Modeling Journey

Harper's Tories have floated a trial balloon concerning the introduction of the right to police across Canada to randomly force drivers to take roadside breath tests. This would be a change to our existing law, which requires police to have a reasonable suspicion of drunk driving before they can ask a driver to take a breath test.

I strongly urge the Liberal Party to support such legislation, should the Tories introduce it. In fact, the Liberals should consider introducing a private member's bill to bring into being such legislation.

There is no doubt that the new law would be tested in court as a possible breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Supreme Court would have to decide where to come down on the issue of the balancing of the interests of the public and the interests of the individual. Our Charter is a very intelligent instrument, and provides that the Court may allow breaches of individual protection against unreasonable search and seizure, if such breaches are reasonable and demonstrably justified.

Can the new law be demonstrated to be justified?

Consider this:

"The Traffic Injury Research Foundation reports that in 2006, 907 Canadians were killed in traffic accidents involving a driver who had earlier been drinking.
The justice committee, in its recent report, concluded the “current methods of enforcing the law lead police officers to apprehend only a small percentage of impaired drivers, even at roadside traffic stops.”

The report noted an Australian study showed a 36% decrease in the number of people killed in drunk-driving accidents after several states adopted random testing. An Irish study reported a 23 per cent drop in traffic deaths after Ireland passed a similar law in 2006."

That should be reasonable justification.