Thank you for your caution. It has nevertheless led us to a clear statement.
My second question is for the witnesses from MADD.
Of all of the witnesses who have appeared until now—and there must be some 15 if memory serves me well—only two have held the same point of view as you. You obviously want us to decrease the limit from 0.08% to 0.05% under the Criminal Code, and I understand your perspective. However, the people who have spent some time studying these issues, both organizations responsible for law enforcement as well as scientists, claim that the most effective measure is the immediate suspension of the person's driver's licence. This is what some provinces do. We are talking about an administrative reality here.
We have heard that hard core drinkers are few in number but are responsible for a large number of accidents. Therefore, I do not understand the logic of your argument. You say that for them, this is a deterrence measure. Why would people who do not respect the regulations when the level is 0.08% suddenly be convinced to respect them if the level is reduced to 0.05%? Contrary to what you have stated, the statistics do not lead us to conclude that there are more traffic accidents related to impaired driving.
I will let you react to that and I will be happy to listen to your arguments.