January 8, 2004
Correspondence to OCCID re: Lowering BAC to 0.05%
Denise Polgar
President
OCCID
1387 Bayview Avenue, Suite 106
Toronto, Ontario
M4G 3A5
Dear Denise,
I am in receipt of your organization’s
statement on the issue of “Lowering the Criminal Code
Blood Alcohol Concentration in Canada”.
MADD Canada is very disappointed with the your
position that establishing a Criminal Code 0.05% BAC offence
is not a priority for your organization. Your current position
is wholly consistent with the alcohol industry’s rationale
for opposing this vital reform. I thought OCCID’s mission
was to advocate for public policies that would save lives
and prevent injuries caused by impaired drivers. OCCID should
stop making excuses for the status quo and begin adopting
policy positions that have proven to advance your stated mission.
I would like to point out some of our concerns
with your decision-making process. I would also request that
you share my letter with your entire membership, and not just
limit it to your executive committee.
Current Attitudes:
OCCID
Existing legislation allows officers to immediately remove
from the road those drivers who pose a risk at .05; officers
can still continue to run RIDE to apprehend drivers who statistically
pose an even greater risk, at levels of .08 and above.
MADD Canada’s Response
First, Quebec does not have a roadside suspension program.
Second, not all of the roadside suspension programs are tied
to a set BAC. Third, the BAC that triggers the suspension
varies from 0.04% to 0.06%, with Alberta allowing successful
challenges with a BAC of up to 0.08%. Fourth, most jurisdictions
keep no formal records of these sanctions, nor provide increased
penalties for repeat violations. Fifth, the roadside suspensions
have a limited deterrent impact, because they are little more
than a temporary inconvenience that carry no significant or
long lasting consequences. It is simply naïve for OCCID
to suggest that this patchwork of minor roadside suspensions
are a realistic alternative to a Criminal Code 0.05% offence
that would apply uniformly across Canada.
OCCID
Impaired driving charges are the most often contested and
the most complex to execute; therefore Ontario courts face
challenges in convicting drinking driving offenders. As well,
more significant penalties and longer licence suspensions
have led to even more pleas of “not guilty”.
MADD Canada’s Response
This statement indicates that you failed to grasp MADD Canada’s
proposal to create a new Criminal Code 0.05% BAC offence.
MADD Canada has never stated that the current penalties for
over 0.08% BAC offence should apply to a new 0.05% BAC offence.
MADD Canada believes in a tiered BAC and increasing penalties
to reflect the greater risks at the higher BAC levels. I assume
by your comments that this consideration was not discussed
in your deliberations on this issue.
OCCID
If such changed legislation were to result in more charges,
our courts would face an increased caseload, and new reinstatement
measures for convicted impaired drivers may become unmanageable.
MADD Canada’s Response
There is no empirical evidence to support this concern. While
more drivers would theoretically be liable to prosecution,
it does not follow that the criminal justice system would
be inundated. First, a lower BAC limit would have a major
deterrent effect, reducing the numbers who drink excessively
and drive. Second, given current police and court practice,
suspects are unlikely to be charged unless their BAC is 0.07%
or higher. Third, other jurisdictions that have lowered their
BAC limits have reported no such problems, including the American
states that have recently lowered their criminal BAC limits
from 0.10% to 0.08%, and the Australian states that have had
a 0.05% BAC limit for as long as 20 years. Fourth, even if
demands on the criminal justice system and related costs should
increase, these would be more than offset by the accompanying
traffic safety benefits. For example, a study from the Stanford
Institute for Economic Policy Research estimated that reducing
the criminal BAC limit to 0.08% in New York State would increase
police and court costs by $8 million a year, but would also
save between $900 million and $1.1 billion a year in medical,
property damage, employment and other costs.
This fear of increased charges and costs reflects
the outdated view that impaired driving is not a “real”
criminal offence. No one would seriously suggest that we ignore
common and sexual assaults because they overburden our police
and courts. Similarly, these fears do not justify ignoring
drinking and driving behaviour that poses real and serious
risks.
OCCID
Most federal and provincial legislative changes (assessment
of offenders, Back on Track, vehicle impoundment, longer licence
suspensions and ignition interlock) from 1996 on, are still
in the early stages of implementation and have not yet been
adequately evaluated in terms of their impact on Ontario drivers
(eg. The Back on Track program has notified 57,000 drivers
of their need to complete the program to be legally licensed
again in Ontario – 35,600 have replied, but only about
1/3 – 19,107 have completed the course)
MADD Canada’s Response
Again, this statement has no relevance in the debate on creating
a new Criminal Code 0.05% BAC offence. The numbers on the
“Back on Track” program show that there might
be a strong link between toughening impaired driving sanctions
and a greater percentage of suspended drivers on the roadways.
MADD Canada is also concerned with this issue, and has recently
completed a report on suspended drivers in Ontario, in cooperation
with the Ministry of Transportation. This report will be released
in the New Year.
OCCID
Ontario still has legislative changes from 1998 that have
not been completely implemented, i.e., the legislation that
defines a repeat offender.
MADD Canada’s Response
First, it is difficult to figure out the legislation to which
you are referring. Presumably, you were attempting to refer
to the extension of the look-back period for increased provincial
licence suspension for repeat driving offenders. Second, this
legislation is not relevant to the issue of creating a 0.05%
Criminal Code offence. I am puzzled why your organization
would wait on a completely independent provincial initiative
before considering a separate federal proposal. The two initiatives
can occur simultaneously. Again, your organization appears
to be searching for excuses for inaction, and not for solutions.
OCCID
Recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights in 1999, of note recommendations 12, 13 and
15, have yet to be acted on.
MADD Canada’s Response
I am puzzled by this statement since OCCID has done very little
over the past five years to encourage action on this issue.
OCCID, as a grassroots drinking and driving organization should
not be sitting waiting for government action. MADD Canada
was very disappointed in the Criminal Code amendments in 1999/2000
that it published our action plan entitled “Taking Back
Our Roads”. This action plan had 19 points of consideration
for the federal government to consider. The greatest action
on impaired driving has been driven by concerned Canadians,
not by the government itself. An example in point is the recent
debate on decriminalizing cannabis led to quick action by
Justice Canada on the drugs and driving issue, after years
of inaction by the federal/provincial task group.
Given your organizations staunch defence of the “do
nothing” approach, MADD Canada and its affiliated Ontario
Chapters will not be active members of your organization.
I am also perplexed that you have many members whose organizations
publicly support the position taken by MADD Canada, such as,
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Canadian Medical Association
and the various public health departments across Ontario.
My final suggestion would be for OCCID to return
to its mission and support public policies that the research
establishes will save lives and prevent injuries. OCCID should
be taking its positions based on credible, independent research.
It should be advocating for changes that will reduce impaired
driving deaths and injuries, not making excuses for the status
quo. Unlike OCCID, MADD Canada believes that the annual toll
of 1,600 alcohol-related traffic deaths and 74,000 alcohol-related
traffic injuries is unacceptable and requires us to identify
and introduce comprehensive and effective reforms. While OCCID
waits for unrelated federal and provincial initiatives to
percolate through, more Canadians will needlessly die and
be injured.
Sincerely,
Andrew W. Murie
National Executive Director
MADD Canada
