Justice Committee on Sept. 27th, 2017

[Felix Comeau]

It's a sealed kit. That's the entire kit. The saliva testing kit for roadside use is just that. You take off the collector. It has collection pads, slides over the tongue, goes back into the kit. You press the button to start the test. Five minutes gives you the lines of drugs that are present.

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

We had an officer from the State of Victoria in Australia who gave testimony the other night. He showed us what looks very much like that. Is that what they're using down there?

[Felix Comeau]

Yes, they use this kit in Australia countrywide.

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

My understanding is that they have zero tolerance, so these kits only need to show the presence or the absence of THC, for example. Are these able to be calibrated to show some given level of THC?

[Felix Comeau]

Yes, they're prepared with cut-off limits. The one used in Australia is the same as those used elsewhere. It had a cut-off limit for THC, for example, of 10 nanograms per millilitre.

Last year, in November, this kit was available with five nanograms per millilitre. It had a lower threshold. It's now what is being used in Australia as well. A positive test means more than five nanograms per millilitre of THC in the saliva.

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

What's the cost of one of those kits?

[Felix Comeau]

These kits would be roughly $50 U.S.

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

What about economies of scale if we're going to do a million tests? Do you have any concept of whether those costs can be brought down?

[Felix Comeau]

Yes. In Australia at the moment, there are about a million of these tests used per year. Yes, there are some economies of scale, but there's a limitation on the quality of the antibodies used in the kit. Good-quality antibodies provide for a good-quality test. One would judge the use of $50 against the cost of one, two or three hours of police manpower. In fact, these kits are very economical if the policeman can use a kit and get the evidence—yes or no—immediately.

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

They use that kit, the blue one, I think, as a starting point, and if it shows positive, they use another kit, which is a red one. It's that one...?

[Felix Comeau]

Yes.

It's like that sucker to collect the samples.

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

Is that because this is not sufficiently accurate for evidentiary value or...?

[Felix Comeau]

Our kit is designed to be a screening tool.

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

Okay.

[Felix Comeau]

It's go or no-go, above or below the limit. It's quick. Any policeman could do it at the roadside. For that matter, any skilled person could. This kit is designed to collect a sample, which goes into the vial. It's sent off to a forensic laboratory. They do the analysis there, and then you get a quantitative measure of drugs in the body.

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

Would that give you an accurate indication of the THC level in the blood as well? Is there a good correlation, a tight correlation?

[Felix Comeau]

Yes, on the presentation, the correlation for oral fluid—saliva—and blood is very tight. The concentration in oral fluid will mimic that of the blood.

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

Is there any lead time or lag time between what this shows up and what would be in the blood?

[Felix Comeau]

Again, one of the screens shows that, with THC, a few minutes after smoking they're running in parallel, meaning the concentration in saliva versus the concentration in the blood. At the time of collection, you have the concentration in the body.

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

This is a much less intrusive test than taking blood. In your opinion, is the second test as good for an evidentiary sample as actually taking blood?

[Felix Comeau]

Yes. It's well supported by science.

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

I'd like to move on to you, Mr. Paquette. You're concerned about mandatory testing or the ability to test for cannabis use in the workplace. If it's legal, you say, there's going to be a problem, but you already have alcohol, for example. Do you have a process for testing for alcohol?

To me, the situation is very similar. In both cases, you have a legal substance for use. They're just not legally usable while you're operating train equipment, right? In the case of alcohol, what would you do to detect impaired operators?

[Simon-Pierre Paquette]

The short answer is the same. I agree with you that the contexts are very similar, but as Mr. Comeau pointed out earlier in his presentation, the way the body deals with these substances is different. This is in large part why Parliament's leadership would be needed to establish per se limits and to approve for use devices to screen for drugs in the workplace.

Right now, to my knowledge, there is no such thing as a Breathalyzer for drugs to be put—

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

It's different per se limits for driving a vehicle on the road versus driving a train in a train yard. Is that what you're saying?

[Simon-Pierre Paquette]

We use different cut-off levels for alcohol, yes, which are lower and more stringent than the Criminal Code levels.