Trudeau government’s impaired driving law is so unclear, even the Justice Department can’t explain it
Earlier today the official Twitter account for the Department of Justice had to issue a clarification after Maxime Bernier, the leader of the People’s Party of Canada, called the organization out for posting a worrying public announcement in both English and French.
In their original announcement, the Justice Canada account clearly stated that you could be arrested if you were to enjoy a drink after driving. The statement seemed to include summer time drinking on your own patio, noting that “It’s summertime and the living is easy! Whether you’re sitting on a patio or having a backyard #BBQ, remember it’s against the #law to have a blood alcohol concentration over prohibited levels within two hours of driving.”
The clarification posted since then pointed to a section in the law that prohibits conviction for those who decide to drink after arriving home safely.
I’d laugh at the awkward tweets if the actual law and the potential repercussions weren’t so damn serious.
While Justice Canada has issued a clarification, their mistake only highlights the tip of the iceberg when it comes to problems with the recent legal changes brought forward through the adoption of Bill C-46 and its cousin C-45.
When first proposed, proponents of the bill pointed to drops in the rate of accidents in other countries such as Ireland and Australia, the need to remove two specific and extremely uncommon defences, as well as the need to push forward with more comprehensive provisions due to the impending legalization of marijuana.
While wanting to ensure safety makes sense, the bill put forward by the federal government appears to provide aim at an image of safety, instead of substantively helping address the issue.
According to the Huffington Post, there has been no data “to indicate that the number of impaired drivers on our roadways increased following legalization,” while at the same time, the nation has experienced year over year declines in “impaired driving …since the 1980s.”
While it appears that there is no need for such rampant changes, the unintended consequences of such a move may be extremely serious.
According to several lawyers interviewed by the CBC, not only can the police now come to “your house up to two hours after you stopped driving or boating to test your sobriety,” the charge is considered a “reverse “onus.”
That means if the police charge you, it is on you to prove your blood alcohol level was not over the limit at the time of driving or boating. And if you decide to reject the breath test?
Well, you’ll be charged on the spot.
Take that in for a moment, the Trudeau Liberals appear to have put forward a law so confusing and so poorly made that even the Department of Justice has difficulty explaining it. When it comes to enforcement, ordinary citizens will have to prove their innocence in the face of a disastrously written law.
Worse yet, citizens with the least access to legal or financial aid will have to face criminal charges they are then responsible for proving they are not guilty of, instead of the other way around. A large swath of civil liberty groups and radicalized communities have already “slammed” the move for putting far too many powers into the hands of police.
This lack of need and potential for danger is perhaps why Senators attempted to strip the bill of its most controversial aspects before it became law. Despite this, the Trudeau government, with the help of “independent” Senators, pushed through the bill without accepting any substantive changes.
While this is all jaw-dropping, the decision to move forward with this kind of law in the face of steep opposition is even more shocking. It quickly becomes comedic when you also consider the ease and frequency with which the Liberals will brandish their pro-minority and pro-science reflexes.
At some point the government will have to decide if they actually plan to govern based on science, reason, and data, or if they instead wish to continue wasting precious political capital on PR-short stops which in the long term erode our civil liberties.
What do you think about the recent correction issued by Justice Canada?
Has the federal government put forward a poorly written law?
Join the conversation by commenting below!
Outrage on social media over a recent discovery that Amazon is carrying products that many people are appalled by–Holocaust ornaments. It was the Auschwitz Memorial and Museum who first raised awareness of the tasteless line of products which include a decaled can-opener dawning a picture of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp as well as Christmas tree ornaments that show train track leading into a camp’s entrance.
The Museum contacted the retailer and demanded such products be taken down from the website to which Amazon concurred. Shortly thereafter the Museum discovered more products including a computer mouse pad that displayed the freight cars used to transport Jewish people and anybody the Nazi’s considered to be “undesirable”.
The Museum, which is located on site in Auschwitz, Poland described the products as “disgusting” and “disturbing”. Amazon has confirmed that they will keep watch for such products in the future and have them taken down and in certain cases, have the sellers’ accounts deleted. This prompted a public response from the museum to thank Amazon.
However, since then more Holocaust products have been posted, despite Amazon’s policy that “All sellers must follow our selling guidelines and those who do not will be subject to action, including potential removal of their account.”
