Justice committee  One of the things the criminal justice section has tried to be cautious about is treading too far into the more scientific areas, because we're not scientists; we're lawyers who have to understand certain aspects of science in order to do our jobs. So I cannot say that we've looked at stopping it at the second level, or, from a scientific perspective, whether or not it can go to the third level.

Justice committee  True, but I know Mr. Hodgson and Ms. Treacy have both made reference to the idea that when we're dealing with alcohol, it's one thing. When we're dealing with drugs, it's a different animal altogether. The concern of the criminal justice section is that we seem to be trying to shoehorn the drug-impaired driving problem into the same sort of framework in which we deal with alcohol.

Justice committee  Yes. The section's position wouldn't change in terms of being opposed to removing or curtailing that defence. We would suggest that the availability of that record would enhance and add a layer of objectivity, or an additional layer of objectivity, to the calling of the defence.

Justice committee  The short answers are yes, yes, and yes. To go back to the beginning, on the DRE testing, while I am cognizant of Ms. Treacy's comments questioning the utility of videotaping things like the taking of blood pressure, pulse, and body temperature—some of the components involved in DRE testing—our position would be that there is a great deal of utility in having those items videotaped.

Justice committee  The main concern raised within the criminal justice section involving the instruments or the machines was focused on what's happening at the time an accused person is being tested on the machine. This takes on a much greater importance when that person is later restricted from being able to testify about how much they had to drink and to have evidence to the contrary considered by a court in the normal context.

Justice committee  I apologize, Mr. Bagnell. At the time you were asking your question I was contemplating some notes I had written about something Ms. Treacy said. I would just ask you to repeat that for me.

Justice committee  No, that's not the way the criminal justice section sees it. Indeed, in my deep contemplation of moments ago, I was taking a couple of notes. What Ms. Treacy had spoken about was some testing that, let's say, is suggestive of a central nervous system stimulant, and then there's corroborative testing of the urine, and in that testing of the urine it shows there's cocaine in the urine.

Justice committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Having a first name that's a common last name often results in my being referred to as Mr. Mitchell. For the record, I'll say that actually MacLeod is my last name. I would echo Ms. Thomson's comments with regard to both appreciating the opportunity to share our perspective here today with this committee on this very important issue, as well as indicating that our written submission, which has been provided to you, does encompass a broad range of perspectives from lawyers who not only occupy different roles in terms of being either crown attorneys or defence counsel but also encompass practitioners from across the country who operate in urban and rural environments and in public and private practices.