Well, I won't go into it in detail, but I will address the issue associated with each of the points your raised.
I do agree that police officers have to be given the ability to force someone to take a reflex test. With respect to the first problem, as to whether the individual is fit to drive, I believe police officers have to be given that ability. Furthermore, the test has to be filmed, because if the individual decides to challenge the results, evidence will be available.
These tests already exist and studies show how they could be improved. They also show that there is a certain level of testing. Airline pilots take reflex tests and the same applies to them. I am not interested in knowing whether he was making love all night or whether he smoked marijuana; what I want to know is whether he is fit to fly a plane. So, the reflex test is intended to determine whether he is fit to fly a plane, whatever the reasons involved are. The same principle applies here.
As regards the national registry, the reason I mentioned it was in relation to the second problem—namely, repeat offenders. The fact is that the research shows that a great many accidents are connected to a small number of people driving impaired. An individual can be in one province, receive a penalty in another, and repeat the scenario over and over again. Where repetition is involved—and I'm not talking about repeated drug possession, but rather, of repeated impaired driving—I think there need to be rules or ways of ratcheting up the penalties.