II) Results of Workshop Discussions and Public Consultation

2) Impaired Driving Sanctions and Countermeasures

a) What do you think about the idea of a vehicle forfeiture sanction and, if you approve of it, when should it apply?

The majority of participants were in favour of implementing vehicle forfeiture as a sanction for impaired driving offences. However, they thought that there should be some mechanism to release the vehicle from forfeiture if the offender was not the owner of the vehicle.
Those who were opposed to vehicle forfeiture thought that it was too severe a sanction, it would not stop an offender from driving another vehicle, it would result in offenders fleeing police and more high speed police pursuits, and it would unfairly punish the families of offenders by depriving them of a vehicle. They also thought that habitual offenders would start driving very low value vehicles to reduce the impact of the forfeiture sanction and were concerned about the fairness of imposing a sanction whose impact could differ significantly depending upon the value of the vehicle ($500 beater vs. $40,000 luxury car).
Those who supported vehicle forfeiture thought that it should apply to repeat offences (e.g. 3 in 5 years). One discussion group also thought that it should apply to any conviction for impaired driving causing bodily injury or death (regardless if it was a 1st, 2nd or 3rd offence).
Those who were opposed to forfeiture thought that, if forfeiture was implemented, it should apply only where a driver has been referred to driver improvement on several occasions or has three offences in 15 years.

b) What do you think about the idea of implementing an ignition interlock program in Manitoba?

Nearly all of the participants favoured implementation of an ignition interlock program in Manitoba. Some recommended that ignition interlocks should be installed in all vehicles as new equipment.
Some participants did not believe that they had enough information to make a decision, while one public consultation respondent thought that hardcore impaired drivers would just get someone else to provide the breath samples.
Those who supported establishing an ignition interlock program in Manitoba said that it is an effective method of controlling offenders, it reduces risk and offers protection to the community, it has been shown to be an effective part of intervention programs, it has no negative impact on families, and it gives people an incentive to re-licence.
Some participants were opposed to allowing driving prohibitions or suspensions to be reduced in return for interlock use, but the majority of participants did not voice that concern.
Some participants expressed concerns about how an ignition interlock program would work in rural areas, that offenders should serve their full suspensions before they could use an interlock, that ignition interlocks must be combined with an intervention program because their rehabilitative impact does not last after they are removed, that special measures might be needed to prevent non-interlock vehicle use by offenders, that the costs of interlock may be prohibitive for some offenders and that special arrangements may be needed to allow some professional drivers, like bus drivers, to continue working.

c) What do you think about the idea of increasing the one and five year and two and seven year licence suspension periods?

Participants were concerned about increasing licence suspension periods without increasing the enforcement of those suspensions.
Other concerns about increasing licence suspension lengths were that increased suspension lengths might not reduce impaired driving (offenders may drive while suspended regardless of the suspension length) and longer suspensions could diminish the incentive to re-licence and result in more suspended driving.

d) What do you think about lifetime licence suspensions and, if you approve of them, when should they apply?

There was no consensus among participants about whether lifetime licence suspensions should be implemented in Manitoba.
One of the three Workshop discussion groups favoured lifetime suspensions, one was opposed and there was no consensus in the other group. The public consultation respondents who addressed the issue of lifetime suspensions were also equally divided about whether lifetime suspensions should be implemented.
Those who were in favour of lifetime suspensions thought that they were useful for frequent repeat offenders who demonstrated a disregard for the law. They thought lifetime suspensions should apply whenever an offender records three serious Criminal Code driving convictions, but were divided about whether they should also apply to every offence involving death or bodily harm (including a first offence) or just to fatal motor vehicle collisions where the offender has prior convictions. They also thought that there should be some limited appeal process where drivers could apply for a review of the suitability of the their lifetime suspension.
Those opposed to lifetime suspensions thought that they resulted in a loss of control over offenders, that they would just result in more suspended driving and that a graduated licence approach might be better. They did not want to exclude drivers from the re-licensing system, but instead to keep them in the system under strict controls.

e) Are you concerned that tougher sanctions could result in more suspended driving and police chases?

One of the three Workshop discussion groups was concerned that vehicle forfeiture could lead to more police chases and that increasing suspension lengths would create more suspended drivers. However, the other groups did not voice any concerns.
There was no consensus among public consultation respondents about whether tougher sanctions would result. Some thought that tougher sanctions result in more suspended driving and police chases, but others thought that they would not influence an offender's decision to drive suspended or flee from police.

f) What do you think about allowing licence suspensions to be reduced if the suspended driver participates in a program such as a residential treatment program, community service or an ignition interlock program?

Most participants thought that it might be helpful to allow licence suspension reductions as an incentive for rehabilitation as long as the offender meaningfully participates in an intervention program and uses an ignition interlock.
Participants did not believe that suspension reductions for impaired drivers should be granted in return for community service.
Some participants thought that only first offenders should be eligible for suspension reductions, but the majority of participants did not raise any concerns about including repeat offenders in a suspension reduction program.

g) What, if anything, should be done to target hardcore repeat impaired drivers and suspended drivers (e.g. prohibiting them from purchasing, leasing and registering a motor vehicle)?

None of the Workshop discussion groups made any recommendations on this issue.
Public consultation respondents thought that hardcore offenders could be given prison sentences with no chance of parole, that a crime stoppers program might be helpful for reporting impaired drivers to police, that hardcore offenders could have their right to register a vehicle taken away and that it might be helpful to make lending a vehicle to a hardcore drunk driver an offence.

h) What other countermeasures should be considered for Manitoba's impaired driving program?

None of the Workshop discussion groups made any recommendations on this issue.
Public consultation respondents thought that the victims and their families could be allowed to confront impaired driving offenders as a part of their sentence, that offenders could be banned from purchasing or licensing a vehicle and that tougher penalties for first offenders might discourage them from becoming hardcore offenders.

Top of page