Marjorie LeBreton is a former leader of the Conservatives in the Senate. She has a family tragedy in her past: her daughter and grandson were killed by a drunk driver. Ms. LeBreton is unhappy that her former senate colleagues have voted to gut Bill C-46 which gives the right to the police to stop a vehicle and demand that the driver submit to a roadside breathalyzer demand, without having to show reasonable grounds, as is now the case.
The senate majority took what is considered to be the libertarian view – namely that this new power was an unreasonable extension of police powers in a democratic country.
But, are they right?
At the present time, it is actually quite difficult for police to detect drunk drivers. Despite the fact that drunk driving takes many lives every year, detection rates are quite low. Unless a driver shows obvious signs of impairment, such as weaving from lane to lane, the police are powerless to stop drivers they know are probably impaired. As a result, there are a lot of drunk drivers on the road at any given point in time.
Even when they do find a driver who is probably impaired, the process to obtain a conviction and license suspension is long and convoluted. Highly skilled lawyers can often obtain an acquittal of a drunk driver, simply because a police officer failed to complete one of an almost impossibly long list of requirements that are necessary in order to get a conviction. A drunk driver with enough money to pay one of the highly skilled defence lawyers who specialize in drunk driving cases has a good chance of beating the charge.
Bill C-46 would remedy this – at least in part. It would also bring us in line with other democratic countries that have far less of a problem with impaired driving than do we. In most of the countries of Western Europe, the police have long had the powers that C-46 would grant. Generally, they have much less of a problem with impaired drivers than we do because citizens simply do not take the chance especially when they know that there is a very good possibility they will be caught if they drink and drive. Countries like Norway and Sweden are no less “free” than is Canada, yet they have fewer drunks on the road because of their tougher drunk driving laws. In Canada, our weaker laws result in too many innocent lives being taken every year by drunk drivers. In fact, impaired driving remains the number one criminal cause of death in Canada. This is a fact not known to many people.
The other thing C-46 would do is drastically reduce the huge numbers of drinking and driving related trials. I mentioned earlier that alleged drunk drivers with the money to spend have a good chance of beating the charge if they take it to trial because of all of the technical defences skilled lawyers have at their disposal here. This has contributed to a serious court backlog problem in all of the provinces. It is a fact that drinking and driving related trials are a major cause of those delays.And this is an area where conservatives and liberals could both agree. C-46 would go a long way to reducing those unnecessary bottlenecks.
Backlogs and unnecessary trials waste a huge amount of police time, with police often paid overtime while they are cooling their heels in court waiting rooms. One of the reasons why so many police officers are hired every year is due to all of this wasted time spent on unnecessary trials. Extra court staff must also be hired to accommodate the clogged schedule. This includes the appointment of more judges, each of whom costs taxpayers a million dollars a year, in total. It must be borne in mind that each extra police officer, court clerk, sheriff’s officer, legal aid lawyer, judge etc. that must be hired because of this waste results in the expense of even more support staff, office room, vehicle support, expense accounts, etc. Court backlogs are incredibly expensive and wasteful and C-46 has the potential to significantly reduce all that extra and wasteful spending.
Backlogs also compromise the quality of justices available for legitimate cases that must wait inordinate amounts of time for attention. Recently, for example, an MLA’s important case was delayed again, simply because no judge was available to deal with it. C-46 would go a long way to making judges and court staff available to despatch justice in a timely way. As they say, justice delayed is justice denied.
But most of all, C-46 would make the roads safer for all of us. People tempted to risk drinking and driving would not take the risk if they knew that there was a very good chance that they would be caught, with the financial penalties and loss of license that would result from that bad decision.
And to the objection that this is an unwarranted intrusion of the state? In fact, as a term of my driving license, I must agree to wear corrective lenses. I don’t mind doing that, as it is obviously necessary for safety purposes, and I also don’t mind a police officer checking to make sure I am doing so. Similarly, I also agree that if I want to drive on public roads, I will not do so with more than the allowed amount of alcohol in my system. It is fine with me if a police officer checks to make sure I am not in breach. This is something that contributes to my safety, as well as public safety in general. I think most people would agree with me on this.
C-46 would both contribute to public safety, help address the serious court backlog problem, and save taxpayers a lot of money.
The Senate should step aside on this one, and let Parliament do its job.
