Evidence of meeting #66 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 marijuana.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I'd like to thank all the witnesses. I am particularly grateful to Mr. Comeau and Alcohol Countermeasure Systems for giving us very specific recommendations for amendment, because of course, that's what we're trying to do here. I appreciate that.
The instrument that you showed us earlier I think is called DrugWipe, a saliva drug tester that your company produces. Is that correct?
4 p.m.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Alcohol Countermeasure Systems Corp.
It's produced in Germany. We're the—
4 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
On your first recommendation, you talk about the Australian experience. I think the thrust of the study that you showed from Drs. Huestis and Cone was that we really don't need blood testing, if I can summarize. You're saying, showing the chart, that samples of saliva are just fine in terms of demonstrating the presence of THC.
To put words in your mouth—I want you to react to this—there really would be no need to have blood tests, which are more intrusive, of course, if we have the benefit of saliva tests, which are just as reliable. Is that what I'm supposed to take from this?
4 p.m.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Alcohol Countermeasure Systems Corp.
Yes, that's what's been done in Australia for the past 10 years.
4 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
We've heard lots of evidence about how intrusive blood tests are. Their constitutionality is up in the air because of the intrusive nature of blood tests. If the science is as you suggest, as Drs. Huestis and Cone suggest, then one wouldn't need to be as concerned if that's the implication of the science you're presenting here.
4 p.m.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Alcohol Countermeasure Systems Corp.
That's correct.
4 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Right.
On the use of urine as a bodily substance, you've suggested that, because of the metabolites, it's historical evidence rather than current presence of THC in the system. I'm struck by the fact that at the work site people still use urine tests, if I'm not mistaken, in railways as well as in Fort McMurray and everywhere heavy equipment is used. They're the gold standard in employee testing to this point. Has there been a change? Are people using, for example DrugWipe, in the workplace?
4 p.m.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Alcohol Countermeasure Systems Corp.
It's becoming prevalent in Europe, and to some extent in North America. Urine testing in the workplace isn't really the gold standard; it's the economical standard.
4 p.m.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Alcohol Countermeasure Systems Corp.
It's cheap, to be crass. It's a simple test to be conducted, but then one has to be concerned about gender specificity and who collects the sample. Then you get into the problem of adulterants.
4 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
You make the point that this is entirely gender-neutral and that there are no issues of that sort using saliva tests.
You mentioned that the only time urine could be useful would be post-mortem, where a person has died on a highway. Wouldn't a saliva test still be valuable? If a person dies, is the saliva test no longer relevant?
4 p.m.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Alcohol Countermeasure Systems Corp.
No, it can be, but I was making the point that urine is typically used in post-mortem cases.
4 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
But it's not necessary to do that. A corpse can still provide saliva through the same kind of device that you've just been describing.
4 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
In your materials you talk about evidentiary value. You showed us Dr. Logan's test. I was really struck by the fact of how little evidentiary value there was in the chart you've provided for THC in the blood. What about if alcohol and cannabis are mixed together, as often occurs? What's the implication of alcohol when one is using these oral fluid devices that you've just been talking to us about?
4 p.m.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Alcohol Countermeasure Systems Corp.
There's a lot of work being done on the concurrent use of alcohol and drugs, particularly THC, because it's often prevalent. The question is the impairing effect. Is it 1 plus 1? Is it 1 minus 0.5? Is it 1 plus 2? The effects of alcohol are quite different from the effects of THC on the body. Alcohol typically affects the back region of the brain; marijuana typically affects the top section, the cognitive functions. There are some antagonistic effects, and there are some complementary effects. This is not well known, and there's a lot of research yet—
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Just to be clear, if you were to apply your DrugWipe saliva drug tester to a person who has both had alcohol and THC/cannabis in their system, the fact that there's also alcohol in the system wouldn't destroy the benefit or the evidentiary value of the saliva tester.
4:05 p.m.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Alcohol Countermeasure Systems Corp.
No, these are specific for the drug.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I understand.
I just want to ask, in the time that I have available, about Washington. You didn't have a chance in your oral remarks, but in your written material you talk about the Washington Traffic Safety Commission work.
We have a range of what are called per se limits from one nanogram per millilitre to five, and some states don't have any. What is your position? What would your recommendation be to this committee? Should we have per se limits or not?
4:05 p.m.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Alcohol Countermeasure Systems Corp.
Per se limits are difficult if you're going to say a given limit is equal to a given amount of impairment. With alcohol, we could do that, based on the studies from the beginning of time—I think it was in 1969—when we brought forward the legislation in Canada.
In the case of marijuana, it's not clear. Typically, one would look at a limit that is low, and in the case of these testers it's now down to five, which is the lowest detectable limit in oral fluid. If, as in some states, it's zero tolerance, what is zero? Mathematically, you can't measure zero. It has to be something positive. What do you take as the first positive measurement? Perhaps two nanograms per millilitre is indicative of marijuana present in the body at a level that should have some impairing affects. Dr. Huestis et al. show that this is the case.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
