Justice committee  Mr. Yost will finish. The random breath testing and roadblocks are very important tools. Whether the random breath testing would be done at a provincial level or under the Criminal Code, it could be a very helpful tool for police, because then drivers would think that at any time, anywhere, they could be pulled over and possibly asked for a breath test.

Justice committee  At present the provincial governments can run programs of ignition interlock, so that where a person has committed a Criminal Code impaired driving offence, the province can tell them that as a condition of getting their provincial driving licence back they must have an ignition interlock device.

Justice committee  With respect to random breath testing, as indicated in---

Justice committee  It's randomized breath testing.

Justice committee  Randomized breath testing. So what is being spoken of is roving random breath tests. The police may have at the present time organized check stops, but they can only test when they have suspicion of alcohol in the body and they can use an approved screening device. The idea of these randomized roving breath tests is that they may stop any driver, any time, anywhere.

Justice committee  If I may, I'll speak to the breath tests. Greg may wish to speak to other points. Currently the police services throughout the country have the option to use tools that are within the Criminal Code. In respect of alcohol breath testing, they have the tool of the approved screening device and the tool of the approved instrument.

Justice committee  I'm not certain if they require their evidential equipment to be operated by what we would call a qualified technician. Again, I think you should be hearing from scientists from the alcohol test committee of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science, who can address that point straight on.

Justice committee  It may be underutilized because of the fact that some people feel they don't want to spend the money or can't afford it. Other people may simply not want to have an interlock. Maybe Dr. Beirness could talk about the underutilization.

Justice committee  In 1999, at the recommendation of this committee, Parliament looked at amending the Criminal Code to take into account the fact that some provinces at the time were already using ignition interlock devices. Parliament began by saying that first offenders could have a reduction in their federal Criminal Code driving prohibition if they used the provincial interlock device under the provincial program.

Justice committee  Mr. Chair, in answer to the question that has been posed, I would make this observation that has come to us from forensic scientists who work on the alcohol test committee, and that comes to us as well from police officers. That is this: if one were to believe from the number of two-drink defences that arise in the courts across this country that the number really is valid—and this defence is raised in a huge number of cases, according to them—then we have a situation in which the operator error by the qualified breath technician or the machine inoperability—meaning that the machines aren't in good working order—is epidemic in this country.

Justice committee  Well, no. I'm saying that 35% of all charges under subsection 253(b) are going to trial. So the ones that go to trial are the ones in which the defence, most of the time, is the two-drink defence. It's a significant number. It's in the thousands.

Justice committee  I think the easy and quick answer is no. That particular defence will still exist, because the crown prosecutor must show there was a voluntary consumption of alcohol. If they, as the defence, bring in evidence that vodka was slipped into some drink they had and that they were unaware of it, and that's what caused the impairment, they can still bring that evidence forward, because it goes to whether or not they voluntarily consumed the alcohol—or the drug, for that matter.

Justice committee  As worded, this motion would require that the certificate be prepared and filed.... If, for example, the breath technician were called to give live evidence--viva voce evidence--there's nothing in this amendment that contemplates that situation. Also, the amendment sets out that this is mandatory; otherwise, the breath tests are thrown out and wouldn't even be admissible in evidence.

Justice committee  To add to Mr. Yost's response, there was a case, I believe it was in the early 1990s, when St. Pierre went to the Supreme Court of Canada. It was a situation where the person said that the reading was different. It actually still would have been over 80, but it would have been different from what the instrument showed.

Justice committee  If that's the committee's wish. He is here again and he could speak more to this.