Tories get tough on drug-impaired driving, critics see Charter issue: Knowledge Driven Revolution

Related - Your Favourite Canadian Political Parties

The federal Conservatives have brought in legislation to crack down on drug-impaired drivers - by resurrecting a plan first advanced by the Liberals, adding heavier fines and jail terms, and calling the result a Tory initiative.

The bill, tabled Tuesday by Justice Minister Vic Toews, would also tighten laws against driving under the influence of alcohol, changing the rules of evidence to make it harder to challenge breathalyzer tests in court. The main focus, however, is on those who get behind the wheel while high on marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine or a variety of other drugs.

"I can't seriously see people (being) opposed to this type of legislation," said Toews, noting that similar measures are already in force in many American states.

"There is no reason why Canadians shouldn't be protected in the same way."

Opposition MPs insisted they need time to study the bill. And some predicted parts of it could be struck down by the courts as a violation of the Charter of Rights.

The legislation had been trumpeted in advance by Prime Minister Stephen Harper as another step in a broader Conservative law-and-order agenda.

Toews picked up the theme, posing for pictures outside the Commons with police, the lobby group Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and a family whose son was killed by a drug-impaired driver. All expressed support for the bill.

But Toews admitted, when pressed by reporters, that the core of his legislation - setting out the legal steps police must follow to prove drug impairment - is taken straight from a bill proposed by the previous Liberal government.

"In that respect, it's essentially the same," said the minister.

He went on, however, to point to areas where the Tories had "enhanced" the Liberal approach - mainly by boosting the penalties upon conviction.

Under the new bill, the minimum fine for a first offence of either drug-or alcohol-impaired driving would be $1,000 rather than the current $600. A second offence would bring a mandatory 30 days in jail rather than 14, a third offence 120 days rather than 90.

In the worst cases, the maximum sentence would be life in prison for impaired driving causing death and 10 years for causing bodily harm.

The Tory bill also creates a new offence of being in care and control of a vehicle while in possession of an illicit dug - something like driving with an open bottle of beer.

The penalty would be a mandatory six-month prohibition on driving, in addition to jail time that could run up to five years.

Driving while intoxicated by any substance has long been illegal. But there is no simple and conclusive roadside test for drug impairment to match the well-known breath test that measures alcohol levels.

The Tory legislation follows the Liberal model in trying to solve that problem, setting out a series of procedures that police must follow in assessing drug impairment.

The first step is a preliminary roadside test of the familiar touch-your-nose or walk-the-line variety. If the driver fails that, the next step is examination at the station by an officer specially trained to recognize signs of drug use. Only after that could police finally demand a sample of bodily fluids such as blood, urine or saliva.

Toews expressed confidence the multiple tests would pass muster under the Charter, but NDP justice critic Joe Comartin wasn't so sure.

"I think ultimately it would be unconstitutional," he said.

Comartin was also skeptical that the Tories, who already have a half-dozen crime-fighting bills before the House, can get this one through before the next election.

Sue Barnes, the Liberal justice critic, argued that everything depends on funding and proper training of the police officers who would conduct the drug tests.

"It's not just introducing paper legislation, it's making sure you've got the appropriate resources all the way through the chain," said Barnes.

The Liberals have slammed Harper for cutting $4 million that had been earmarked by the Grits for RCMP training programs in drug enforcement.

Toews said that money was tied to specific bills that never became law. But he insisted he's been assured by Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day that money can still be found for the Tory initiative at a level of $2 million a year for two years.

Read the full article here

Broken Link? If the link to the original article is broken or has been altered you can view the article by clicking here.

