I've said it before. The greater you make the penalties the more litigation you create. Certainly I can't complain from that standpoint. That's not why I'm here.
I can comment on the drugs. Paul obviously addressed it more than I did. If the police pull someone over--and let's make no mistake about it--and they are exhibiting signs of impairment, the police do not have to prove whether they're impaired by cocaine, or the type of sleeping pill that Mr. Lee has in his pocket, or by alcohol. Impairment is impairment. If they are exhibiting signs of impairment, the offence, as it is now drafted in paragraph 253(a) of the code, says “impaired by drugs or alcohol”, so which drug it is is irrelevant.