Canada's impaired driving laws just got a huge and controversial overhaul — here's what you should k

gb123

Well-Known Member
Bill C-46 made reforms to alcohol-impaired driving and drug-impaired driving, and police now have powerful new tools to charge drivers

OTTAWA — A sweeping overhaul of Canada’s impaired driving laws was given Royal Assent on Thursday, meaning the new rules are starting to come into effect and drivers should be prepared.

Bill C-46 made reforms to both alcohol-impaired driving and drug-impaired driving, and police now have powerful new tools to detect and charge drivers. The bill also made many technical changes to help the courts deal with impaired driving cases more quickly.

There are three big — and controversial — changes Canadians will need to know about.

Random roadside breath testing

Starting in December (180 days after Royal Assent), police can require a roadside breath test for any driver. The crucial change is they will no longer need reasonable suspicion the person has been drinking. Drivers who refuse this test face a criminal charge with similar penalties to an impaired driving conviction.

This provoked heated debate during the Senate’s study of Bill C-46, as lawyers and civil liberties groups argued it violated the Charter’s protection against unreasonable searches. There is also concern it will disproportionately affect minorities due to racial profiling.





Related Stories:

How much cannabis could you smoke and stay under the proposed legal limit for driving? The answer may be zero


Senators vote to remove random roadside alcohol testing from impaired driving bill


Editorial Exchange: The Senate shouldn't block random roadside alcohol tests





The Senate voted to remove the entire provision from the bill, but the Liberal government insisted on restoring it and eventually got its way.

Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould says she’s confident the measure will survive a court challenge, and some constitutional experts have backed her up on this.

The government points to other countries that have random testing, such as Australia and Ireland, and argues those countries have seen a dramatic reduction in impaired driving rates. Critics argue those stats are misleading because they aren’t being compared to a selective testing regime like Canada’s, and point out Canada has also seen sharp declines in impaired driving under the current rules.

Roadside saliva testing

Canadian police officers can now use roadside screening devices that test saliva for the presence of cocaine, methamphetamine and THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis. Police will not be able to use random testing for these; they will still need reasonable suspicion before demanding the test.

However, it will likely be months until these are seen on Canada’s roads. Even though this section of the bill comes into force immediately, a number of steps must still happen.

First, Wilson-Raybould will need to sign off on which devices are approved for use. Devices are being independently tested by the National Research Council, but it is taking longer than expected. Department officials testified at a Senate committee in May that they have no idea when the testing will be done.

Once the testing is finished, Wilson-Raybould will make a ministerial order to approve them for use, but that needs to go through a 30-day public consultation. Then the devices need to be purchased and frontline officers will need to be trained on them. All this means it could be well into the fall before police are using them.

THC blood levels

Canada will now be setting a “per se” level for THC in the blood within two hours of driving, meaning police can lay an impaired driving charge based solely on the blood test results without needing to further prove impairment.

We have long been doing this for blood alcohol levels, laying criminal charges if a driver’s level is above 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

But the science linking THC blood levels to impairment is much weaker than the science on blood alcohol levels, and defence lawyers will almost certainly challenge this once it’s in effect. Medical marijuana patients are also likely to be at the forefront of challenges.

The per se levels are set through regulations, not the legislation itself. The government has already proposed its levels, based on nanograms per millilitre of blood:

  • A THC level between 2 and 5 ng would be a lower-level offence with a fine of up to $1000;
  • A THC level above 5 ng would come with the same penalties as an alcohol-impaired driving conviction, including mandatory minimum penalties of a $1000 fine on a first offence, 30 days imprisonment on a second offence and 120 days imprisonment on a third offence;
  • A mixture of a THC level above 2.5 ng and a blood alcohol concentration above 50 mg per 100 mL would have the same penalties as above.
Provinces may add additional penalties on top of this.

Consuming even small amounts of cannabis shortly before driving could put someone over these limits. The government has said that until the science improves, it is taking a “zero-tolerance” approach.
 
Bill C-46 made reforms to alcohol-impaired driving and drug-impaired driving, and police now have powerful new tools to charge drivers

OTTAWA — A sweeping overhaul of Canada’s impaired driving laws was given Royal Assent on Thursday, meaning the new rules are starting to come into effect and drivers should be prepared.

Bill C-46 made reforms to both alcohol-impaired driving and drug-impaired driving, and police now have powerful new tools to detect and charge drivers. The bill also made many technical changes to help the courts deal with impaired driving cases more quickly.

There are three big — and controversial — changes Canadians will need to know about.

Random roadside breath testing

Starting in December (180 days after Royal Assent), police can require a roadside breath test for any driver. The crucial change is they will no longer need reasonable suspicion the person has been drinking. Drivers who refuse this test face a criminal charge with similar penalties to an impaired driving conviction.

