I want to follow up on that exact point. I understand what you're saying, that, for example, if a cigarette is left at a scene, it doesn't necessarily mean that person did something. But that's not the focus. The focus is making sure the matches are actually reliable, because obviously there are parameters of evidence that will also be relied upon to determine whether or not somebody is guilty. What I'd like to know is, if the RCMP does their investigation—whatever police force—and they conclude there is a match between what was found at the scene and the sample in the data bank, what guarantee is there that that's 100% accurate, to avoid false convictions and at the same time, if there is a method to exonerate people, to make sure that person is actually innocent?
We were advised mistakes are made. There was an example of a British person who was arrested who could not have done it. He was in a wheelchair, but they were on their way to go get him because they concluded he was the culprit. That's what I'm asking about. I want to know that when we convict somebody we're not going to be facing a situation 20 years down the road when there is suddenly better new technology and people conclude that this range of persons should not actually have been convicted. I'll go to one point here, which is that I read about advances in technology, and the statute we have actually takes into account the fact that there will be advances in technology.
So the other question for me is this. I understand people are always trying to improve, but why do we need advances in technology in this? Is it not reliable already? Can we not assume people can rely upon this now? What are we trying to fix?