest, I'm not sure. I can check with some of the crowns who have dealt with them. B.C., in particular, would have an idea, but I can't say for sure.

Justice committee  I know that over two dozen of the trained officers have been declared experts by the courts. Overall, and I'm guesstimating here, 150 or so would have gone to trial.

Justice committee  We can, as long as they're voluntary. The person can refuse to do them, and we have no recourse. There is a Supreme Court of Canada ruling that we can ask the person to do them, not tell them that they're voluntary, obtain the results, and then use them for elevation of suspicion to reasonable and probable grounds.

Justice committee  We can, but again, if it's voluntary.