Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from the Liberal Party has missed the commentary in my opening speech. The issue here is not one of the testing. It is the question that we have no standard.
We have no standard, so if we put that evidence, that testing, in front of a court, all it says is that this police officer believes the person was impaired. Maybe it is my years of experience in the courtroom, before the breathalyzer, that have shown this to me. We used to have those cases and they were regularly rejected by our courts. A person would be suspected of being impaired because of alcohol. He was asked to touch his nose, stand on one leg and see if he could balance himself. The police officer listened to his speech to see if he was slurred and looked at the person's eyes to see if they were bloodshot.
We had all of that. That is really what we are talking about here with regard to drugs. We know how ineffective that was in terms of dealing with impaired driving in this country.
I also want to say to the member that if there is anybody in this House who has done his research, it is this person. I have been through it already with the bill that the member's government, the former government, brought in. I do not think there is anyone in the House who has looked at this more closely than I have. I am telling the member that all of that research tells me that there are serious problems with whether this is going to be viable.
Again, if we look to the United States, a number of the states have used this and it has not changed the rate of impairment from drugs on our streets.