Thank you to our witnesses.
Ms. Kaulius, I too extend my sympathies to you on the passing of your daughter.
Thank you, Mr. Sikand, for the intention of what you're trying to accomplish through your private member's bill.
I want to build a bit on the questions that Mr. McKinnon had. I'm all in favour of increasing prevention and increasing the detection of folks driving under the influence or driving while impaired and of prosecuting them properly, but you seemed to concede to Mr. McKinnon that in our legislation there's nothing today preventing a peace officer or police forces from using a passive detection device.
Moving along on that thought a bit, if there's nothing preventing them, I'm wondering if you can help me understand what value your private member's bill would actually add in the process, because it's not a prescriptive bill. It's more a descriptive bill or a permissive bill, and if that already exists, what exactly would we accomplish? You're not changing the sentencing. You're not addressing any of those issues. I know there's a bit of a change in the verbiage or in the description of what's actually happened, which I can appreciate, but really, what is the value in your bill?