Bill 694 amends the Highway Safety Code to create an administrative framework targeting drivers with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at or above 50 mg per 100 ml of blood. It substitutes a new prohibition, authorizes on-the-spot licence suspensions by peace officers, and layers escalating suspension lengths with follow-up assessment and program requirements for repeat events.
The measure builds an administrative pathway between routine roadside screening and criminal prosecutions, making short-term suspension automatic for low-range impairment and conditioning reinstatement after repeated suspensions on assessments, awareness programming and, in some cases, use of an alcohol ignition interlock device. The bill also updates cross-references across the Code to fold the new regime into existing suspension and licence-issuance rules.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill replaces section 202.2.1.2 to prohibit driving with a BAC equal to or above 50 mg/100 ml, and inserts section 202.4.0.1 requiring peace officers to immediately suspend licences when screening devices or Criminal Code-approved instruments indicate that level. It prescribes a 3-day suspension for a first administrative suspension, 7 days for a second within five years, and a minimum 90-day suspension for any additional suspension in that window.
Who It Affects
Drivers holding Québec licences (including those seeking re‑issuance after suspension), the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec (SAAQ), and peace officers who will enforce immediate suspensions. The rule also affects non‑Québec licence holders stopped in Québec (a 30‑day driving prohibition is imposed instead) and service providers who run assessment, awareness and interlock programs.
Why It Matters
The bill creates an explicit administrative enforcement tool for BACs below the criminal threshold, shortening the response time between detection and sanction. Compliance officers, fleet managers and insurers should note the new short-term suspensions and the potential for mandatory assessments and interlocks to be imposed as conditions of licence reinstatement.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill rewrites the low-range impairment rule in the Highway Safety Code by making it an offence to drive with a BAC of 50 mg/100 ml or higher. Rather than relying solely on criminal proceedings, it gives peace officers the authority to immediately suspend driving privileges when a roadside screening device or an approved evidentiary instrument indicates that level.
That creates a fast administrative consequence intended to remove possibly impaired drivers from the road the moment screening indicates risk.
When officers apply the new section 202.4.0.1, the administrative suspension lengths are escalation-based: three days for a first event, seven for a second event occurring within five years, and at least 90 days for further events within that same five-year lookback. The bill ties lifting longer suspensions to a new fitness-to-drive assessment regime: a summary assessment first, with a comprehensive assessment required if the person fails the summary screen.
Passing the summary assessment does not end the process; the licence-holder must also complete an awareness program and pay related fees to the Société before reinstatement.For people whose licences come from outside Québec, peace officers do not suspend the foreign licence but instead prohibit driving for 30 days and report the matter to the Société so the person’s ability to obtain a Québec learner’s, probationary or driver’s licence can be immediately suspended. The bill also adds cross-references throughout the Code so the new section plugs into existing cancellation, suspension and administrative-penalty provisions, and it adjusts wording in several sections to reflect the addition.Mechanically, the bill removes some prior textual provisions (for example, it strikes a subparagraph of section 202.4 and edits cross-references) to avoid overlap with the new administrative path.
It also makes explicit that licence reinstatement after certain suspensions may be conditioned on using an alcohol ignition interlock device where the Société requires it. The text leaves several operational details — such as the content and minimum standards for summary vs comprehensive assessments, exact program curricula, fee schedules and how interlock orders are allocated across licence classes — to existing administrative practice or subsequent regulation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill replaces section 202.2.1.2 to set the BAC threshold at 50 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood (0.05) as a statutory prohibition for driving.
Section 202.4.0.1 requires a peace officer to immediately suspend a licence if a screening device or a Criminal Code–approved instrument shows a BAC ≥ 50 mg/100 ml.
Suspension lengths under the new section are fixed: 3 days for the first suspension, 7 days for a second suspension within five years, and a minimum 90 days for any additional suspension within that five‑year period.
To obtain a new licence after a ‘subsequent suspension,’ the holder must establish fitness via a summary assessment (or a comprehensive assessment if they fail the summary), pay SAAQ fees, and complete a mandated awareness program; some cases may require driving with an ignition interlock.
If a stopped driver holds a licence issued by another jurisdiction, the peace officer imposes a 30‑day driving prohibition and must inform the SAAQ so the person’s right to obtain Québec licences can be immediately suspended.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Fitness-for-drive assessment and program conditions for licence re‑issuance
This new provision sets the pathway a person must follow to obtain a new licence after incurring a specified suspension: first a summary assessment to establish that alcohol or drug issues do not compromise safe driving; on failure, a comprehensive assessment; and, on passing the summary assessment, completion of a defined awareness program and payment of fees to the Société. Practically, the section creates an administrative gatekeeper: reinstatement depends on evaluation and education rather than only passage of time. It also imports the SAAQ’s fee-collection role into the process and links the program in section 76.1.2, signaling officials can use the existing program architecture.
