In April 2024, dear Mr. Legault, I sent you a letter which remained unanswered. I hope that this will deserve more attention since we learned this week, in an opinion finally made public, that the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec (SAAQ) is in favor of lowering blood alcohol levels. from 0.08 to 0.05 and the application of administrative sanctions, a “sustainable measure” which could save many lives and prevent tragedies for many Quebecers.
My wife and I have closely followed Bill 48 amending the Highway Safety Code. We were happy to know that your government was going to take care of making Quebec’s road network more secure. The government failed to take advantage of this opportunity to follow in the footsteps of other Canadian provinces. We are only talking here about administrative sanctions from 50 mg per 100 ml — a rate with which more than 60% of Quebecers agree, according to a survey carried out for Les coops de l’information last year. In all Canadian provinces, statistics have associated this measure with a reduction in road fatalities of more than 50%.
We submitted a petition to the National Assembly through MP Monsef Derraji. As a response, we received a copy of a letter addressed by Geneviève Guilbault to Simon Jolin-Barrette dated March 26, 2024. In this letter, the Minister of Transport affirms that Quebec provides one of the most effective controls on drunk driving. severe in Canada, then cites some measures:
- the driver rehabilitation program is the most comprehensive and longest in Canada;
- the imposition of a lifetime ignition interlock device after the second offense related to impaired driving is unique in Canada;
- Quebec imposes zero tolerance on new and young drivers, and the penalties for this type of offense are among the most severe in Canada;
- zero tolerance is also imposed on drivers of buses, minibuses, taxis or cars treated as taxis;
- the alcohol level tolerated while driving a heavy vehicle is limited to 50 mg per 100 ml of blood, and the law provides for a 24-hour suspension in the event of an infraction.
In reality, the facts do not always agree with these assertions, which we take up point by point below:
- The rehabilitation program and the lifetime imposition of an ignition interlock device with a breathalyzer after the second offense are measures put in place after the fact. We ask for upstream measures to avoid subsequent tragedies. Ms. Guilbault, would you — or any other member of your cabinet — have accepted such a response if you had lost a loved one?
- Zero alcohol tolerance for new and young drivers, and after? You are letting them expose themselves to avoidable risks by allowing them to drive impaired at up to 80 mg per 100 ml knowing that at 50 mg you are already four times more likely to have a fatal collision.
- The imposition of zero tolerance for bus, minibus and taxi drivers and the limit of 50 mg per 100 ml of blood for driving a heavy vehicle prove to us that such restrictions work.
Also, Mme Guilbault mentions that the annual investments in awareness by the SAAQ are considerable, at $1.5 million. But we still have an average of 95 deaths per year: the observation is therefore that this awareness is not sufficient.
We followed the debates in the National Assembly regarding the imposition of administrative sanctions from 50 mg per 100 ml. We were so disappointed, overcome with a feeling of incomprehension, to see that the three opposition parties voted unanimously for the Jessica amendment, but that all the deputies of your government voted against, without exception! You have parents in your ranks: I wonder what the outcome of this crucial and reasonable vote would have been if, as we believe, party line had not come into play. Mr. Prime Minister, partisanship does not has no place when we talk about saving human lives.
We would also like to ask a question of Mr. Jolin-Barrette, whose speeches we often hear where he specifies that all victims are important and that it is one of his priorities. Has the Minister of Justice forgotten the victims of this scourge during this vote?
We compare this change to the Highway Safety Code to the application of the obligation to wear seat belts in vehicles. Initially widely criticized, this law was put in place by a government which demonstrated political courage. Backed by figures, this law quickly succeeded in demonstrating its effects, and saved many lives in a short time.
We implore you to show the same courage.
It’s up to you to ensure that your government leaves a positive political legacy in this area. Otherwise, Quebec will remember that you missed the historic opportunity to do what more than 60% of Quebecers authorize you to do, or even ask you to do, namely to modify the Highway Safety Code to lower the permitted limit of the alcohol level from 80 mg to 50 mg per 100 ml.
I would like to highlight the blatant lack of respect and leadership from your government regarding the coroners’ recommendations and the SAAQ report. From a government whose mandate is the well-being of its citizens, your management is unacceptable. Mr. Legault, do you know what your refusal and that of your deputies represent? You should now appoint a CAQ deputy, each time different, who will be responsible for speaking to all the families of victims of a collision where alcohol consumption is a factor to explain to them why their loved ones died…
Mr. Legault, why did your government ignore all the experts’ opinions in favor of 0.05, but followed the single opinion of Éduc’alcool? My wife and I are requesting another meeting to clarify our request and to speak with you in person.