You reassure me about costs. The first breathalyzer tests conducted by qualified technicians cost the government a fortune, at least in Quebec. They paraded these technicians into court, which lost a lot of money, but that was part of my former life.
Mr. Graham, you raised a point that intrigues me and that I want to clarify. In Quebec, under section 125 of the Highway Code, if an individual runs a red light, we have the right to arrest him, then proceed with the test. A person may refuse to submit to it. In the case of the breathalyzer test, we know roughly at what point we can control a refusal. If the police officer orders the person to submit to it and that person refuses, he will be charged under another section of the Criminal Code, with refusing to submit to a blood alcohol test.
You described the 12 steps of the DRE program in detail, and I find that fantastic because I understood absolutely none of it, even as a lawyer. Now I understand the process very well and I find it excellent. However, in the case of refusals, at the very start of your document, as in the case of blood alcohol levels, a person arrives at the police station and has another opportunity to refuse because, very often, the police officer has warned him, but he may refuse again. In the course of operations, let's say that you have already done three and nine remain to be done. Is there another possibility of a refusal? At one point, the citizen could decide to stop there. Would you have a right to summon him? In your opinion, is there a possibility that the accused can refuse within the unfolding of the 12 steps?
I know it's possible at the outset. We draw an analogy with blood alcohol levels, but does this possibility exist in the case of the DRE? As you said, the accused winds up in a dark room so that it can be checked whether his pupils are dilated. They want to conduct all sorts of tests. If the accused refuses to be touched, at that point, do you have the opportunity to file an application and tell him that, if he refuses, you will prosecute him for something else, that is to say for his refusal? If there is a refusal at step 6, you can never get to court with that. Do you think the text of the act provides for this possibility?