Backgrounder

Recognizing the Seriousness of the Problem

Drug users are disproportionately involved in fatal accidents. A study by the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec determined that more than 30% of fatal accidents in the province involved drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol.

A Traffic Injury Research Foundation poll in 2002 found that close to 20% of Canadian drivers had driven within two hours of taking a potentially impairing drug (over-the-counter, prescription or illegal). The Ontario Student Drug Use Survey in 2003 found that close to 20% of high school drivers in the province reported driving within one hour of using cannabis at least once in the preceding year.

Enforcing our Current Laws

Driving while impaired by alcohol or a drug is currently a criminal offence that can result in severe penalties, including a maximum penalty of life imprisonment if it causes the death of another person.

Under paragraph 253(a) of the Criminal Code, it is an offence for anyone to operate a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment while his or her ability to operate it is impaired by alcohol or a drug. For section 253(a) drug-impaired driving investigations, officers usually rely upon symptoms of impairment, driving behaviour, and witness testimony.

Currently there is no authority in the Criminal Code for police to demand physical sobriety tests or bodily fluid samples for section 253(a) impaired driving investigations. However, if a driver voluntarily participates in physical sobriety tests, the evidence is admissible in court.

There is no "legal limit" offence for drugs as there is in section 253(b) of the Criminal Code for alcohol. Unlike alcohol, for the vast majority of drugs, there is no scientific consensus on the threshold drug concentration level in the body that causes impairment and makes driving hazardous. Technology to detect drug concentration at roadside is neither an available nor effective option.

Reforming our Current Laws

The proposed reforms would improve investigations of Criminal Code drug-impaired driving offences by authorizing police to demand:

1. Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST), where there is reasonable suspicion that a driver has a drug in the body. SFSTs are divided-attention tests that evaluate a subject's ability to multitask. They are administered at the roadside.
2. Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) evaluations where the officer reasonably believes a drug-impaired driving offence was committed. This includes a situation where the driver fails the SFST. These are administered at the police station.
3. A sample of a bodily substance (blood, urine or oral fluid), should the DRE officer identify that impairment is caused by a specific family of drugs.

Refusal or failure to comply with any of these demands by police would be a criminal offence, punishable by the same Criminal Code penalties as refusing a demand for a breath test for alcohol. A minimum $600 fine would apply for a first offence.

Understanding the Value of Proven Techniques to Detect Drug Impairment

DRE evaluations were first developed by the Los Angeles Police Department and standardized by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the United States in the early 1980s. They are used in most U.S. states, Australia, New Zealand and some European countries. Their reliability is documented in studies by John Hopkins University, which determined DRE-trained officers were over 90% accurate in determining impairment and the type of drug that caused impairment.

Canada began using DRE evaluations in 1995. Police in B.C., Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia use them but can only currently do so when the suspect voluntarily participates.

Besides helping to keep drug-impaired drivers off the nation's roadways, DRE evaluations can also rule out drug impairment in drivers who have a medical condition, and steer these people toward appropriate medical attention. Drug recognition experts can assist in other situations too, such as when dealing with intoxicated prisoners and assessing whether they require emergency medical services.

Training Police to Use Drug-Impairment Tests

To successfully implement these proposed legislative reforms and enhance the overall capacity of police to address drug impairment in Canada, $6.49 million in new funding over three years will be used to train DRE officers and instructors nationwide through a "train the trainers" approach. An additional $500,000 for research and evaluation will help ensure all levels of government better understand the nature and scope of the drug-impaired driving problem in Canada. This work will involve evaluating the process and the effectiveness of the DRE program in the law enforcement community. These investments build on $5 million in initial funding provided through Canada's Renewed Drug Strategy ($910,000) and reallocated from within the RCMP ($4.1 million). As a result, $11.9 million in total funding will have been provided by the Government of Canada to address drug-impaired driving.

By 2007-2008, Canada will have an estimated 3,522 officers trained in Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST), 394 DRE-trained officers and 175 DRE instructors - a level of expertise that will then allow ongoing training as needed as part of regular police operations.

Improving Investigations of All Forms of Drug-Impaired Driving

The measures announced today deliver on the Government's commitment to address drug-impaired driving while reforms to modernize Canada's cannabis laws are also being proposed. This legislation will, however, enhance investigations of driving while impaired by any drug - over-the-counter, prescription or illegal - not just cannabis.

The proposed legislative reforms respond to Parliamentary Committees that recommended consideration of ways to strengthen the law regarding investigation of drug-impaired driving. These include the House of Commons Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs (Bill C-38: Cannabis Reform) in the fall of 2003, the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs (2002) and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (1999). A consultation paper was used to obtain responses from several key stakeholders in the fall 2003, which helped inform this legislation.