This provoked heated debate during the Senate’s study of Bill C-46, as lawyers and civil liberties groups argued it violated the Charter’s protection against unreasonable searches. There is also concern it will disproportionately affect minorities due to racial profiling.





Related Stories:
How much cannabis could you smoke and stay under the proposed legal limit for driving? The answer may be zero
Senators vote to remove random roadside alcohol testing from impaired driving bill
Editorial Exchange: The Senate shouldn't block random roadside alcohol tests




The Senate voted to remove the entire provision from the bill, but the Liberal government insisted on restoring it and eventually got its way.

Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould says she’s confident the measure will survive a court challenge, and some constitutional experts have backed her up on this.

The government points to other countries that have random testing, such as Australia and Ireland, and argues those countries have seen a dramatic reduction in impaired driving rates. Critics argue those stats are misleading because they aren’t being compared to a selective testing regime like Canada’s, and point out Canada has also seen sharp declines in impaired driving under the current rules.

Roadside saliva testing

Canadian police officers can now use roadside screening devices that test saliva for the presence of cocaine, methamphetamine and THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis. Police will not be able to use random testing for these; they will still need reasonable suspicion before demanding the test.

However, it will likely be months until these are seen on Canada’s roads. Even though this section of the bill comes into force immediately, a number of steps must still happen.

First, Wilson-Raybould will need to sign off on which devices are approved for use. Devices are being independently tested by the National Research Council, but it is taking longer than expected. Department officials testified at a Senate committee in May that they have no idea when the testing will be done.

Once the testing is finished, Wilson-Raybould will make a ministerial order to approve them for use, but that needs to go through a 30-day public consultation. Then the devices need to be purchased and frontline officers will need to be trained on them. All this means it could be well into the fall before police are using them.

THC blood levels

Canada will now be setting a “per se” level for THC in the blood within two hours of driving, meaning police can lay an impaired driving charge based solely on the blood test results without needing to further prove impairment.

We have long been doing this for blood alcohol levels, laying criminal charges if a driver’s level is above 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

But the science linking THC blood levels to impairment is much weaker than the science on blood alcohol levels, and defence lawyers will almost certainly challenge this once it’s in effect. Medical marijuana patients are also likely to be at the forefront of challenges.

The per se levels are set through regulations, not the legislation itself. The government has already proposed its levels, based on nanograms per millilitre of blood:




    • A THC level between 2 and 5 ng would be a lower-level offence with a fine of up to $1000;
    • A THC level above 5 ng would come with the same penalties as an alcohol-impaired driving conviction, including mandatory minimum penalties of a $1000 fine on a first offence, 30 days imprisonment on a second offence and 120 days imprisonment on a third offence;
    • A mixture of a THC level above 2.5 ng and a blood alcohol concentration above 50 mg per 100 mL would have the same penalties as above.
Provinces may add additional penalties on top of this.

Consuming even small amounts of cannabis shortly before driving could put someone over these limits. The government has said that until the science improves, it is taking a “zero-tolerance” approach.
What a useless article, only confusing things more than they are. In one breath and the headline they make it sound like the changes are significant and MJ is subject to random roadside testing. Then they say:

"Roadside saliva testing

Canadian police officers can now use roadside screening devices that test saliva for the presence of cocaine, methamphetamine and THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis. Police will not be able to use random testing for these; they will still need reasonable suspicion before demanding the test."

So what the fuck has changed other than they will have saliva tests, if they have reasonable grounds to test you. Not that they'd ever get a sample form me anyhow, I'd take the fine for not producing the saliva test and fight that in court based on reasonable grounds.
 
What a useless article, only confusing things more than they are. In one breath and the headline they make it sound like the changes are significant and MJ is subject to random roadside testing. Then they say:

"Roadside saliva testing

Canadian police officers can now use roadside screening devices that test saliva for the presence of cocaine, methamphetamine and THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis. Police will not be able to use random testing for these; they will still need reasonable suspicion before demanding the test."

So what the fuck has changed other than they will have saliva tests, if they have reasonable grounds to test you. Not that they'd ever get a sample form me anyhow, I'd take the fine for not producing the saliva test and fight that in court based on reasonable grounds.

