Justice committee  It's ambient air. It's not a deep-lung breath sample.

Justice committee  Gladly done. Thanks very much.

Justice committee  It still is very broad, because dangerous driving is a form of “vehicular”—or any other mode of transport—“homicide”. So is “criminal negligence causing death” when you have one of these modes of transport involved. It just broadens it. I don't know that there is a way to make it

Justice committee  The consequence would be that you'd have one term covering two offences, which is unique and unusual. I don't know of any other place in the Criminal Code where that is done, where two offences are referred to by one name. Whether it would impact upon judges would be speculativ

Justice committee  I'm not aware, although I did hear the earlier testimony that indicated there is at least one police agency that is supportive of the bill.

Justice committee  The short answer is no, and the reason is that the passive alcohol sensor is only looking at ambient air. It is not looking, the way that an ASD would, at a deep-lung air or breath sample. It couldn't be used to show that somehow just because it was in the ambient air this driver

Justice committee  Paragraph 253(1)(a) is impaired driving, so the officer has to have evidence beyond simply that there was alcohol in the ambient air that would give the suspicion to follow a different avenue of investigation, not a 253(1)(a) investigation, but the 253(1)(b) investigation for bei

Justice committee  I think I need to preface the remarks I have with a few observations. The first observation is that, in referring to “vehicular”, when the offences in the Criminal Code speak of motor vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and railway equipment, it seems to narrow the current offence to si

Justice committee  No. The bill does not alter paragraph 253(1)(a), which sets out the impaired operation of the various modes of transport, nor does it alter paragraph 253(1)(b), which refers to operating one of these modes of transport while over the criminal legal limit of 80 milligrams. However

Justice committee  It's more than a drafting issue. The bill proposes that “vehicular homicide” be used as a term, and I'm suggesting that “vehicle” or “vehicular” narrows what currently exists and “homicide” expands greatly what currently exists.

Justice committee  That fixes that drafting issue. You run into the second problem of “homicide”—

Justice committee  —being a nebulous, broad term. I shouldn't say “nebulous”, but it's a broad term.

Justice committee  There is no prohibition on an officer using a passive alcohol sensor, although I am given to understand that police agencies are very reluctant to employ passive alcohol sensors in Canada without some Criminal Code authorization specifically speaking about passive alcohol sensors

Justice committee  I am not an alcohol breath test scientist, so I am not an expert in this area and can't speak to that. You would have to ask the scientists. I can say that in the early 2000s, the Winnipeg police department looked at passive alcohol sensing devices and found that, in the winterti

Justice committee  I think we need to keep in mind that it's deemed to be suspicion, and suspicion is a very low threshold and suspicion is what is needed to move to the screening stage at the roadside, which is simply to ask for a sample of breath on the approved screening device. It is only if th