What’s next? Random blood tests to protect the public from potential AIDs infections? Random brain scans to find those thinking of committing a crime? When do the police finally get to do anything they want to anyone they want anytime they feel like it? It’s all for our own good, of course.

The federal justice minister is considering a new law that would allow police to conduct random breathalyzer tests on drivers, regardless of whether they suspect motorists have been drinking.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson raised the prospect recently at a meeting of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, according to MADD chief executive Andrew Murie.

If random testing were to be adopted, it would be a major change to Canada’s 40-year-old breathalyzer legislation, which stipulates that police may only administer a test if they suspect a driver has been drinking.

In June, a House of Commons parliamentary committee recommended changing the legislation to allow for random testing, arguing it is an effective deterrent.

The change would also bring Canada in line with a number of other countries in Europe and countries like Australia, which have adopted similar measures.

  1. kingd says:

    Well, unfortunately in Saskatchewan rural cops don’t seem to have anything better to do than pull over someone whether they suspect anything or not… even if you were driving civilly and obeying traffic laws you can be subject to the red and blue. Even more so it seems, or seemed, that if your under the age of 35 and its past the hours of 8pm… a breathalyzer exam is common.

  2. Rob (AU) says:

    As we (Australia) already have this, plus many other checks such as ‘bona fide'(Sth Aus), at random in Australia, just remember it all started with random breath testing.

    Then they waited and introduced drugs, then vehicle roadworthy … and the list goes on, til now you are required to prove your innocence before being allowed to continue.

    I, personally, refuse and request to be arrested, at which point the police have, so far, moved me on.

    A friend of mine, who works in the government legal area, says this is because they don’t want it tested, and probably dis-allowed, by the courts and they would rather the few they tell to get lost than losing it all.

    The Australian Supreme Court has inferred in the past they are somewhat bemused by these laws and are looking for an excuse to end them, something they cannot do without a test case before them.

  3. Casual Observer says:

    Why don’t they have these checks outside of congress and parliment?


Bad Behavior has blocked 13429 access attempts in the last 7 days.