BILL AIMED AT ROADSIDE DRUG TESTING

Canadians who refuse to comply with a proposed roadside test to detect drug
use while driving would be fined a minimum of $600 under legislation
introduced Monday.

The bill would put a law in place to allow police to test drug-impaired
drivers, giving them the same authority that they now have to nab people who
drink and drive.

Right now, it is voluntary for people to submit to roadside testing for
drugs.

The proposal was introduced just as the government's bill to decriminalize
possession of less than 15 grams of marijuana is in its final stages in
Parliament.

Police, among others, have complained about the prospect of more
drug-impaired drivers on the streets with no legal means to arrest them.

"There are people who feel that this is good companion legislation with
respect to the cannabis reform legislation that we already introduced,"
Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said.

While it is illegal to drive while under the influence of drugs, there has
been no reliable test for measuring drug impairment.

Unlike drunk driving, in which there is a measurable link between blood
alcohol levels, as measured by a breathalyser, research is lacking to equate
drug quantity and impairment.

Police are expected to train officers across Canada to become experts in
recognizing physiological symptoms of drug impairment and then allow them to
conduct physical tests at the roadside.

If a suspect fails -- and it is determined he or she is not alcohol impaired
- -- the testing could then move to a police station, where officers could
demand blood or urine samples.

The maximum penalty for drug-impaired driving would be five years
imprisonment, the Justice Department said.

Drug-impaired driving causing death could merit a sentence of life
imprisonment.

It would be up to individual provinces to decide whether a driving licence
should be suspended.

The bill will suffer a quick death if a federal election is called this
spring.

Cotler acknowledged Monday that his proposal could invite legal challenges
under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms from people who feel it is overly
intrusive.

But, he is confident the courts would rule the breaches are justified.