I'd like to pick up on what Mr. Spratt is saying. There's also the comment he made about the right to counsel.
We just went through this in the Supreme Court of Canada in 2005 because of the refusal to comply offence. The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Orbanski and R. v. Elias went through the analysis again and the section 1 analysis about roadside testing. They found that even though there is the limitation on the right to counsel, and even though there is a refusal offence, it's still saved by section 1 because of those three requirements: reasonable suspicion, forthwith, and use immunity.
In B.C., and now recently in Ontario, we see the elimination of use immunity through administrative schemes. If we're taking away those other steps, keeping refusal as an offence and not allowing people the opportunity to consult with counsel first.... I can't see how it's going to pass that when you factor in that there is still a refusal offence.