Driving is a privilege, not a right – and mixing alcohol or drugs with getting behind the wheel is just plain stupid.
Many Canadians still have a pervasive, if baffling, lackadaisical attitude toward impaired driving in general.
It is something the federal government is aiming to alter with new stiffer laws, that came into effect Tuesday, that crack down on this crime.
These rules increase some penalties for drunk drivers and expand the powers of police officers, who can now ask for a breath sample during any lawful stop.
There are also new offences for drug-impaired driving related to THC levels and combined THC-alcohol levels.
The law has a very promising and admirable premise. Impaired driving is a scourge of the roads, most especially during holidays, and creates needless risk, pain and loss of life. It’s a crime that all too often seems to be borne out of apathy or the sentiment that “it couldn’t happen to me.”
But the flawed execution of this law leaves it open to challenges – which will undoubtedly be made, bogging down our already overburdened court system.
The chief contention with this law is that police officers can ask for a breathalyzer sample even if drivers show no signs of impairment – a significant change from the previous requirement that police needed reasonable grounds for such a test, like smelling alcohol on breath.
Even federal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould said the new law would face hurdles, although she’s confident it does not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
St. Albert Conservative MP Michael Cooper isn’t so sure, and he’s raised some very valid concerns. He told the Gazette the mandatory screening is “a serious infringement on individual liberty.”
Time – and the courts – will ultimately decide. The effort to crack down on impaired drivers deserves applause though, regardless of that eventuality, and the courts could very well rule the privacy violation of requiring a breath sample is a lesser concern than the danger posed by drunk drivers.
Cooper has also taken aim at the fact the bill does not increase mandatory minimums for some of the more serious impaired driving offences.
For a bill that aims in part to deter people from getting behind the wheel while impaired by drugs or alcohol, this one puts all its eggs in the basket of mandatory screening. While some maximums are increasing, Cooper rightly points out maximum sentences are rarely handed down by the courts.
The Liberal government missed an important opportunity to really toughen up on impaired driving by addressing minimum penalties. That would have sent an even stronger message that Canada does not take driving under the influence lightly.
We can now only hope that, if the law survives a court challenge, expanding police powers will succeed where other efforts have failed.
