Good afternoon, gentlemen, and thank you for coming.
What you're saying is very interesting but I'm rather surprised by it. I'm going to explain something to you. I don't know if you have children. I myself have four. Fortunately they are now adults but once upon a time they were teenagers. I come from Quebec, from Quebec City. As you can see I speak French. Imagine small drug peddlers, as you have described them, selling marijuana or mescaline near schools and that 11- or 12-year-old teenagers buy from them, imagine that they are your children and that they can become addicted. The parents are the ones who will pay the price of this.
Today you're telling us to not be too strict, that the judge will take care of this, that we shouldn't worry and that there isn't a problem. You are sending us a message of tolerance; I have nothing against that but I do in the case of selling drugs to teenagers. I would like to know if you would accept drugs being sold, for example mescaline, to your teenage children, if you have any, and if you think that your theory should apply, that is, that there be no minimum sentence because this is not serious. A small peddler starts with young people and eventually becomes a big dealer. That's what needs to be understood. We have to stop them at the very beginning, therefore. You're telling us that we should allow the judge to decide and that we shouldn't be alarmed. Mr. Jones, you seem to be of a certain age. I don't know if you have any children. Mr. Elliott, I don't know if you have any children but I would like to hear what you have to say about this. What should we tell parents whose children will become addicted to drugs? How should we react? Is this a one-size-fits-all or do you make any distinctions when it comes to mandatory minimum sentences?