FLUID TESTING WISE INITIATIVE

It was a classic case of one government mandating another to act, then
providing no funds. And like a petulant child, the junior government
decreed that it would defy its superior.

Fortunately, Ontario backed down and agreed to enforce the federal
law-- Bill C-2-- which took effect July 2 permitting police forces to
take blood, urine and saliva samples from drivers who are suspected to
be under the influence of narcotics.

The federal law was passed in February as part of the Conservatives'
so-called tough-on-crime agenda. It sets a minimum fine of $1,000 for
a first offence of drunk driving, a minimum of 30 days in jail for a
second offence and a third offence results in 120 days in jail.

But it also makes it a criminal offence to refuse a roadside breath
test and it allows police to take the above mentioned fluid samples.

The issue has been a civil rights dispute for some time. Some argue
compelling people to surrender their bodily fluids is an invasion of
their civil rights. But really, is there much of a difference between
providing air that has been in someone's lungs and bodily fluid?

The civil rights issue is not something the Conservatives let
themselves be concerned with. Neither, unfortunately, was funding.

A recent memo from a high-level bureaucrat within the provincial
Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services said the
Toronto-based Centre of Forensic Sciences would not test these fluids
due to excessive workload.

A ministry spokesperson said it would cost the province $18 million
over the next four years to conduct the tests, mainly for staffing and
training. But Ottawa didn't hand over any cash.

We've heard such arguments before, many times, between Ottawa and the
provinces and between Ontario and the municipalities.

But the public good seems to have got the better of the Liberals,
because after the story hit the press, the province relented. Fluids
will indeed be tested, though it remains to be seen how effective the
program will be because of time delays.

In 2004, the centre ceased automatic checking of firearms to see
whether they matched other crimes, telling police forces to make the
match themselves, which the centre would then verify.

In 2007, Ontario's auditor general said the backload at the Centre of
Forensic Sciences was so bad that the turnaround time for results was
twice that of other comparable forensic science labs -- though the AG
also noted the centre was making progress.

Can things have improved so much in one year that the centre can now
take on new fluid testing for suspected drug-impaired drivers?

It's a worthy initiative. Previous to Bill C-2, the police could only
request, not demand, fluid samples, and they were forced to tell
drivers they could refuse.

There is little doubt that marijuana reduces reaction time and
attentiveness, just as cocaine induces hyperactive and erratic
behaviour behind the wheel.

So the fluid tests make sense.

The centre intends to implement testing gradually, given that it needs
time to train staff and police need time to recognize drug impairment,
according to director Dr. Ray Prime.

Police likely won't need that much training to recognize signs of drug
impairment. The real delay is likely to occur in the backlog at
Forensic Sciences. It will likely be prime territory for another AG
report.

Regardless, someone at the province woke up to the fact that its own
initiative to make roads safer, especially by placing more
restrictions on young drivers, matched this initiative, and common
sense prevailed.

Refreshing.