I read with interest the Canadian Bar Association's brief on this, when they indicated that they thought there would be charter issues raised. I feel that they are absolutely correct. The reason is that this set of people who get caught tend not to be the disenfranchised group. You're dealing with people who can afford non-legal aid lawyers, and they will challenge these issues. It's a big hit for them, the mandatory minimums, the whole thing.
The alcohol-impaired driving issues are an area of law that is really intensely litigated. It will be litigated to try to figure out what these individual elements mean. If you're moving from over point whatever it is, to this and above, that is going to be litigated. Lawyers are going to try to figure out what that means. They're going to bring it to the courts. They're going to ask for rulings, and it's going to slow the process down.
Going back to the Irish experience, I'm not familiar with what has transpired in Ireland. However, if you're actually looking at changing behaviour, I'm not a big fan of deterrents, but when you have two lawful activities such as driving and drinking and it is the intersection, you have two basically law-abiding groups of people who don't want to get caught in that intersection.
It's a slightly different group that can be influenced here by both public awareness, and maybe by deterrents, but most effectively the likelihood or the perception that they're going to get stopped and that enforcement will hit them.