Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I noted your comments and the concern about having a common vocabulary with other police forces across the country. For a long time during this committee hearing this morning, I was worried about a common vocabulary even amongst those in the room, because everybody else was using the term “taser” and you were referring to a CEW. But I note that you are now with us on that, and we're able to call them tasers with you.
Across the country, of course—to get to this common vocabulary point—what we and the public are concerned about more than vocabulary is standards. Can you tell us that the standards would be the same across the country?
I recognize, by the way, that we have seen some changes in the RCMP policy and approach since this committee made its report, and that's to the credit of the work of this committee, I would suggest. You have said that now the policy is not to use the taser for the purpose mainly of dealing with people who are resisting, that there must be a threat and the use of the taser must be necessary.
Is that the common standard that now applies, if you're...? I know you're not speaking for all the police forces, but you say you have a common vocabulary, at least, with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Can people across the country expect that this would be the standard applied in the use of tasers?