Speaking about the upon-arrest issue, this isn't a new issue before Parliament. When this whole scheme was first developed, there was a big topic that was for obvious reasons on the table as well. And if you recall, there were opinions gathered from three former chief justices of provinces, one being Ontario, the other being Quebec, and I don't recall the third. But independently they did a legal analysis as to whether it would survive charter scrutiny, and they all came to the conclusion that it wouldn't. When we now look at the European Union's case where they come to the same conclusion, upon arrest is too wide a blanket thrown on proportionality. We come back to that. Justice Fish made clear in the R.C. case in 2005, which my friend mentioned, that DNA isn't like a fingerprint. Its information component has a much broader scope to it than a fingerprint.
So to expand it to the arrest scenario, and leave apart all the practical situations I put out there in terms of how much it's going to cost to do it and the resources, on the charter scrutiny, I don't think it would survive.