Skip to main content

Editorials Globe editorial: Pump the brakes on random roadside stops

The Senate has a habit of providing fodder for its detractors, but every so often it reminds us all of its importance.

The body’s legal and constitutional affairs committee recently approved amendments designed to water down a proposed law that would allow police to intercept drivers and make them undergo screening for alcohol, even if there are no obvious grounds to believe they are impaired.

Drunk driving requires a robust response, but Bill C-46 places an unreasonable limit on Canadians’ freedoms.

Story continues below advertisement

One can’t help but think the proposed law, which effectively does away with the requirement of probable cause, is intended to insulate a government that is legalizing marijuana from the perception it is soft on crime in general, and on impaired driving in particular.

Advocacy groups, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving, have long agitated for greater police leeway; not everyone who is drunk, or stoned, drives erratically enough to clear the reasonable-grounds bar, they argue. Apparently the federal government agrees.

The problem with that reasoning is that it reduces random police checks to the level of minor inconveniences – in a free society, they are no such thing – and elides the fact they tend to disproportionately target people of colour.

This is according to statistics compiled by, among others, the Ottawa Police Service. As a consequence, the senators also want police departments to provide a detailed accounting of everyone they pull over under the proposed law.

Cops need adequate tools to address impaired driving, but that should not include the unfettered discretion to stop anyone they like.

The Canadian Civil Liberties’ Association says the expanded powers are unconstitutional; other experts argue the opposite. In either case, the forecast calls for years of legal bills and court battles, if the government rejects the Senate’s amendments as it has said it intends to.

Too much activism on the part of our unelected Senate is a bad thing, but in this case its legal committee is providing sound second thought. The government would be better served by listening to it.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter