New impaired driving law needs to be tested in court

Editorial from the Victoria Times Colonist: Canada's harsh new impaired-driving law is likely going to end up at the Supreme Court. The sooner that happens, the better.

Bill C-46 attempts to crack down on the scourge of impaired driving as the country gets ready for legalized marijuana. In addition to setting new rules on drugs, it includes something new: It allows police to demand a breath sample from any driver they lawfully stop.

That’s a big change from the current law, which says officers must have a reasonable suspicion that a driver has alcohol in his or her system before they can require a roadside breath test.

Studies suggest that under the current system, as many as 50 per cent of impaired drivers get through check stops without being detected. That’s a figure that should worry all of us, so it’s not surprising that Canada wants to follow the lead of the 40 countries that already have mandatory roadside testing.

However, it’s an innovation that treads on important rights. It’s obvious police don’t have the time and resources to give breath tests to everyone. How will they pick their subjects? Reasonable suspicion is a fairly flexible measure, but at least it is possible to set guidelines.

The new law, however, is arbitrary and intrusive. Is it a path we want to go down? Lawyers expect the law will be challenged on constitutional grounds. The government expects it will withstand such a challenge. It should be sent to the Supreme Court as soon as possible, so that question can be answered before there is too much confusion.