On this question of yours, sir, perhaps I may add something about this fear that somebody in the public could be wrongly accused of anything. As a professional forensic toxicologist for 23 years, I can assure you that.... Mr. Ménard started this line of questioning, and we never got to finish the third step, which was the lab.
If a person had smoked marijuana, but the police officer DRE did not suspect that category being marijuana, or cannabis, the lab, if they happen to find residual marijuana metabolites—breakdown products in the urine—cannot support anything just by the sheer findings. What I am saying is that the observation of impairment, the symptomatology, the clinical symptoms, and the corroboration in the lab by very highly specialized instruments all have to fall in line. So it is not every incidental finding of a pharmaceutical preparation or an illicit preparation; it has to be consistent completely with the physical symptomatology that was observed by the DRE.
There was a concern, Mr. Ménard, and I just want to assure you that it's not because we can find everything under the sky that is a cause for impairment. The lab is only corroborating what is observation. It may not be as strong as what you're wishing for, sir, but I can tell you that we don't go beyond simply supporting or refuting the findings put to us at the lab.