Updated: May 1
To obtain admissions that the 2012 Alcohol Test Committee Position Paper:
- is a position paper
-is not a scientific article
-is not a research paper
-does not have any external references in international literature
-does not have any references outside of the CSFS Journal
-has no references to international metrology
-has positions not supported by empirical research
-is not scientific opinion, it is position
MR. BISS: Q. Mr. P., I wanted to return to the 2012 position paper by the Alcohol Test Committee. We all have it as Exhibit 7 Tab Number 3. I made sure you had a – your own copy of it... A. Yes, thank you. Q. ...there. And I just wanted to ask you, and these are the same questions I asked Mr. Kupferschmidt. Page 101 of that document at the very, very bottom of the page, it states that “The objective of this publication is to clearly define what information is sufficient to adequately assess the performance of an approved instrument at the time of subject breath testing. It is the position of the Alcohol Test Committee that where these operational recommendations and procedures are met, the B.A.C. is accurate and reliable.” You’d agree with me, there’s no footnote to that statement in the document? A. Correct. Q. And there is no indication cited either by way of footnote or in the way of references of scientific literature that supports that proposition. A. That's correct. Because this is a position paper, not a scientific article. Q. So, this is not a research paper. This document’s not a research paper. A. Correct. Q. It’s – doesn’t have any references out of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal.
A. Other than the previous recommendations and standards listed on the last page. Q. Yes. A. It has also a paper by Pawn, Lucas and Hodgson. Q. All published in the Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal? A. Correct. Q. There are no international references. A. No, there’s not. Q. No references to any of the documents in terms – in international metrology or specifically, in international science measurement related to evidential breath testing? A. No. Q. For example, there’s no reference to O-I-ML standard R-1-2-6 that Brian Hodgson refers to in his paper. A. Correct. Q. And there’s no indication that there’s been any empirical research to support any of the propositions in this position paper? A. I’m sure when they were deliberating, they came up with scientific evidence for that, but that’s not presented in this paper. Q. All right. A. They’re putting forth their position. Q. Right. So on page 102, the paragraph that starts with, “Review of these specified requirements”. A. Yes. Q. Do you see that? “Review of these specified requirements is sufficient to assess the accuracy and reliability of the subject’s breath tests. Deviations
from the operational procedures recommended by the A-T-C would be recognisable by reviewing the materials outlined above.” No empirical testing that you know of to establish that proposition. A. Correct. Q. And specifically, on page 102, where it says, half way through the last paragraph, “Records relating to periodic maintenance or inspections cannot address the working status of an approved instrument at the time of a breath test procedure and are intentionally absent from the requirements listed above.” A. Yes. Q. All right. No footnote, obviously. No, empirical study that supports that proposition? A. That’s in this paper? No. Q. So it’s not a scientific opinion. It’s a position. A. Correct. Q. Now, you said you agree with that position? A. I do. Yes. Q. All right. And.... A. And the Centre of Forensic Sciences had this position before the A-T-C published its paper. Q. Yes. A. When we published the Intoxilyzer 8000C sheet – information sheet back in 2011 – 2010. Q. But you’re not aware, you don’t – you don’t have at your fingertips, any scientific literature that supports any of these propositions? A. I could probably go in search of some, yes. Q. But you can’t... A. Not at my fingertips.
Q. ...answer that question today. A. Yes.