It’s the anniversary of a dark day in the history of BC. June 15 marks the second year that the second version of the IRP scheme has been in effect. The Government would like you to think its a fait accompli at this point — that the IRP scheme isn’t going away, that they pulled it off despite the creepiness of it all. Maybe they did. Time will tell, but we’ll keep up our challenges to what we see as really really bad law. Still, to be fair to the Government’s position we thought that we would take a moment to consider their angle by looking at the Government science behind the IRP scheme.
Of course, if you and I were thinking of bringing in a revolutionary law with long term implications for our system of justice, and it was all based on a small hand-held machine, we would do a lot of research to deal with the scientific and moral issues that follow. I mean, that’s just what anyone with half a brain would do, right? And there must be someone with a half a brain in the Government, so they must have conducted extensive and thoughtful studies to look at whether it was safe to rely on roadside screeners to punish people. Or so you would think. It’s your tax money after all.
So let’s look at the Government science behind the IRP scheme. What studies did the BC Government conduct before they elevated alcohol screeners to the definitive tool for punishing suspected DUI drivers?
None. They did no research.
We’re serious. The British Columbia Government undertook no scientific research to identify whether it was safe to punish people with breathalyzer screeners, whether the screeners reliably correspond with blood-alcohol content, whether their testing methods worked to ensure reliable results, whether the screening breathalyzers provided consistent results with people of different ages, different ethnicity and different physical condition.
They did no testing. They produced no studies. They did nothing.
And why is this important? Because traditionally in Canadian law, and in the rest of the world, we have only ever used screening devices as screeners. No other government has sought to use handheld breathalyzers as the basis of punishment. No other Government believed they were reliable enough to justify any significant punishment.
To get the IRP scheme to law, the BC Government promoted roadside breathalyzers screeners to the status of evidentiary breathalyzers.
The distinction between screeners and evidentiary machines is very important. Throughout the history of breath testing for breath-alcohol content to investigate drunk driving, there has always been the distinction between screeners and evidentiary breathalyzers.
Evidentiary breathalyzers produce evidence in the form of a hard copy print out. They are tested for calibration before and after each test. They may have flaws, but they are generally reliable and the evidence is there to either support or repudiate the results.
Screeners, which, except in BC, are used to sort out who should be detained for further investigation and who should be permitted to drive away, have none of these safety controls. They are calibrated once a month because that was acceptable when they were used AS SCREENERS. They produce no hard copy evidence. They are not reliable enough to use to punish people because they were never intended for this purpose, nor is the testing designed for this purpose.
Irresponsible Government
When you think about responsible government, you think about government accountability in the legislature. In other words, we expect that the Government should be able to explain themselves in debate.
In our system of government, it should mean more than that, however. The Government should act responsibly and really work in the interests of fair governance. And in the interest of fair governance, they shouldn’t invoke legislation without thinking it through. And if the Government is going to pass law that changes something fundamental — not simply a name change, but a significant change in procedure that upends all of the accepted methods relied on internationally, they should do some research first.
When it comes to breath testing and punishment, the scientific community has never endorsed punishing people on the basis of breathalyzer screeners. The BC Government went against decades of scientific research. They ignored science to follow ideology. They ignored science because we’ve allowed the police to become a lobby group, contary to the Peelian principles of policing.
If you’re looking for the Government science behind the IRP scheme, you won’t find any. Our Government didn’t engage the scientific community to have studies undertaken, nor did they hire scientists to research the important issues.
It’s a huge step to elevate screeners to punishment breathalyzers. It was a revolutionary step. And the BC Government conducted no scientific research to determine whether it was safe or appropriate.
Stupid Government.