Pubdate: Wed, 14 Jun 2017
Source: National Post (Canada)
Copyright: 2017 Canwest Publishing Inc.
Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/wEtbT4yU
Website: http://www.nationalpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/286
Author: Brian Platt
Page: A4

MANDATORY ROADSIDE BREATH TESTS CONSTITUTIONAL, JUSTICE OFFICIALS INSIST

A proposed law that would allow police to take a roadside breath
sample without evidence that a driver has been drinking was under
scrutiny again in Parliament on Tuesday, as Canada's justice minister
defended it against arguments it violates the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.

"Questions around its constitutionality have been raised," Jody
Wilson-Raybould, flanked by senior justice department officials,
acknowledged to a House of Commons committee studying the bill.

But she said she's confident mandatory alcohol screening would survive
a court challenge, calling it "minimally intrusive, but the benefits
in lives saved will be immeasurable."

Under current law, police need a reasonable suspicion a person has
consumed alcohol before demanding a breathalyzer test, but
Wilson-Raybould said evidence indicates around 50 per cent of impaired
drivers tend to escape detection.

Deputy Attorney General William Pentney also argued the law, which
still requires police to have a valid reason for pulling someone over
in the first place, would have a large deterrent effect in itself.

"We're not saying that every police officer that stops every person
for a broken tail light must ask," he said. "But we are saying that
everyone who gets pulled over for whatever reason in whatever context
should know that they might be asked, and if they're asked, they have
a legal obligation to comply."

In an earlier statement on the law's Charter effects, the government
likened a mandatory breath sample to the requirement to show a
driver's licence, describing it as "simply information about whether a
driver is complying with one of the conditions imposed in the highly
regulated context of driving."

The government cites studies suggesting Australia, New Zealand and
Ireland have seen large declines in road-collision deaths under this
policy.

Both opposition parties, as well as criminal defence lawyers and civil
liberties groups, say the legislation is on shaky constitutional ground.

"Let's not underestimate the fact that this is a significant
infringement on individual liberty when we're talking about taking a
bodily sample without the slightest hint of suspicion that someone is
breaking the law," Conservative MP Michael Cooper said.

Bill C-46 is one of two bills concerning legalizing recreational
marijuana use that the government introduced this spring, and will try
to get through Parliament by next summer. Wilson-Raybould has insisted
a timeline of having the legalization take effect by July 2018 is
reasonable, despite concerns from provinces it's too fast and will
strain their resources.

The committee studying C-46 will now start hearing from experts on
impaired driving and drug testing, likely well into the fall.

Other provisions in the bill would restrict the defences available to
someone charged with drunk driving, in particular one defence that
allows someone to claim they had the drink so soon before driving that
the alcohol hadn't yet entered their bloodstream.

The new law would simply make it illegal to be over the limit within
two hours of driving, which Pentney said he hopes will alleviate the
resource strain on courts dealing with drunk-driving cases.

The legislation would also allow police to conduct a roadside saliva
test for marijuana - though Wilson-Raybould conceded the science is
still being worked on regarding how much marijuana in a person's
system constitutes impairment, and how well it can be tested.

"We're taking a precautionary approach, the premise being that no
level of drug impairment or ingestion of drugs is appropriate if
you're planning to get behind the wheel of your car," she said, noting
the legislation incorporates the best available evidence from an
expert advisory committee, as well as impairment levels set by other
jurisdictions.

"The science with respect to impairment by drugs is not as clear as it
is with respect to impairment by alcohol ... We're going to continue
to embrace recommendations that come from them as the science
continues to evolve."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt