Understanding drinking and driving reforms: a profile of Ontario statistics.

Drinking and driving has been the subject of considerable public concern and legislative attention in many countries in recent years. In Canada, the federal criminal laws and provincial traYc acts have been significantly amended since the mid-1980s: police investigatory powers have been broadened, new federal crimes and provincial oVences have been enacted, and more onerous penalties and administrative sanctions have been introduced. The most recent cycle of Canadian legislative reform has focused on increasing sanctions, particularly for repeat oVenders. Federal Criminal Code amendments in 1999 increased the minimum fines and driving prohibitions for the three most common oVences—impaired driving, driving with a blood alcohol level (BAL) above 0.08%, and failing to provide breath or blood samples. Significant changes have also occurred at the provincial level. For example, Ontario introduced legislation which, when fully implemented, will impose indefinite licence suspensions on those convicted of three federal drinking and driving oVences within 10 years, and British Columbia has followed suit. Both the federal and provincial governments have widely publicized their “get tough” legislation. 5 However, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Canada and other organizations have questioned whether these initiatives will have a significant impact. StiVer penalties are unlikely to have much eVect if the police do not have suYcient resources to apprehend and charge drinking drivers, 7 or if prosecutors are so overburdened that they can only act in the most serious and blatant cases. We had hoped that a review of Ontario’s drinking and driving statistics would shed some light on enforcement, prosecutorial and sentencing practices, and on the likely impact of the new “get tough” legislation. However, it was surprisingly diYcult to obtain much information from the provincial government. Although Ontario published statistics on its federal drinking and driving convictions, it did not publish comparable information on the number of charges. Unfortunately, federal statistics were also limited. They did not address what happens before the police decide to lay a charge, nor what happens to the charge before the accused’s first court appearance. Despite these limitations, federal data provided some insight into basic issues of charging, prosecutorial, and sentencing practices in Ontario. They suggested that there were—and remain—serious problems with these practices. Because the recent federal and provincial amendments did not address the underlying problems, we share the concerns of MADD and others about the likely eVects of the legislative reforms.