Justice Committee on Oct. 20th, 2016

[Dr. Daryl Mayers]

The short answer is no. I've never seen that suggested. The actual reaction produces carbon dioxide.

I said I wasn't going to give you my lecture, but I will give you a lecture now.

The alcohol is broken down first into acetic acid, which we all know as vinegar, and in the process of oxidizing it from an alcohol to that acid, it is further broken down to carbon dioxide and water. In that process, it releases electrons. You're absolutely on point. The electrons released during that process are proportional to the amount of alcohol that is present, and that's how these things are calibrated to give you a result.

Environmental conditions could have an impact on that, as could other substances. These substances, as I said, will not react to certain compounds, but they will react to others. Wood alcohol—methanol—can cause a reaction on these devices. When you're getting it directly from an individual, the individual makes it more specific. Those of us who know will not drink wood alcohol because it makes you go blind and will end up killing you, so we know, because of the specificity of the human body, that when you're giving a direct sample into these devices, it's not going to be a methanol result.

Environmentally, at this point I won't be as confident until I do further study and until we set some standards and look at interference a little bit more closely.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

What if I like lots and lots of vinegar on my french fries? Is vinegar going to affect the outcome of this?

[Dr. Daryl Mayers]

No, it should not.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

On the results of this passive detection device, the intent is to provide grounds for reasonable suspicion of alcohol in the body. It's not intended, as I understand it, to be evidence of impairment or evidence of alcohol in the blood.

I'm wondering if that will produce a substantially lower standard that you would have to meet to evaluate these devices, and whether that would have a significant effect on how long it would take to develop those standards and the procedures involved.

[Dr. Daryl Mayers]

The answer is that it will probably have a different standard than our others.

Our approved instrument standards are more rigorous than our approved screening device standards because they are fit for a purpose.

Evidentiary-approved instruments are the instruments that can mean an individual will be found guilty or not guilty in a court of law. Alcohol screening devices don't have that impact, and as a result we don't have the same rigour for our standards, nor are they operated with the same rigour. In the case of approved instruments, we demand that they be tested for accuracy and reliability each and every time they are used. In the case of approved screening devices, the alcohol test committee recommends that they be calibrated or checked every month, not every time they're utilized.

With the passive detectors, when my subcommittee for standards meets to develop standards, they may develop standards that are slightly less rigorous than even the ASD, but I won't know until we can look at the whole subject area a little more closely.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

That would, of course, affect the cost-benefit analysis that you proposed. It might not be worthwhile doing this because it could be very expensive.

However, if the standard is substantially lower than even the screening devices, it could be a lot quicker and a lot cheaper to develop those standards.

[Dr. Daryl Mayers]

It may well be, but we have to take into account things that we don't take into account with screening devices. We've talked about a lot today. We have to take into account things like environmental influences. That could add dimensions to the testing of these devices that do not apply to the approved screening device.

For example, we spoke of the light wind effect. We have never developed a standard for that. We'd have to develop a mechanism for producing that type of test. We'd have to probably.... When you use the word “consultant”, it's synonymous with money. We might have to consult with some engineers to develop the appropriate standards for that type of testing.

I don't know, and I can't assist this committee as to what the standards would look like until we are actually tasked with developing those standards. However, I really do think that it has the potential to be a very costly exercise. I think there are a lot of possible players in the ambient detection market, probably even more than with the approved screening device market.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

You have one more question, if you want.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I'm going to ask you for an opinion that may not be a scientific opinion.

You have a lot of experience with law enforcement in developing these things. Do you think that a device of this kind will be helpful in detecting at roadside, for example, whether an officer should go further into applying a screening device for alcohol impairment, or even for the presence of alcohol over the limit?

I realize that's not entirely a fair question, but—

[Dr. Daryl Mayers]

Well, I'll try to answer as well as I can.

My experience with police officers, and I mean no disrespect, is that if you give officers a tool with all kinds of caveats attached to it—you have to do it this way, that way, make sure the wind isn't blowing, have your back to the wind, make sure you don't have the window open, check the car for spills—and you expect the officer to do in a very rapid time frame, the more likely it is that one step or two steps will be missed, and that is a very serious thing once we come to litigate that case.

Counsel for the defence have an incredibly important role in our society, but they are extraordinarily good at looking at procedures. The minute there's a small deviation, even though it may have no implication whatsoever, they will be litigating that to the end of the earth to try to establish case law. That's fine. It's not a concern for me as a scientist. However, if we can avoid that sort of burden on our courts, I think it would be useful.

That said, it could be useful for individuals who are very conscientious and use it appropriately. I think it could probably add to the arsenal that police have to detect alcohol in people or around people who are driving.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I have just one additional question.

We've talked about costs generally, but do you have any idea of how much these things cost to acquire them, maintain, and to update them over time? Could you give us some idea of what the expenditure would be?

[Dr. Daryl Mayers]

The short answer is no, because I don't buy these things. I borrow these from my home lab. The police services buy their own. Often the costing is based on bulk purchase. It's something that could be easily found out.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Fair enough.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayers. Thank you so much for testifying before us today. We found the testimony to be very useful, and we really do appreciate it.

We're going to go in camera.

Thank you again.

[Proceedings continue in camera]