In the development of public policies against drunk driving, Éduc’alcool does not deserve the influence that the Legault government grants it. This non-profit organization, an outgrowth of the Société des alcools du Québec (SAQ), does not receive any subsidies from the state and is not accountable to it. Its mission has no public health purpose. His opinions represent just one more voice, heavily influenced by the alcohol lobby, in the debate. Why does it weigh so much, if not to preserve the cash cow of the state monopoly in the sale of alcohol?
Following an investigation by Dutyit is the very relevance of Éduc’alcool that must be called into question. His studies are questionable, not to mention outdated. Its scientific committee is a facade which begins to collapse with the resignation of Louise Nadeau. Its so-called independent board is made up of 50% directors from the alcoholic beverages sector. This organization, financed largely from the volume of SAQ sales, prides itself on acting in prevention. While advocating the adoption of responsible behavior, in a useful harm reduction approach, it still remains imbued with the concerns of the alcohol lobby.
The revelations of Duty should encourage the government to wean itself from Éduc’alcool opinions. The National Institute of Public Health of Quebec or the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec (SAAQ) would have more legitimacy to advise the government, to the extent that there is no ambiguity in their respective mandates and their financing.
Over the past 20 years, Éduc’alcool has had a major influence on Quebec’s decision not to impose administrative sanctions on drivers with between 50 mg and 79 mg of alcohol in their blood. The Liberals accuse the Minister of Transport and Sustainable Mobility, Geneviève Guilbault, of all the flaws following the investigation by our journalists Améli Pineda and Stéphanie Vallet. The official opposition offers a good example of duplicity, since the decision not to act on this issue is shared by the Charest government and the Legault government.
Minister Guilbault still seems very bad in this story by affirming that she had not seen the opinion of the SAAQ in support of the imposition of administrative sanctions. She reiterated that Quebec is the most severe province in the fight against drunk driving. Very fair. Is this a reason to stop along the way?
The 0.05 bar, demanded by the SAAQ and the Coroner’s Office, is not another criminal blow, but an administrative measure accompanied by a copious fine and a suspension of the license for 24 hours. All provinces, except Quebec and the Yukon Territory, act on driving from this threshold, and for good reason. According to the SAAQ opinion, citing independent research, the measure would prevent 3 to 9 deaths per year and around 10 serious injuries, which could reduce public compensation costs by 2.2 to 3 million.
While the opposition parties are calling for an end to the financing of Éduc’alcool by the SAQ, Minister Guilbault is stubborn and sinks into the doldrums by coming to the defense of the organization, which she considers ” extremely credible.” In this case like that of the third link or the tramway in Quebec, the facts do not support his claims.
This stormy debate obscures an equally important problem in terms of public safety, beyond the threshold of tolerance for drunk driving. The true measure of a law’s success is the ability of the state to enforce it. However, whether the permitted limit is 0.05 or 0.08, the police forces demonstrate a low capacity to assume their responsibilities in the fight against drunk driving. Still according to data compiled by THE Dutythe number of road checks has fallen by 30% since 2018 across all police forces, despite the recommendations of coroners, who on the contrary call for the intensification of roadblocks.
This is another demonstration of the disconnect between the priorities of police organizations and public safety expectations. This decline is not trivial, as it has the potential to influence individual behavior. Indeed, the teachings of criminology remind us that it is not so much the severity of the sentence as the probability of being caught that acts as a motivating factor in criminal activity. In this sense, prevention campaigns alone will not be enough to preserve the gains if the drivers at fault run a low risk of being caught. The SAAQ opinion also confirms that more than a quarter of Quebecers (28%) still drive after drinking alcohol (according to 2022 data).
Beyond our investigation, here is a blind spot which hampers the fight against drunk driving and which requires a change of approach by the police forces.