Public Safety Committee on Feb. 12th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'd like to bring this meeting to order.

This is the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. This is our fourth meeting. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are going to study the taser issue.

We would like to welcome our witnesses, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the commissioner, Mr. William Elliott.

It seems as though we just met you very recently, Commissioner, but we welcome you to our committee again. You can introduce Mr. Madill.

We have received a copy of your opening remarks. Thank you very much.

We welcome your opening remarks. Usually we have approximately 10 minutes, but we can be a bit flexible. Go ahead, sir.

[Commr William Elliott, Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to be here today. With me is my colleague Darrell Madill, Deputy Commissioner.

Darrell is the assistant commissioner for contract and aboriginal policing.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today, and to provide you with an update on the progress the RCMP has made in relation to its policies, practices, training and reporting requirements relating to conducted energy weapons or CEWs as we call them.

The RCMP continues to believe that the CEW is a useful tool when used in appropriate circumstances by well-trained officers and that it contributes to the safety of the public and of our officers. Our obligation, of course, is to ensure that our officers are in fact well trained, that our policies are appropriate, and that they are followed.

Since the receipt of the report on CEWs by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in June of last year, the RCMP has made a number of improvements to our CEW policies, training practices, and reporting requirements. We believe that the improvements we have made respond to the recommendations in the standing committee's report. I would like to speak more specifically about each of those recommendations that was addressed to the RCMP, and about our subsequent actions.

The first recommendation was that the RCMP classify the CEW as an impact weapon--and I quote from the report--“so that its use can be authorized only in situations where the subject is displaying assaultive behaviour or posing a threat of death or grievous bodily harm”.

The RCMP has modified and updated its incident management intervention model, or IMIM, to bring it more into line with the model adopted by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. The term “impact weapon” does not appear on our new IMIM. The alignment of the RCMP's IMIM with that of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the national use of force framework contributes to a common vocabulary and common approaches to the use of force by police agencies across Canada. This supports enhanced integrated efforts with partner agencies, including integrated enforcement units like our integrated border enforcement teams, called IBETs, and integrated national security enforcement teams, INSETs. It also supports joint force operations.

On June 18, 2008, all members of the RCMP were instructed that the CEW must only be used where it is necessary to do so in circumstances of threats to officer or public safety. This requirement has subsequently been written into our formal policy.

The fact that deploying the CEW involves risk was also reinforced at that time, in subsequent communication, and in our CEW policy.

The standing committee report also called for more independent research to give a clearer indication of potential risks to subjects of CEW deployment. The RCMP fully supports this.

I would like to refer to three such studies.

Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center completed a U.S. nationwide independent taser study and released its findings in late June 2007. It was the first injury epidemiology study to review taser deployments and to assess the overall risk and severity of injuries in real world conditions, according to Dr. William Bozeman, the lead researcher and an emergency medicine specialist. In Dr. Bozeman's own words, “The injury rate is low and most injuries appear to be minor. These results support the safety of the devices.”

Dr. Bozeman released just last month the results of another three-year review of CEW uses by six U.S. law enforcement agencies. Out of 1,201 criminal suspects who were subdued by a CEW, 99.75% suffered either no injuries at all or only mild injuries such as scrapes and bruises. Dr. Bozeman does caution that police and medical personnel should be aware of the potential for injury and look for evidence of injury following a CEW application. But he says, “These weapons appear to be very safe, especially when compared to other options police have for subduing violent or combative suspects.” The study is published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, a peer-reviewed scientific journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The third study I would like to mention is a special National Institute of Justice interim report entitled, Study of Deaths Following Electro Muscular Disruption, released in June of last year. It should be noted that this particular study referred to the device commonly called “the taser” as a conducted energy device, or CED. The study concluded:

Although exposure to CED is not risk-free, there is no conclusive medical evidence within the state of current research that indicates a high risk of serious injury or death from the direct effects of CED exposure. Field experience with CED use indicates that exposure is safe in the vast majority of cases. Therefore, law enforcement need not refrain from deploying CEDs, provided the devices are used in accordance with accepted national guidelines.

The potential for moderate or severe injury related to CED exposure is low.

We would be happy to provide the committee with copies of these papers. The RCMP continues to follow and to support independent research as well as enhanced data collection and analysis. Our own experiences also reinforce the benefits of CEWs in appropriate circumstances.

