Evidence of meeting #76 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was impaired.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Chairman, since Mr. Bagnell is going to blow into the device and the results will determine whether his abilities are impaired, will he be able to vote later?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
I know there's a time limit here, committee members. We'll listen to Mr. Hodgson's explanation and then Mr. Bagnell will go back. Those who want to watch may do so.
Mr. Hodgson.
Chair, Alcohol Test Committee, Canadian Society of Forensic Science
I had Mr. Bagnell blow into an approved instrument—specifically, the Intoxilyzer 5000C. That's the confirmatory test that the police do back in the police station. That's after they've already obtained a screening result on the road that indicates the person is over 80, but you need a confirmatory test.
That's what this instrument that he just blew into is all about. Unfortunately he didn't blow quite long enough to get a proper sample. The instrument simply defaulted to an invalid sample. So we have to start again. But I was getting an indication that the half-bottle of beer was giving him an extremely high BAC—not because he has high blood alcohol but because he has residual alcohol in the mouth. You have to let that alcohol dissipate.
At the committee's leisure, I can run through the procedure at the back of the room. I also have a screening device that's used at the roadside.
I want to stress that what my colleague and I are doing is testing alcohol. We're not dealing with other types of drugs. That's a completely different matter.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Go ahead, Mr. Bagnell and Mr. Hodgson, and any committee members who want to see what happens. I myself have seen it a hundred times.
Mr. Comartin.
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Chair, I would just note for the record that this is actually the first time—and we now have absolute proof—that Mr. Bagnell has run out of air. This is the first time we've ever seen it happen.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
I thought you were going to say that this is the first time alcohol has ever touched his lips.
Mr. Lee, do you have a question?
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
I certainly do, yes.
I would put a question to you, Mr. Beirness. You said earlier, in a general statement, that this legislation contained provisions that essentially put in place a precondition that there be suspected impairment. I can't quote you exactly, sir, but that was the import of what I thought I heard.
As I look at the legislation, there are two sections that don't have any precondition of suspected impairment. The first section is the one involving possession of a drug where there is no precondition that there be suspected impairment. The second section is the trigger section for drug impairment, where the peace officer only has to suspect that the person had a drug in his or her body within the last three hours. There's no reference to impairment.
Could you comment on that?
Manager, Research and Policy, Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse
Absolutely. I'd be happy to.
What we're saying is that we want the legislation to insist that impairment is the focus of what we're trying to do here. It's to get impaired drivers off the road.
The first section, where there's possession in the vehicle, is something we're opposed to. We don't believe that's part of impaired driving at all, and it is best dealt with under the CDSA.
The other aspect, where the officer has merely a suspicion that the driver has consumed drugs or is under the influence of a drug, leads to a standardized field sobriety test that gives the officer evidence of impairment. It's that evidence of impairment that leads to the next step, which is the DRE.
We believe it's that level of impairment, that the officer sees, that's critical to the legislation. This is not an effort to simply find drivers who have been using drugs but to find people who are impaired by drugs.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Okay.
You mention again the aspect of being under the influence of a drug. But in the bill—specifically, subclause 3(3), “Testing for presence of alcohol or a drug”—it says:
If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has in the preceding three hours had alcohol or a drug in their body while they were operating a motor vehicle
There's no requirement that the person be under any kind of influence, only that they have a drug, a schedule I to schedule V drug. There is no reference to impairment.
Are you concerned about that? How does that circumstance, which I've just described in my reading of the legislation, square with your views and recommendations here in relation to this?
Manager, Research and Policy, Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse
It's important, from our perspective, that the police officer on the road is looking for impaired drivers. It begins with a suspicion. Whether it's driving down the road in an improper fashion, whether it's that when you stop the vehicle you smell alcohol or marijuana, or that you look at the individual and begin to see symptoms and signs of other drug use, it leads to a suspicion, which leads to tests for impairment.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
The absence of any reference here to impairment or being under the influence, therefore, would be of concern to you, in the section I just looked at.
Manager, Research and Policy, Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear the first part of that question.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
The absence of any reference in the section I just described to you would be a concern to you.
Manager, Research and Policy, Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse
It's of some concern, yes. We have to make sure the officer is looking for impairment.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
The statute doesn't require that. How do we make sure he's looking for it if the statute doesn't require it?
Manager, Research and Policy, Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse
What the officer is doing, first of all, is looking for suspicion. But what he's actually doing is looking for evidence that could lead to a charge of impaired driving. If he doesn't see it, the person is not going to be charged.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Well, this section provides the officer with authority to make an intervention leading to a detention without any suspicion of impairment.
Manager, Research and Policy, Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse
It's the same as with alcohol. What we have done is create a parallel process. When an officer stops a driver, his first thing to look for may be alcohol. All he needs is a suspicion that the driver has consumed alcohol. That leads to the next step.
In this particular case, if there's a suspicion that drugs have been used, then it leads to the next step. The suspicion leads to the next step, but it's the next step that leads to the charge.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
All alcohol causes impairment; not all drugs cause impairment.
Manager, Research and Policy, Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse
That's right. That's why—
Manager, Research and Policy, Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse
That's why we have asked that the definition of a drug be included in the legislation.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
The definition is included; “drug” is in schedules I through V of the CDSA.