CAQ elected officials rejected a proposal on Thursday to lower the tolerance threshold for drunk driving.
They voted against a motion from the Liberal Party of Quebec (PLQ) which calls for administrative sanctions for motorists whose alcohol level is between 50 mg and 80 mg per 100 ml of blood (between 0.05 g / L and 0 .08 g/L), i.e. in the interval preceding the application of the penalties currently provided for by the Criminal Code.
The 67 CAQ deputies present at the Salon Bleu unanimously rejected this proposal, putting an end to a debate in which the government showed no openness.
During question period on Thursday, the Minister of Transport, Geneviève Guilbault, reiterated that the measures currently in place are sufficient.
“Quebec is one of the toughest jurisdictions in Canada when it comes to impaired driving,” she said. We have the longest, most restrictive rehabilitation program, the most severe mandatory ignition interlock program, the most severe vehicle seizures, zero tolerance for new drivers. »
Amendment
Liberal MP Monsef Derraji, author of the motion, still intends to propose an amendment to a bill on road safety tabled by Mme Guilbault, whose study continues.
“We will continue the battle,” he said in a press briefing.
Québec solidaire (QS) and the Parti Québécois (PQ) supported the motion.
The PQ did not intervene on Wednesday during a debate on this PLQ proposal. MP Pascal Paradis affirmed before the vote that his party would support it.
“We don’t want to achieve an abstention, because there we will be told: “You are not taking a position,” he said in a press briefing. But we will vote in favor to open the discussion, then invite the government to support its position. So, that’s the choice we made. We will vote in favor. »
Press secretary Emmanuel Renaud clarified that the PQ are in favor of the principle of lowering the threshold, without however making it a formal electoral commitment.
PQ MP Pascal Paradis noted the closure of Mme Guilbault during the debate on the motion on Wednesday. “Was it brought into the public debate in the right way? The question arises, he told reporters. We would have been ready to have the discussion, but now we see that the government has closed the door. »
Further details will follow.