Period. But under the Criminal Code, it says very clearly—let me read it:
Where a peace officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is committing, or at any time within the preceding three hours has committed, as a result of the consumption of alcohol, an offence under section 253, the peace officer may, by demand made to that person forthwith or as soon as practicable, require that person to provide then or as soon thereafter as is practicable
--and then it goes on about breath samples, etc.
Bill C-32 is amending that section, and it's amending it by saying:
If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has in the preceding three hours had alcohol or a drug in their body while they were operating a motor vehicle...the peace officer may, by demand, require the person to comply with paragraph (a), in the case of a drug, or with either or both of paragraphs (a) and (b), in the case of alcohol
The reasonable and probable grounds in the Criminal Code were linked to the fact that the person had committed, was committing, is committing, or at any time in the previous three hours committed an offence under section 253. In Bill C-32 we've removed the connection between the reasonable grounds—
Our courts have clearly defined all of the criteria for “reasonable grounds”, depending on the circumstances that meet the test of reasonable grounds. We've removed the connection with committing an offence under section 253. That's a glaring problem.