This is an excellent opportunity to clarify this whole issue.
The Identification of Criminals Act under the Criminal Code is very specific. If you're charged with an indictable offence, you will be fingerprinted and you will be photographed, full stop. If it's a dual procedure, dual procedure says that you may be convicted of an indictable offence for up to two years, five years, 10 years, or summary conviction. For dual procedure offences, you are fingerprinted and photographed. When it goes to court, a determination is made by the crown whether they want to proceed by indictment or summary conviction. Regardless, your fingerprints and photographs have already been taken.
There's a reason for this. If we arrest somebody today in Calgary and they're in Montreal, and somebody by the name of Rick Hanson gets arrested in Calgary, and then somebody by the name of Rick Hanson gets arrested in Montreal, how do you know it's the same Rick Hanson? Because I can tell you there are lots of them.
The third option is pure summary conviction offences. In other words, an offence punishable by six months or less, or a fine, does not fall under the Identification of Criminals Act. You do not fingerprint. You do not photograph. So you may have a conviction registered, but you have no record, because how do you identify that person without fingerprints and photographs? How do you know you're charging the same person? Well, you don't.
What you're talking about is frequently dual procedure offences, where the crown chooses to proceed by summary conviction, but it's still fingerprints and—