Lower Criminal Limit an Old Chestnut

Prior to the election call, federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler indicated he would consider lowering the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) for drinking and driving. He asked his provincial counterparts to consider the evidence in favor of reducing the criminal limit from its current level of 0.08 (80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood) down to 0.05.

The provinces just aren’t interested, and for good reason. The idea of criminalizing drivers at 0.05 is an old chestnut that’s been around for years. It’s been discounted time and time again. Legislative change should be driven by informed, objective analysis of the problem — not by emotion. Those advocating criminalization as an approach to safety may be well-meaning, but they are completely misguided.

Most provinces and territories already impose administrative licence suspensions on drinking drivers. If you have a BAC of 0.05 (0.04 in Saskatchewan) you immediately lose your licence for anywhere from four to 24 hours, longer with subsequent violations. These suspensions protect the public by taking potentially dangerous drivers off the road, and give those drivers a strong warning. They are an effective tool in the fight against impaired driving, in part because they impose swift and certain consequences.

Most Canadians do not realize that two levels of government deal with the impaired driving problem. The federal Criminal Code is applied at BACs of 0.08 and over.

Making conduct criminal is society's ultimate condemnation. The Criminal Code addresses transgressions such as murder, robbery and assault, that violate basic societal norms. Sanctions are very severe. For example, a criminal conviction, be it for armed robbery or for driving with a BAC over 0.08, limits travel and job opportunities for the rest of the offender’s life. Justifiably the legal process to charge and convict is intricate and costly.

If the criminal BAC were reduced to 0.05, roadside suspensions would be replaced with a legal process that is intricate, punitive and costly. The increase in charges and court challenges would impose a huge burden on an already overtaxed court system. Politicians must address this serious situation rather than simply using criminalization as an expedient way to play into public opinion.

In an infamous October 1990 ruling known as the Askov decision, the Supreme Court declared that individuals have the right to trial within a reasonable amount of time. Within months of that decision, 50,000 charges were stayed in Ontario; many of these were impaired driving charges. There has recently been mention of a repetition of this situation.

The fact is that a few hard core drinking drivers cause most of the drunk driving problem in this country. High-BAC drivers (i.e. those with BACs over 0.15) represent about one per cent of the cars on the road at night and on weekends. Yet they account for nearly half of all drivers killed at those times.

These chronic offenders drink frequently, often to excess, and repeatedly drive after drinking. Many have previously been convicted for impaired driving and have driven while suspended. They resist changing their behavior, and are insensitive to anti-drinking-driving campaigns. Canada's penalties for impaired driving, already among the harshest in the developed world, do not deter them from drinking and driving.

Public policy must continue to target this hard core group. The irresponsible behavior of the few will not be changed by penalizing a new and larger group of lesser drinkers at a lower criminal limit.

Return to top of page