Evidence of meeting #13 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was impaired.
A recording is available from Parliament.
General Manager of Programs, Canada Safety Council
The study looked at the governments of Japan and Australia. I believe it also looked at how things were done in about 40 US states, but not in all 52 states.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
So then, of these 77 governments, the majority were US state governments. Correct?
General Manager of Programs, Canada Safety Council
The report also focused on Europe, Japan and Australia.
Spokesperson, Canada Safety Council
I think it's important to emphasize that there's no federal criminal legislation in the United States affecting impaired driving; it's all in the states.
Chief Executive Officer, Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Just so I can finish, I think it's a gross estimation of what countries actually have 0.08. In fact, the majority--and I think you heard from Dr. Mann--have 0.05 or lower, whether administratively or criminally.
There is another piece that I think you, as federal parliamentarians, have to look at. Do we want to be known to have the harshest penalties, or do we want to be smarter and comprehensive and save lives? This issue should not be about having the toughest penalties; this should be about stopping impaired driving at the front end, and that's why we're talking about random breath testing. That's why we're talking about lower BACs. We know those measures worldwide will save lives. Our organization wants nothing to do with the harshest penalties. Let's be smart about impaired driving and move on from there.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Réal Ménard
Thank you very much. Your time is up. Perhaps there is time for one last quick comment.
Bloc
Senior Scientist, University of Toronto, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Thank you very much.
I would agree that it's more important to be effective than harsh. There are two studies in the scientific literature that look at the impact of the 0.05 roadside regulations that we have in provinces now that find no significant impact on fatality rates. So they are largely ineffective, and that's why, as a researcher, I would look at the 0.05 criminal levels that show an impact on fatality rates and support those.
Bloc
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Merci, monsieur le président.
Just to follow that up, Mr. Therrien and Mr. Marchand—and Mr. Murie, you may want to comment as well—in looking at the charts here, there's a large number of countries, 25 or 30 countries, that have a 0.05 limit. Does that lower the death rate or serious injury rate?
Spokesperson, Canada Safety Council
We have a 0.05 limit in Canada, in every jurisdiction except Quebec. In the other countries you refer to, it's a non-criminal 0.05; it's an administrative suspension.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
That doesn't answer my question.
On the 0.05 limit, we've heard from Mr. Murie about the questionable enforcement of that across the country at the provincial level--its effectiveness in being enforced.
First, do you agree that we're not effectively enforcing it, as Mr. Murie has suggested? If you agree that we're not effectively enforcing it, do the other countries, if they effectively enforce it, drive down the death rates?
General Manager of Programs, Canada Safety Council
We believe so. For example, in Australia, which has a 0.05 limit that is non-criminal, they do have a lot of enforcement through what they call the “booze bust”, which is random breath testing in large volume. Certainly we would encourage that in Canada.
NDP
General Manager of Programs, Canada Safety Council
They're all separate, six states.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Is the 0.05 limit at the state level, not at the federal level?
Spokesperson, Canada Safety Council
I think New South Wales was the last to go down to 0.05. They were at 0.08. I think it was within the last couple of years.
I might be wrong on that statement, but one of them did.
Chief Executive Officer, Mothers Against Drunk Driving
You can look at when it went from 0.15 to 0.10, and 0.10 in the United States to 0.08, and then 0.08 to 0.05. In every country that lowered their limits, what was the effect? It saved lives from drinking drivers and fatal alcohol-related crashes, as well as in terms of injuries and personal property. There is not one country that has lowered their limits that hasn't experienced that positive saving of life.
The evidence is overwhelming. The issue here in Canada is how we're going to do it, whether we're going to do it federally towards the Criminal Code or allow the provinces to do it.
My disappointment is that in the three years the provinces have been given the model to implement, not one province has come close to implementing that model. Even Ontario, as Mr. Marchand talked about, is going halfway. It's a minimum of seven days, and they're starting off with three. You have to have an impact on that drinking driver, and that's what the most important piece is.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
In terms of the enforcement, you would see a greater amount of suspension as being one of the tools to make that enforcement more effective. Is that correct?