ROADSIDE DRUG CHECKS MAY COME WITH POT BILL

Tests Too Subjective, Give Police Too Much Power, Lawyers Say

OTTAWA - Police could nab drug-impaired drivers by conducting roadside
checks followed by further probing at the police station under a new
drugged-driving bill.

Irwin Cotler, the Justice Minister, is expected to table the legislation
this winter or early spring in tandem with plans to decriminalize marijuana
possession.

"It's part of an overall approach to an anti-drug strategy," Mr. Cotler
told CanWest News Service.

The drugged-driving bill is considered to be one of Mr. Cotler's top
priorities in this parliamentary session, which is already crammed with
several other justice initiatives that did not pass during the government
of former prime minister Jean Chretien.

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 Breathalyzer, and driving ability,
research is lacking to equate drug quantity and impairment.

Under a federal plan outlined in a discussion paper, the government would
train police officers across Canada to become experts in recognizing
physiological symptoms of 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 impaired by
alcohol -- police could proceed to the next stage, saliva testing. The
procedure could then move to the police station, where police could demand
blood or urine samples.

Mr. Cotler would not divulge details of his legislative proposals, but he
said they will be related to a public consultation that the Justice
Department conducted last fall.

However, lawyers say the federal proposals are overly intrusive and they
give police too much leeway.

They say this will virtually guarantee a barrage of Charter of Rights court
challenges.

The Canadian Bar Association, in a submission to the government, advocates
developing more solid and objective tests for a couple of drugs -- along
with a legal limit -- instead of trying to create a questionable
one-size-fits-all testing scheme.

"The opposite view is that there would be so few drugs that you could have
that agreement on threshold that you wouldn't necessarily be moving ahead
very far," countered Hal Pruden, a Justice Department lawyer.

The Justice Department, however, concedes there are problems with its
proposals.

"Drugs, unlike alcohol, are often extremely difficult to link to a
particular concentration level that will cause impairment in the general
population of drivers," the discussion paper says. "Moreover, analysis for
some drugs in certain bodily fluids may simply indicate drug use many days,
or even months, in the past."

The bar association cautions against rushing into legislation.

But police and Mothers Against Drunk Driving say drug-impaired driving must
be addressed before Ottawa decriminalizes marijuana possession, which could
happen in the next month or so.

"To not move forward with amendments because of Charter of Rights
challenges is not an argument," says a joint submission from MADD and
several police groups.

"We anticipate challenges and we strongly believe that the court will side
with the overriding concerns for public safety."

Police currently rely on a driver's behaviour and witness testimony to
determine drug use. There are officers in British Columbia who are trained
to administer roadside tests, but there is no law that forces drivers to
comply.

Also, drug-impaired driving charges usually do not stick.

Last year, for instance, former Ottawa lawyer Rick Reimer, who is legally
permitted to smoke marijuana to treat multiple sclerosis, was acquitted of
impaired driving, even though he was smoking a joint when police pulled him
over.

The judge said there was not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that Mr. Reimer was impaired.