It seems Alberta is in for more cuts.
According to the CBC, Huskey Energy CEO Rob Peabody revealed on a conference call Monday that his firm will be cutting 370 jobs this year as it looks to reduce spending.
“What we’re seeing is that (the reductions) will generate forward savings of about $70 million … per year,” said Peabody, adding the company will take a charge against earnings of $70 million in the fourth quarter to account for the cuts.
“We’re going to continue those efforts to capitalize on the fact we’ve created a more focused and a simpler company.”
While these cuts will provide roughly $70 million in savings, overall spending for 2020 and 2021 will be cut $500 million due to worsening market conditions.
The split will be heavier in 2021, with over $400 million coming in cuts.
Huskey stock has fallen by over 40% in the last year.
Liberal MP gets Twitter lashed for wishing people 'great month of December!' instead of 'Merry Christmas!'
Liberal Member of Parliament (Ontario, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek) Bob Bratina received a lot more comments than likes and retweets for his Twitter post wishing his constituents a “great month of December!” instead of a “Merry Christmas!”
On Sunday Bratina tweeted a holiday-neutral, first-day-of-the-month greeting to people in his riding, “Wishing everyone in Hamilton East – Stoney Creek a great month of December!”
By the end of Monday the tweet had 307 mostly negative, mocking comments compared to three retweets and 18 likes, a phenomenon called being ratioed (when a postt gets overwhelmingly negative comments, meanwhile receiving far less positive engagement and shares).
Some Canadians on Twitter had fun lampooning Bratina’s politically correct festive cheer.
Others just wished Bob a “Merry Christmas!”
December tends to bring out the so-called War on Christmas, where politically correct politicians and other members of the chattering class become Grinches, attempting to excise Christmas from greetings and celebratory events in attempts to be “more inclusive”.
Last Friday a guest host on CTV’s talk show The Social suggested Canadians towns should change the name of Christmas or Santa Clause parades with “Winter” parades. A couple weeks ago a US town erased Christmas from its festivities, changing the “Annual Tree Lighting” to “Frost Fest”.
Despite many organizations and institutions distancing themselves from a disgraced Prince Andrew after his disastrous interview with the BBC–discussing his relationship with the late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein–the National Post reported he will still keep his Canadian military appointments.
The step away from public life may come as no surprise, however, the Prince maintains certain roles and appointments that are somewhat tricky to get out of.
“As is the custom, the Duke of York holds honorary title of Colonel-in-Chief of The Princess of Louise Fusiliers, The Royal Highland Fusiliers of Canada and Queen’s York Rangers,” Department of National Defence (DND) specialist Jessice Lamirande to the National Post.
The National Post questioned the DND for a week before they were even willing to confirm just what roles the now disgraced Prince held.
The questions surrounding Prince Andrew’s removal from these appointments have left the Canadian Armed Forces and the government puzzled.
“This has never happened before,” said one government source to the National Post.
A Royal spokesperson previously released a statement that he would be stepping away from public duties: “The Duke has stepped back for the time being and will not be undertaking any public duties on behalf of his Patronages or associations.”
This statement has put the Canadian military in a quagmire. The role of Colonel-in-Chief is not just a symbolic one, it does involve some active duties. If the Canadian government wanted to rescind Prince Andrew’s appointments themselves, there is no set of procedures in place that would even necessarily allow them to do so. The various regiments of the Commonwealth can only be appointed a Colonel-in-Chief by the Queen herself, and once appointed there is an expectation to fulfill role until death or a formal retirement from public life.
“The position of Colonel-in Chief is a symbol of a direct relationship between the Sovereign and the members of that regiment,” said Richard Berthelsen, who specializes in the Crown’s relationship to Canada. “It’s not like a patronage. It has a much deeper meaning. It is something that is official and is recognized in the Canadian Forces as having significant importance to history and heritage of that unit.”
“There is nothing stopping a prime minister from making a recommendation, a very strong recommendation, I suppose,” Toffoli told the National Post earlier this week.
The November BBC interview that the Duke of York was hoping would clear his name was generally considered a disaster, leaving many people and organizations scrambling to cut ties with the Prince. Prince Andrew’s own mother, Queen Elizabeth II, even went so far as to cancel her son’s upcoming 60th birthday party.