All right.
May I ask one small question, Mr. Sikand?
I've been listening to the committee members posing questions. If I have it right, passive detection devices today are allowed. You're saying the law would make it clearer that they're allowed and they would not be subject to litigation, but essentially, they're allowed. As well, you're changing the name of the crime, but you're not changing the sentence. So the real meat of this law is proposed subsection 254(1.2), which establishes reasonable grounds for the officer to move forward to the roadside device simply by registering a positive screening on the device.
Is that essentially correct as to what's changing in the law, that now, if this is used, the officer would then have reasonable grounds to move forward to the next step, which is the roadside test?