GOV'T BILL WOULD CRACK DOWN ON IMPAIRED DRIVERS

Driving Under Influence Of Alcohol, Drugs Would Result In Much
Tougher Penalties

OTTAWA - The Conservative government revived a Liberal-era bill
Tuesday to catch drug-impaired drivers through roadside checks and
blood samples, an initiative that has failed twice before and raised
concerns about court challenges.

Justice Minister Vic Toews also introduced tougher new laws for drunk
drivers, including raising the maximum sentence to life imprisonment
for impaired driving causing death, increasing the fine for a first
impaired driving offence to $1,000 from $600 and restricting the use
of the "two beers" defence that permits drivers to argue they didn't
drink much.

Toews, with police and victims of impaired drivers at his side in the
House of Commons foyer, told reporters his bill is "very important,
overdue legislation" and hopes it will pass through Parliament "as
quickly as possible."

Toews presented a copy of his proposal to Mike Rider, whose
16-year-old son, Dave Rider, was one of five Ottawa area teens killed
seven years ago by a young driver high on marijuana.

Under the proposed law, drivers suspected of being high would be
required to perform physical tests at the side of the road, such as
walking a straight line.

If they fail, they would be sent to the police station for further
testing and then be forced to surrender blood, saliva, or urine samples.

The federal government's testing scheme for drugs would include
penalties for people who refuse to co-operate, Toews said.

Also, the federal government intends to provide about $2 million in
police funding to carry out the testing.

Two similar Liberal bills died when federal elections were called in
2004 and 2005. There were widespread concerns at the time that
requiring suspects to surrender samples is overly intrusive and the
initial testing gives police too much subjective leeway.

"I have serious doubts as to whether that would survive a Charter (of
Rights) challenge," said NDP justice critic Joe Comartin. "There is
no use passing bills if they are going to get struck down by our courts."

Toews countered that roadside drug testing has been around for two
decades in the United States and it has survived court challenges thus far.

"This is not an issue of a subjective test or something that is
simply at the whim of an officer," he said.

"The courts have understood that where there have been appropriate
roadside tests beforehand, that one is allowed to make those demands
for bodily samples."

He acknowledged, however, there is no reliable scientific test to
detect drug use, unlike the breathalyser for alcohol.

Ottawa resident Russell Barth, who has a licence to smoke pot for
medical purposes to treat fibromyalgia, said the bill "is an affront
to marijuana users."

One problem with testing fluid samples, he said, is they can contain
marijuana smoked several days or months earlier, as well as second-hand smoke.

"It's much like charging someone with drunk driving five days after
they've had their last drink," he said.

Currently, police rely on a driver's behaviour and witness testimony
to determine drug use. Some officers are trained to administer
roadside tests, but there is no law that requires compliance.