Thank you.
My question is to Mr. Yost.
We are very happy that the bill will be easily passed by everyone without too many amendments, but I do have questions, even though this is a government bill.
Imagine there is a police barricade. This is the easiest case, but in other situations, the driver doesn't turn on his rear lights and the police are suspicious. The officer approaches, the driver rolls down his window and the officer smells alcohol. He makes him get out of the car. In certain cases, he cautions him and makes him go through certain motions in order to determine if he is able to drive. We are still talking about alcohol. We have to agree on that. In fact, we cannot ask 99.9% of police officers to deal with drug cases for the moment, particularly as regards this bill. I am not saying that they would not know how to do so, but the fact is that they deal primarily with alcohol-related cases.
Say the police officer arrests this person after he has been tested with the instrument that determines if he has gone beyond the 10 degrees. He brings the person to the police station, where it is determined that the blood alcohol concentrations are not over the limit, but that the person is drug-impaired. The drug the person took did not slow down his abilities: it stimulated them. The roadside tests he underwent measures the slowing down of one's abilities. I'm talking here about bringing your finger up to your nose or walking in a straight line. Some drugs will allow you to do that. So how is the police officer to deal with that? It is up to him to protect the public. How will he manage that?