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. To that extent, we see it as problematic.
That's where you get the roadside tests, the DRE, and these very invasive bodily sample tests. Something as simple as a urine test is extremely invasive. On the surface, it may not sound like a big deal, but in order to confirm the source of the test—and I won't go into any further detail than that—it's potentially quite a humiliating experience.
Having blood drawn, for some individuals, is a very traumatic experience.
All of these things result from trying to shoehorn the drug-impaired driving problem into the drug-impaired framework in the Criminal Code, if that's making any sense to you.
We acknowledge that there's a problem, but because we're dealing with a completely different situation with drugs other than alcohol, we're simply not at a stage where we can apply the same legislative framework to deal with that issue.
We already have provisions in the Criminal Code that allow police officers to observe signs of impairment by drugs or alcohol, or both, and it can be dealt with that way. But when we get into the drug recognition expert situation, these additional 12 steps and the things it can or can't show, this is where our section begins to lose its comfort level.
We think that additional study and scientific work is going to have to be done before we can use the same framework for drugs as we do for alcohol.