Read Today's Knowledge Driven News
HOME Rouge States and the 9/11 Truth Terrorists Canadians Should Pay NOT to be Poisoned: NDP V for Vendetta - R for Reality Canadian Bird Flu Pandemic Looming ? Shill of the Week: Stephan Harper Aspartame: The Sweetest Killer Chicken Little Terrorist of the Week: Creating Fake Terrorists Shill of the Week: Paul Martin The Number 1 Reason YOU became a Slave	Tories get tough on drug-impaired driving, critics see Charter issue Jim Brown - CP November 24, 2006 Related - Your Favourite Canadian Political Parties The federal Conservatives have brought in legislation to crack down on drug-impaired drivers - by resurrecting a plan first advanced by the Liberals, adding heavier fines and jail terms, and calling the result a Tory initiative. The bill, tabled Tuesday by Justice Minister Vic Toews, would also tighten laws against driving under the influence of alcohol, changing the rules of evidence to make it harder to challenge breathalyzer tests in court. The main focus, however, is on those who get behind the wheel while high on marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine or a variety of other drugs. "I can't seriously see people (being) opposed to this type of legislation," said Toews, noting that similar measures are already in force in many American states. "There is no reason why Canadians shouldn't be protected in the same way." Opposition MPs insisted they need time to study the bill. And some predicted parts of it could be struck down by the courts as a violation of the Charter of Rights. The legislation had been trumpeted in advance by Prime Minister Stephen Harper as another step in a broader Conservative law-and-order agenda. Toews picked up the theme, posing for pictures outside the Commons with police, the lobby group Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and a family whose son was killed by a drug-impaired driver. All expressed support for the bill. But Toews admitted, when pressed by reporters, that the core of his legislation - setting out the legal steps police must follow to prove drug impairment - is taken straight from a bill proposed by the previous Liberal government. "In that respect, it's essentially the same," said the minister. He went on, however, to point to areas where the Tories had "enhanced" the Liberal approach - mainly by boosting the penalties upon conviction. Under the new bill, the minimum fine for a first offence of either drug-or alcohol-impaired driving would be $1,000 rather than the current $600. A second offence would bring a mandatory 30 days in jail rather than 14, a third offence 120 days rather than 90. In the worst cases, the maximum sentence would be life in prison for impaired driving causing death and 10 years for causing bodily harm. The Tory bill also creates a new offence of being in care and control of a vehicle while in possession of an illicit dug - something like driving with an open bottle of beer. The penalty would be a mandatory six-month prohibition on driving, in addition to jail time that could run up to five years. Driving while intoxicated by any substance has long been illegal. But there is no simple and conclusive roadside test for drug impairment to match the well-known breath test that measures alcohol levels. The Tory legislation follows the Liberal model in trying to solve that problem, setting out a series of procedures that police must follow in assessing drug impairment. The first step is a preliminary roadside test of the familiar touch-your-nose or walk-the-line variety. If the driver fails that, the next step is examination at the station by an officer specially trained to recognize signs of drug use. Only after that could police finally demand a sample of bodily fluids such as blood, urine or saliva. Toews expressed confidence the multiple tests would pass muster under the Charter, but NDP justice critic Joe Comartin wasn't so sure. "I think ultimately it would be unconstitutional," he said. Comartin was also skeptical that the Tories, who already have a half-dozen crime-fighting bills before the House, can get this one through before the next election. Sue Barnes, the Liberal justice critic, argued that everything depends on funding and proper training of the police officers who would conduct the drug tests. "It's not just introducing paper legislation, it's making sure you've got the appropriate resources all the way through the chain," said Barnes. The Liberals have slammed Harper for cutting $4 million that had been earmarked by the Grits for RCMP training programs in drug enforcement. Toews said that money was tied to specific bills that never became law. But he insisted he's been assured by Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day that money can still be found for the Tory initiative at a level of $2 million a year for two years. Read the full article here Broken Link? If the link to the original article is broken or has been altered you can view the article by clicking here. About KDR \| \| Home \| \| Weekly Features Archive	Weekly Features Archive
		What Is Wrong With Canada ? Recent 9-11 News Suppressed by the Media Aspartame: The Sweetest Killer The Number 1 Reason YOU became a Slave Knowledge Driven Look at Your Favourite Canadian Political Parties
		September October November 2006 29 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 01 02 Weekly Features 2006 2005 Read Today's Knowledge Driven News
		Counter
Copyright � 2005-6 KnowledgeDrivenRevolution.com