Justice committee  Almost immediately, if it's a strong sample. Let me back up. The higher the concentration of alcohol, the longer it takes for the fuel cell to actually process all of the alcohol. I don't propose to do what I'm going to do later tonight and lecture in the way that I'll be lec

Justice committee  I have two. That's correct.

Justice committee  Yes, they do. There are different ways to access the passive function, but they both can be used passively.

Justice committee  They both use fuel cell technology. Neither one of them is going to allow me to have the proprietary formula for their fuel cells, but they do both work on a fuel cell technology. They are both rapid in their response.

Justice committee  I hesitate to call it “a” device because there are multiple devices. I would support devices that use fuel cell technology. There are devices out there that use semiconductor technology, and the semiconductor technology tends to be a lot less.... It used to be, anyway; maybe it

Justice committee  These are just currently used, to the best of my knowledge, as ASDs. In order to get this device, the one from Dräger Canada, into a passive mode, you have to get into the administrator's second-level menu, which is password protected. With the greatest respect to all of our ro

Justice committee  Yes, it will give you.... There are no numbers involved here. One indicates alcohol, and one indicates alcohol not detected. I'd have to actually look up the screen messages, but it is a binary yes-or-no answer.

Justice committee  Yes. They have tolerances built in as approved screening devices.

Justice committee  Most approved screening devices.... The alcohol test committee suggests that anything less than 10 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood should be viewed as a “not detected” result.

Justice committee  Yes, although we use milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. I realize that there is great confusion because of the media. Canada hasn't used those units since the inception of the “per se” laws. I'm not being critical; I'm just pointing out to the committee to be ca

Justice committee  It's a qualified “it may”. When I train officers with approved screening devices, or more likely with approved instruments—and I've trained probably thousands by now—one of our first training things is that if someone has something in their mouth, have them get rid of it and do

Justice committee  I don't think I can answer that with any definitiveness. It may be, but chewing gum is an interesting concept because it causes increased salivation, which diminishes mouth alcohol. Although it's a litigable point in court, generally it does not have an impact. We still tell th

Justice committee  As has been pointed out, there's been a suggestion of weather conditions. Dampness could have an impact.

Justice committee  I don't know of all of the conditions that could have an impact, because this is not something that the alcohol test committee has ever been asked to study up until this point. Until we have time to study it and look more closely at all of the potential variables, we can't tell t

Justice committee  Yes. In fact, the officers are told that they should do a self-test to show that the screening device is in proper working order. We've recognized that they shouldn't be doing that self-test with these devices while washing their windscreens, because the methanol in windshield wi