Presumed drunk until proven sober

The USSR also didn’t care for impaired driving – or the presumption of innocence.

I despise drunk drivers – not just because of the lives they’ve destroyed, but because I’ve had to talk to so many of them at 2 in the morning when I’m on duty counsel for the night.  Take it from me: you don’t know true frustration until you find yourself trying to explain to an indignant, barely coherent drunkard his right to remain silent but also that it’s a criminal offence to refuse a police officer’s request for a breath sample.

Most people likely feel the same way, which is why no politician – even those who otherwise doubt the efficacy of “tough on crime” policies – ever lost votes by cracking down on impaired driving.   But even when everyone is agreed that the crime is inexcusable, it’s still possible for the government to go too far in fighting it.

And recent changes to Canada’s impaired-driving laws go way too far:

Canadians could now face criminal charges for driving with illegal amounts of alcohol in their system, even if they were stone cold sober while behind the wheel, under tough new impaired driving laws passed by Parliament, according to criminal defence lawyers.

Bill C-46, which came into effect last month, gives police wide-ranging new powers to demand sobriety tests from drivers, boaters and even canoeists.

Police no longer need to have any reasonable grounds to suspect you’re impaired, or driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of more than .08, which is 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, before demanding you submit to testing.

Refusing the test can result in a criminal charge.
But even drinking within two hours after you’ve stopped driving or boating could now get you arrested, if your BAC rises over .08.

[…]

Previously, if drivers could prove they weren’t yet over the legal limit  when they were stopped by police, a court could find them innocent.

The new law removes that defence.

“Its primary purpose is to eliminate risky behaviour associated with bolus drinking, sometimes referred to as drinking and dashing” Wilson-Raybould told Parliament.

But Brown calls the law a solution for a problem that rarely existed and claims it will “criminalize Canadians who have done nothing wrong.”

He points to number of scenarios where people park their cars with no intention of driving anytime soon, then start drinking.

If you drive yourself to a restaurant, bar or party and have a few drinks after you arrive, you can be found guilty of impaired driving. Even though you weren’t impaired when you were actually driving. I’m confident this will be struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada eventually, but many innocent people may have their lives thrown into complete turmoil in the meantime.

Last summer, the federal government made applicants for a summer-jobs program sign an attestation that its “core values” aligned with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And now this same government is trampling on the presumption of innocence, regardless of what s. 11(d) of the Charter reads.

A Liberal government picking and choosing what sections of the Charter holds sacrosanct? Shocking, I know.

Values test tested

When the owners of an Alberta irrigation company applied for grant money from the federal government’s summer-jobs program, they refused to sign the “attestation” that their “core mandate” was to ensure that Charter rights are protected.

Wish makes sense, considering that the “core mandate” of an irrigation company would be to, you know, irrigate things.

Anyway, their application was denied, and now they’re taking legal action:

The applicants, Rhea Lynne Anderson and William Anderson, are a married couple residing near Brooks, Alberta. The Andersons are the sole owners of A-1 Irrigation & Technical Services (“A-1”), which offers ecologically responsible irrigation services to local farming operations.

Believing that they could provide a quality summer job to a qualified student, the Andersons submitted a CSJ application on January 24, 2018. However, the Andersons submitted their 2018 CSJ application without checking the “I attest” box, because they object to being compelled to express their agreement and respect for ideological positions as required by the new attestation requirement, which reads:

Both the job and my organization’s core mandate respect individual human rights in Canada, and the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as other rights. These include reproductive rights and the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression.

The federal government has defined “respecting” “reproductive rights” as including “the right to access safe and legal abortions”. The 2018 CSJ Application Guide states that the federal government “recognizes” that “the right to access safe and legal abortions” is protected by the Charter and human rights legislation.

[…]

On February 10, 2018, the Andersons responded to Service Canada, indicating that they would not be checking the “I attest” box because they viewed it as unconstitutional for the Government “to require a specific prescription of personal beliefs” to qualify for participation in a government program.

The court application seeks a declaration that the new attestation requirement violates section Charter 2(a) and 2(b) freedoms of conscience and expression. The new attestation requirement also breaches the duty of state neutrality, because it compels the Andersons to profess their agreement with, and ostensibly adopt, specific beliefs and values in order to qualify for a government benefit to which they would otherwise be entitled.

The court application further seeks a declaration that the new attestation requirement violates section 32 of the Charter by compelling private entities to assume the legal obligations of the Charter that only the government is required to honour.

The Andersons also seek a declaration that the new attestation requirement is ultra vires the authority of the federal government, and a court order to strike the new attestation requirement and to approve their CSJ application.

The “attestation” was ostensibly required because anti-abortion organizations received funding in the past. And if the Trudeau government had simply required applicants to confirm that they wouldn’t use grant money to agitate against abortion or same-sex marriage, they’d probably be on steadier legal ground.

That they instead decided to make applicants pledge fealty to Liberal party policy is no accident. This is exactly the kind of “wedge issue” politics that Conservative governments are constantly accused of playing.

I’ll admit, I’m kind of looking forward to this policy being struck down for violating the Charter, and seeing Liberal partisans respond by arguing that we have to violate the Charter in order to save it.