Evidence of meeting #29 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was test.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:45 a.m.
Chair, Alcohol Test Committee, Canadian Society of Forensic Science
Most approved screening devices.... The alcohol test committee suggests that anything less than 10 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood should be viewed as a “not detected” result.
11:45 a.m.
Chair, Alcohol Test Committee, Canadian Society of Forensic Science
Yes, although we use milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.
I realize that there is great confusion because of the media. Canada hasn't used those units since the inception of the “per se” laws. I'm not being critical; I'm just pointing out to the committee to be careful about looking at units, because sometimes the clarity of the data depends on the units.
If you look at the Dräger data, for instance, they report their units in milligrams per litre on their technical data, but it's in milligrams per litre in breath, not in blood. There's a huge difference between the two.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
I have one other quick follow-up—or a different question, actually.
This is testing ambient air. The closer it is, the more likely it is to be picking up the breath from the individual you're trying to get information from. If that person has chewing gum or a mint or something that tries to mask the odour, does that have an impact on its ability to detect alcohol in their breath?
11:45 a.m.
Chair, Alcohol Test Committee, Canadian Society of Forensic Science
It's a qualified “it may”.
When I train officers with approved screening devices, or more likely with approved instruments—and I've trained probably thousands by now—one of our first training things is that if someone has something in their mouth, have them get rid of it and don't take a test for 15 minutes, because you have no idea what the impact of that unknown substance will have on the testing.
It's yet another area with passive devices that we have to investigate.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
If you're at checkpoints, checking people as they go by and trying to get them through quickly, if someone is chewing gum, then you potentially could have a false negative.
11:45 a.m.
Chair, Alcohol Test Committee, Canadian Society of Forensic Science
I don't think I can answer that with any definitiveness. It may be, but chewing gum is an interesting concept because it causes increased salivation, which diminishes mouth alcohol.
Although it's a litigable point in court, generally it does not have an impact. We still tell the officers to err on the side of caution and not to do the test if somebody has something in their mouth.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
October 20th, 2016 / 11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you, Mr. Mayers.
I want to talk a little about false negatives, and in particular some of the issues regarding weather conditions, etc. I think you cited temperature as one factor that could increase a false negative. You also talked about windy conditions.
Are there any other external conditions that would likely result in false negatives?
11:50 a.m.
Chair, Alcohol Test Committee, Canadian Society of Forensic Science
As has been pointed out, there's been a suggestion of weather conditions. Dampness could have an impact.
11:50 a.m.
Chair, Alcohol Test Committee, Canadian Society of Forensic Science
I don't know of all of the conditions that could have an impact, because this is not something that the alcohol test committee has ever been asked to study up until this point. Until we have time to study it and look more closely at all of the potential variables, we can't tell this committee what may or may not be a problem.
It's always going to be more difficult if you introduce environment into testing. If I have a person giving a sample directly into an approved screening device or directly into an approved instrument, I am not worried about the environment that person is standing in. I have a direct analysis of that individual's blood alcohol. Environmental factors are something else we just have to consider.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
If someone blows directly into a passive screening device, obviously that would eliminate the external environmental factors, but you would agree that there could be false positives if there was mouthwash in the person's mouth, for example, or if they had consumed it or used it in their mouth recently. Other false positives could arise, even if you did apply it right up to the mouth.
11:50 a.m.
Chair, Alcohol Test Committee, Canadian Society of Forensic Science
Yes. In fact, the officers are told that they should do a self-test to show that the screening device is in proper working order. We've recognized that they shouldn't be doing that self-test with these devices while washing their windscreens, because the methanol in windshield wiper fluid can cause a positive result.
It's a training issue. Nothing is wrong with these devices. I'm not suggesting that the devices are wrong. It's a training issue that you have to accommodate when you are setting out the procedures for doing these tests.
We can all imagine using our windshield wiper fluid quite frequently in Canada. If the individual is being tested while that's happening and the officer doesn't take the proper precautions, if I were a consultant for defence counsel, l would certainly be inquiring about that.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
You would concede that if proper precautions were not taken, then, that you could get false negatives or false positives from the external environment, as the officer, for example, approached the vehicle. However, you would agree that's also the case with breath screening devices that are currently used by law enforcement.
It really is a training issue, is it not?
11:50 a.m.
Chair, Alcohol Test Committee, Canadian Society of Forensic Science
It's largely a training issue, although approved screening devices are not administered in Canada, at least to my knowledge, in an individual's own vehicle. The individual is escorted back to the police vehicle. They are put in safe conditions, away from traffic, in the back of the vehicle, and they are tested in that environment, which the police have control over. The contemplated use of the ambient detection would be in the environment of that individual's car, which there's less control over.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
You have two passive detection devices. I think you alluded to one that is best applied within two inches. Is that the case for the other passive detection device as well?
11:50 a.m.
Chair, Alcohol Test Committee, Canadian Society of Forensic Science
I would like to answer that, but since my German isn't all that good and Dräger writes most of their stuff in German, I haven't been able to find out. Their recommendation is very short: “Push the OK button and do a passive test.”
Probably because I have more technical data from them, I was able to discern the other manufacturer's recommendations. Their recommendation was two inches for the best result. They're not suggesting you can't do it further back, but if you want the best result, you install the collection cup on the top and you stick it within two inches of the individual's mouth.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Chair, Alcohol Test Committee, Canadian Society of Forensic Science
Yes, it's for that one specific device.
As I say, I don't want the committee to misapprehend me: all these devices will have their own recommendations. That is why, as the alcohol test committee in Canada, we would have to set a standard that all must meet. You can't have all kinds of different devices out there, some meeting one standard and others meeting another. We would have to set a standard that all must meet. Then we can be sure that whatever is out there, whatever is purchased by a police service, because they make their own determinations.... We have no enforcement ability. We can't tell them what to do. We want to make sure that whatever they buy that's on an approved list will be equally useful for the task at hand.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Again, just to clarify, with the Dräger device you have no idea what the recommended distance would be. Do you have any idea about some of the devices that are used in other jurisdictions?
11:55 a.m.
Chair, Alcohol Test Committee, Canadian Society of Forensic Science
I do not have specific information about that. The time leading up to my attendance at this committee was reasonably short. I haven't had time to do that. As I say, my professional life sometimes gets in the way of my volunteer activities. I had four trials prior to this meeting this week; I haven't had time to investigate this.
I am connected with Dräger, the manufacturer of the device that I have less information on, and I could make inquiries very easily, but I have not as yet had the time to do that.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Welcome. Thank you for your testimony.
I'm interested in knowing more about how these devices work.
You mentioned that they work on fuel cell technology. That implies to me that they are reacting with oxygen to produce electric current. I'm wondering if the level of oxygen in the current environment might affect that, and whether other factors such as carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide would have an effect.
