Justice committee  Ultimately, it falls back on the officer being able to articulate in court why he took whatever action he took.

Justice committee  We could look at the person's eyes. Are they watery or bloodshot? Is the white of the eye pink? Is it bloodshot? Are the pupils dilated in bright sunshine? Are they constricted in darkness? Is the person fumbling with his documents? What is his speech like? Is the person answerin

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

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 requir

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 Soc

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

Justice committee  Intoxilyzer or DataMaster, yes.

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

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  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 suspici

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

Justice committee  The sobriety tests are the same, regardless of what substance or condition is causing the perceived impairment.

Justice committee  That's correct.