Thank you.
I have a question, and I don't want anyone to take my scrutiny of this legislation as lack of support for the bill generally.
There are a couple of triggers in the legislation that involve the suspected presence of an illegal drug in the body of the person. What's bothering me is this. I'm looking for ways to prevent this statute from being a continuing search for illegal drugs, even if they don't impair. In order to trigger the police officer's decision, he or she just has to suspect that there is a scheduled drug in the system of the person. There doesn't appear to be a concurrent requirement for impairment. If there's some alcohol associated with it, then one could suspect that the mix of alcohol and the drug might produce impairment.
I'll direct my question to Corporal Graham. In your experience in the last few years, has it ever come up, in Canada or elsewhere, that police start relying on this type of legislation to take people who are known to police off the road and put them through the drill when they suspect they've been taking illegal drugs but maybe the alleged impairment isn't that clear?
I'm throwing that out here. I'm thinking of many drugs that would never induce impairment in certain quantities but would be illegally present, in the pocket, in the body, etc.