Thank you, Mr. Minister.
I don't have a huge problem with what you have said. I have more of a problem with what you didn't say. In the House you've used terms like the opposition has “obstructed” or “delayed” some of these Justice bills. I might point out for you that there have been 11 bills--including Bill C-35 that was just sent up--or projects completed by this committee in just over 30 weeks of actual sitting.
I hoped you would open your remarks by complimenting at least the chairman in running a very nice committee. He obviously didn't get the big manual that we read about, because this committee has been working very well.
If the minister won't compliment you, Mr. Chair, I will.
Now to the heart of the matter. The essence of the bill...it's been kicked around for a long time. I've read the notes. The intent is good. As I said in the House, in my notes, or my speeches, I think the devil's in the details, and we have to make sure we have a law that works. To that end, the principal question here is, why did the Prime Minister announce in September 2006 that the $4.6 million RCMP drug impairment training budget would be eliminated because it didn't work? Why didn't it work? What are you going to replace it with to make sure this bill is effective?
Just as a contingency here, if I may, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister feels more comfortable in having Corporal Graham answer the question as to what the $4.6 million program was. And while he was involved--if he was involved--did he believe it didn't work and was not effective, in the Prime Minister's words?
This question is to either of you or both of you. What is going to be put in place to make sure the police have the tools to detect impaired driving to make this law efficacious?