Technical integration of the new regime into the Code
Multiple sections are edited to include the new section 76.1.2.1 and the new suspension section 202.4.0.1 in existing lists of provisions that trigger administrative consequences. These are housekeeping edits but important: they ensure the new summary/comprehensive assessment pathway, fees, program requirements and suspension statuses interact correctly with licence cancellation, suspension records, reinstatement rules, and penalty calculations already governed by the Code. Without these cross‑references, administrative officers could face inconsistent application of penalties and reinstatement conditions.
Lowering and clarifying the statutory BAC prohibition
The bill substitutes a clear, standalone rule: no person may drive with a BAC equal to or exceeding 50 mg/100 ml. Unlike some previous text that co-mingled thresholds and procedures, the replacement sets the substantive limit in one place so enforcement and administrative action can be keyed directly to that measure. This simplifies prosecution and administrative handling of low-range impairment but also creates a bright-line administrative offence below the federal criminal limit (80 mg).
Peace officer authority and prescribed administrative suspensions
This is the bill’s enforcement centerpiece. It requires peace officers, on behalf of the SAAQ, to immediately suspend licences when a screening test or an approved evidentiary breath analysis shows BAC ≥ 50 mg/100 ml. It prescribes fixed suspension lengths (3/7/≥90 days) tied to repeat events within a five‑year lookback and makes licence lifting after longer suspensions conditional on meeting the 76.1.2.1 requirements. The section also provides a separate path for non‑Québec licence holders — a 30‑day prohibition and mandatory notification to the SAAQ — which addresses cross-jurisdictional enforcement.
Removing overlapping or inconsistent procedural text
The bill strikes an existing subparagraph of section 202.4 and removes references to the replaced 202.2.1.2 language from a separate paragraph, a move designed to avoid conflicting procedures between the legacy administrative framework and the new immediate-suspension route. That deletion narrows the Code’s procedural complexity but requires administrators to adapt practices previously tethered to the removed text.
Commencement tied to assent
The Act comes into force on the date of assent, meaning there is no delayed implementation period specified in the text. That suggests the operational rollout — officer training, SAAQ process updates, program capacity and fee schedules — will need parallel administrative action immediately after assent to make the new framework function in practice.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Road users at large (pedestrians, cyclists, other motorists): Removing drivers from the road immediately when screening indicates low-range impairment reduces near-term crash exposure and injury risk.
- Peace officers and enforcement units: The bill gives officers a clear statutory basis to take immediate administrative action at 0.05 BAC, simplifying on-scene decision-making and producing a quick risk-mitigation tool.
- Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec (SAAQ): The SAAQ gains clearer authority to condition licence reinstatement on assessments, programs and interlock devices, allowing it to operationalize risk-based licence management.
- Insurance industry and fleet operators: Short-term removals of impaired drivers and mandated remediation for repeat offenders can lower insurer payouts and fleet liability exposure over time.
Who Bears the Cost
- Individual drivers with low-range impairment: Drivers whose BAC falls between 50 and 80 mg/100 ml will face immediate administrative suspensions and, after repeats, mandatory assessments, programs, fees and possible interlock requirements that restrict mobility and impose costs.
- SAAQ and public administration: The Société and partner agencies must scale assessment, program and interlock administration; process more immediate suspensions and appeals; and set fee schedules — all creating administrative load and potential unfunded costs.
- Out-of‑province licence holders visiting Québec: These drivers face a 30‑day prohibition and potential immediate administrative restriction on obtaining Québec licences, which can disrupt travel or business plans and raise questions about reciprocity and notification between jurisdictions.
- Service providers and interlock suppliers: Providers administering assessments, awareness programs and ignition interlock installations must expand capacity and comply with SAAQ procurement or certification requirements, which entails operational investments.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: reduce immediate crash risk by authorizing fast administrative removals of potentially impaired drivers at a lower BAC, while avoiding overreach that punishes drivers based on imperfect screening and imposes administrative burdens and costs without clear standards or protections. The bill favors swift public-safety action at the expense of procedural uniformity and clarity about who pays for and administers remediation.
The bill simultaneously tightens road-safety enforcement and delegates many operational details to administrative bodies. That produces a set of implementation risks: the statute mandates summary and comprehensive assessments but does not set minimum standards, timelines or appeal routes for those assessments, leaving room for variation in how fitness-to-drive is determined.
The financial model is ambiguous — the SAAQ will collect fees, but the text does not specify fee amounts or whether programs and assessments will be subsidized for low‑income drivers, creating potential equity concerns.
Procedurally, instant suspension based on screening devices raises accuracy and due-process questions. Screening devices can give false positives or be influenced by device quality and operator training; reliance on an immediate administrative sanction before confirmatory analysis could generate disputes and administrative appeals.
The bill also puts sizeable new demand on the SAAQ and community program providers: to be effective, the summary/comprehensive assessments, awareness programs and interlock monitoring must be scalable and standardized, yet the statute leaves that work to regulation and administrative practice without transitional funding or explicit capacity-building measures.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.