In my province they are proposing complete bullshit. Stuff like if a cop even suspects you are under the influence they can detain you, impound your vehicle, force you to give a blood sample, and suspend your license. All without charge.
Best part is none of that could be done before prohibition 2.0. Complete fucking joke.
Cheers :)
 
In my province they are proposing complete bullshit. Stuff like if a cop even suspects you are under the influence they can detain you, impound your vehicle, force you to give a blood sample, and suspend your license. All without charge.
Best part is none of that could be done before prohibition 2.0. Complete fucking joke.
Cheers :)
Yeah that's a clear instant ground for dismissal with a decent lawyer, the unfortunate part is that it will take some $ to fight the first cases. Just bullshit and specifically targeted at MJ which imo is the least of the evils when it comes to driving impaired, *uckers.
 
they should hand out the paper work for" disability claims " at these road side tests then...
and have the cop sign it...
because I do not know a single daily mmj user that could pass a 2 ng limit...therefore I guess we have been
forced into disability due to the fact we will not be able to attend work...on our own...unless we work from home...
 
they should hand out the paper work for" disability claims " at these road side tests then...
and have the cop sign it...
because I do not know a single daily mmj user that could pass a 2 ng limit...therefore I guess we have been
forced into disability due to the fact we will not be able to attend work...on our own...unless we work from home...

It's complete crap because you are allowed to use pain meds and drive, you simply can't be impaired. Where is arbitrary limit and test for opiates? .
 
It's complete crap because you are allowed to use pain meds and drive, you simply can't be impaired. Where is arbitrary limit and test for opiates? .

They actually have no way of proven in court that a person is in fact impaired by prescription drugs. I know this because I had a pilled out lunatic try to run me off the road 4 years ago and that is what the prosecution office told me. Of course it started with, " I have some bad news and I really shouldn't be telling you this but" lol
I will give a blood sample right after the pig sucks my dick and swallows. Especially because it doesn't tell shit about if someone was impaired at the time or not.
This will be used to harass anybody and everybody and is in fact far more restrictive then when the shit was illegal .
Cheers :)
 
They actually have no way of proven in court that a person is in fact impaired by prescription drugs. I know this because I had a pilled out lunatic try to run me off the road 4 years ago and that is what the prosecution office told me. Of course it started with, " I have some bad news and I really shouldn't be telling you this but" lol
I will give a blood sample right after the pig sucks my dick and swallows. Especially because it doesn't tell shit about if someone was impaired at the time or not.
This will be used to harass anybody and everybody and is in fact far more restrictive then when the shit was illegal .
Cheers :)

Totally agree, far worse and the impaired regulations make no sense at all scientifically. This government must love having the power to ruin lives at any time for no reason. I can guarantee I won't be voting Liberal because of this.
 
Get ready for roadside swabs, red eyes from anything, swerve inside the lines, rubber necking etc. 5 ng aint sheet.

#Random
 
they should hand out the paper work for" disability claims " at these road side tests then...
and have the cop sign it...
because I do not know a single daily mmj user that could pass a 2 ng limit...therefore I guess we have been
forced into disability due to the fact we will not be able to attend work...on our own...unless we work from home...
full disability I guess, courtesy of the government.
 
Last edited:
In this and other breaking news, 66% of people in fatal roadside crashes had consumed coffee within 24 hours of the fatal collision and tested positive for caffeine.

LOL, this is how they report the Cannabis and crash statistics. Total bogus non-causality. I can't believe the populace is this dumb that even the average Joe isn't like...wait a minute...
 
I mentioned it before - a heroin addict hit and killed a jogger on the island before Christmas - and no charges have been laid. The cops were pushed for a comment last week and said it is up to the crown to lay charges. Bottom line is there is no way to prove impairment from drugs. He will get undue care and attention - maybe negligence causing death or vehicular manslaughter - but he won't get charged with impaired. With cannabis, they came up with a random number, 2ng, and rather than the charge being 'impaired driving' it will be worded 'driving with a cannabis level over 2 ng'. I'm not changing anything I do -
 
A 2 ng limit is basically saying yes I smoke pot or No I don't....
With only 1`ng separating users from non users....
sounds like a way to shake the user apples from the tree....all while getting your info for a data base...hmmmmm
and even though its legal....will we become cash grab targets...? I'm betting we do...
 
A THC level above 5 ng would come with the same penalties as an alcohol-impaired driving conviction, including mandatory minimum penalties of a $1000 fine on a first offence, 30 days imprisonment on a second offence and 120 days imprisonment on a third offence;
...wow...patients are fucked.
I mentioned it before - a heroin addict hit and killed a jogger on the island before Christmas - and no charges have been laid. The cops were pushed for a comment last week and said it is up to the crown to lay charges. Bottom line is there is no way to prove impairment from drugs. He will get undue care and attention - maybe negligence causing death or vehicular manslaughter - but he won't get charged with impaired. With cannabis, they came up with a random number, 2ng, and rather than the charge being 'impaired driving' it will be worded 'driving with a cannabis level over 2 ng'. I'm not changing anything I do -
keep track of that story....I'm seeing a new calling for myself...lol...
 
Back
Top