Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the term "zero tolerance" doesn't have a definite legal meaning per se. It is more of an expression and a statement of the attitude that society has towards a particular subject. I do know that the federal Department of Justice policy, with respect to spousal assault, has often been described as a zero tolerance policy. However, even within that zero tolerance policy, it does not mean that charges are automatically laid in every family dispute involving violence. Under the Criminal Code, an officer who lays a charge has to have reasonable and probable grounds to believe an offence has been committed. Accordingly, if the officer doesn't believe the person who is saying an offence has been committed, he would not be able to lay a charge because he wouldn't have the reasonable grounds that are necessary to have in order to go in front of a JP and say, "I believe this person committed an offence." Even within the federal government's own policy, it doesn't mean that all incidents automatically turn into charges.
Their policy is that if the investigating officer feels there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed as a result of a domestic dispute, that the investigating officer shall arrest the person committing the offence, unless public interest dictates otherwise.
So their policy is, in all cases where they have grounds to believe an offence has been committed, they will arrest. But there is a precondition that they must believe an offence may have been committed. I hope that helps the Member, Mr. Chairman.