Herald Column: Be Wary of BC's Impaired Driving Law

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the suggestion from Premier Redford that Alberta should emulate BC's controversial drunk-driving law:

With four young lives snuffed out this past weekend in northern Alberta – allegedly at the hands of a drunk driver – any effort to deal more harshly with impaired driving is unlikely to face substantial opposition.
As it happens, Alberta’s new Premier was making such a pledge on Friday, following a meeting with BC Premier Christy Clark.
As Alberta’s Justice Minister, Alison Redford had expressed her support for the tough new law introduced in BC. Now, as Premier, Redford is suggesting the BC approach could be implemented here.
Last year, BC introduced a new law which attaches harsh consequences to the process critics have dubbed “trial by breathalyzer”.
For example, if a motorist blows between 0.05 and 0.08 per cent BAC, an immediate three day driving prohibition is imposed, plus a $200 fine.
However, if a motorist blows over 0.08 - or refuses to blow - the law imposes a mandatory a three-month driving ban, impounds the vehicle for 30 days, and imposes fines and other obligations which total nearly $5000.
All of this is determined and imposed on the spot by a police officer.
Even an appeal of a suspension does not go to a judge, but rather to a “delegate” appointed by the BC Superintendent of Motor Vehicles.
It also creates the situation where an officer essentially pronounces guilt on an accusation of being illegally impaired, and yet the relevant Criminal Code sanction is often left on the table.
Refusing to provide a breath sample is a criminal offence – one that 37-year-old Kristen Debra-Lee Spencer was declared by a Vancouver-area RCMP officer to have committed. No criminal charge was laid, however, and instead Ms. Spencer was plunged into the Kafkaesque world of this new legislative reality in BC.
If this is the system Premier Redford really intends on imposing on Alberta, perhaps she should take heed of not just the spin from her BC counterpart, but also the recent ruling from BC Supreme Court Justice Mark McEwan.
The deck seemed to be stacked against Spencer every step of the way as the judge spoke of “processes fundamentally at odds with basic concepts of fairness and impartiality”.
But it wasn’t just the manner in which Spencer’s case was handled that concerned the judge.
He declared it to be “highly anomalous” that a speeding ticket appeal goes to a court, but the far more serious consequences of this law “are adjudicated in this stripped-down manner.”
McEwan described the whole “scheme” to be “seriously flawed”.
No doubt Premiers Redford and Clark would point to the fact that BC’s law is “working”.
The BC government points out that under the first seven months of this new law, there were 30 drunk-driving related deaths in the province. The average for same period over the previous five years was 61.
That seems impressive, but it still does not erase the very real concerns over civil liberties. There’s also the long-term implication of having many drunk drivers lighter in the wallet but clear of any criminal record.
However, the mere visibility of the new law and increased enforcement, apart from the specifics of the law itself, would certainly have a considerable impact on its own.
So rather than imposing this “scheme”, could a highly-publicized campaign of increased enforcement of existing laws had a similar impact?
Impaired driving is a societal problem that, despite the remarkable strides of the past 30 years, still exacts a tremendous toll. Many Canadians look to politicians to “do something” about this and other crimes, and so we provincial politicians seeking to leave their mark in a realm which is primarily federal responsibility.
We’ve seen that at least once during Alison Redford’s time as justice minister, as she oversaw the introduction of so-called Proceeds of Crime legislation.
Similar concerns over civil liberties arose then, too, since under the law someone’s property could be seized even if they hadn’t been convicted of a crime – or even charged with one in the first place.
Based on that, it’s no surprise that Redford might be blind or indifferent to the flaws inherent in BC’s impaired driving legislation.
 Hopefully the rest of us won’t be.