Pubdate: Wed, 06 Dec 2006
Source: Powell River Peak (CN BC)
Copyright: 2006 Peak Publishing Ltd.
Contact:  http://www.prpeak.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/734
Author: Luke Brocki, Peak Reporter
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Cannabis - Canada)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?224 (Cannabis and Driving)

TORIES REVIVE DRUG-DRIVING BILL

Critics Cite Lack Of Science And Standards In Determining
Impairment

Controversy is brewing around a recently revived Liberal-era bill
meant to catch drug-impaired drivers. Mothers Against Drunk Driving
(MADD) Canada applauded Justice Minister Vic Toews when the
Conservatives introduced the impaired driving measures last month,
calling them a step forward in the promised drug-impaired driving framework.

MADD is urging all MPs and senators to "support it, pass it, and make
sure the non-partisan issue of impaired driving is properly addressed
during the life of this parliament."

Critics of the bill feel that the politics surrounding drug-impaired
driving are getting ahead of the science. Since no standardized
measures for impairment from marijuana and other drug use exist,
opponents feel it will be difficult for any charge to win a conviction
in court.

The new legislation, Bill C-16, is modelled after a Liberal-era bill
that died on the table when parliament was dissolved prior to the last
federal election. The bill was introduced November 21. It would get
tough on drug-impaired drivers through roadside checks and blood,
urine and saliva samples. The bill would also increase the fine for a
first impaired driving offence to $1,000 from $600, triple the maximum
penalty for a summary conviction to 18 months and raise the maximum
sentence to life imprisonment for impaired driving causing death.

Blair Wilson, MP for the West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky
Country riding, echoed the sentiments of then Liberal leader Bill
Graham. "I support this bill for the most part, but we still have to
be vigilant as to how it's going to be implemented," he told the Peak
in a telephone interview from Montreal. "But I think we have to be
proactive on the issue; more and more deaths are caused by
drug-impaired driving every year."

Like some of its opponents, Wilson said he was concerned about the
bill's chances to survive scrutiny from the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. A charter challenge could come against section 254 of
the bill, which outlines a series of measures to determine drug
impairment, among them a roadside test by a police officer, an
examination at the police station by what the bill calls a drug
recognition expert (DRE) and a demand for a blood, urine or saliva
sample.

"The challenge with drug-impaired driving is we don't have the
scientific agreement on what the appropriate legal limit is for
drugs," said Wilson. "The fortunate thing is, we do have the charter
to backstop us. The first charges will definitely be tested and will
move up the chain if the police force takes it too far."

Local defence lawyer David Garling feels the lack of science behind
the bill is one part of a larger problem. He would also like to see
more transparency around the new enforcement measures.

"The bill is really quite masterful because it's designed to make it
difficult to criticize," he said. "I think everyone recognizes drug
impairment is a problem. But they've left the definition of impairment
for the courts to determine."

Among other things, Garling wonders about the purpose of the blood
test. "It would perhaps produce a correlation between a presence of
drugs and the evaluation of the police observers, but it's still
hugely subjective. A breathalyzer works fine because it tells you a
blood alcohol percentage. There is no drug equivalent to .08."

Garling sees another problem with testing bodily fluid samples: the
results could detect drugs ingested days or weeks earlier, leading to
wrongful convictions, while missing the presence of other drugs that
disappear into breakdown products shortly after ingestion.

According to Garling, the problem starts even before a blood test is
requested. "The conviction will come from the testimony of an officer
with no expertise. Tell us why a [DRE] would be a good tool to use.
Tell us what he's going to know and how he's going to apply it. Show
us the science behind the soft tools that are sneaking in."

As it stands, those details are not in the act. They would be
regulatory and thus handed down from the ministry once the law is
passed, but Garling feels they should be included in the legislation
so they can be debated in the House of Commons. "When they pass this
act, they are, among other things, giving the minister the right to
proclaim those standards for testing," he said. "The scary part is the
part we don't know."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Derek