Let me give you just one recent example. Last December, two of our members were dispatched to a house and they subsequently reported the following.

A call was received from a father whose son was wielding a knife. As our members arrived at the house, they were informed that the son had taken some pills and was also armed with a shotgun and an axe.

As our officers drove closer to the house, they saw an individual coming out with an axe in his hand, walking toward the police car. The young man raised the axe with both hands and slammed it down on the hood of the police car. The officers shouted at the man to drop the axe, but he did not comply. One constable drew his conducted energy weapon, while the other drew his pistol to provide lethal force overwatch.

The father of the individual tried to intervene, but the son pushed him aside and then swung the axe at him. The CEW was deployed on the son, who immediately dropped the axe and fell to the ground, allowing our officers to gain physical control, handcuff the individual, and place him in the police car. The father wept in fear that his son had come to harm, but the son told him he was okay.

If these two members had arrived at this scene without the benefit of CEW training and the presence of a CEW, we believe the son would almost certainly have been killed. This may have been both a lawful and a necessary act, but it would have left a young man dead, his family grieving, and our officers having to deal with the trauma of having ended a young man's life.

The standing committee report's second recommendation was that the RCMP revise its policy to provide clear guidelines for uses and restrictions for multiple discharges of the CEW. The RCMP revised CEW policy restricts the use of CEWs and specifically warns of the hazards of multiple deployments or continuous cycling of the CEW.

Training was the focus of the third recommendation in the committee's report, to stress the potential risk that use of the weapon may entail. The RCMP's revised CEW policy underscores that there are risks associated with the deployment of the device and emphasizes that those risks include the risk of death, particularly for acutely agitated individuals.

Recommendation four was that the RCMP require CEW recertification of its officers authorized to use the weapon at least every two years. In fact, the RCMP's requirements exceed those recommended by the committee. We now require recertification every year.

Improvements to training regarding mental health and addiction issues were contained in the report's fifth recommendation, particularly where these issues coincide with CEW deployments. The RCMP's national learning and development group has access to CEW incident reports and to the RCMP's CEW data bank to assist in the ongoing assessment of the relevance and adequacy of the RCMP's training and training standards, and to help ensure that modifications are made as necessary. This same group is helping to develop additional scenarios for IMIM training, including to raise awareness of populations who may be at greater risk when a CEW is deployed.

The RCMP's policies regarding arrest and prisoner care cover evaluation and assessment of a prisoner's requirements for medical services. Our operational policy section benefits from the perspectives of professional medical organizations such as the Canadian Mental Health Association. This is particularly important in our ongoing efforts to identify and adopt best practices.

The RCMP pays ongoing attention to conferences, reports, and research findings to stay current with developments in this field.

The committee's sixth recommendation was that the RCMP, wherever possible, obtain assistance from psychiatric support staff when an intervention is expected to involve a person suffering from mental illness or drug addiction.

We agree, but it must be recognized that often police must respond immediately to emergency situations and cannot always pre-arrange such support, even where it is available. Furthermore, police may not be aware they are dealing with someone in need of psychiatric support until after circumstances have required the use of force.

Nevertheless, we have asked commanding officers in all of our divisions to develop or update protocols in their jurisdictions with local medical emergency personnel for assistance to be provided when it is necessary and practical to do so. At the national level, organizations such as the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians and the Canadian Mental Health Association are working with the RCMP to identify areas of concern and establish best practices.

The last recommendation in the committee's report that was addressed to the RCMP was recommendation number 12, which listed certain kinds of information that the committee believed should be included in an annual report by the RCMP. The RCMP has committed to detailed quarterly and annual reporting on CEW usage by members of the force. To date two such quarterly reports have been released. Subsequent quarterly reports and our first annual report are in preparation and should be released shortly. All the information recommended by the committee for inclusion is and will be included in our quarterly and annual reports.

The RCMP has also launched a national project entitled subject behaviour officer response reporting or SBOR. This will require RCMP officers to account for all use of force. The SBOR has been designed in collaboration with both internal and external stakeholders. This improved reporting will provide information on specific incidents and on trends across the force. It will help our officers articulate in greater detail the circumstances of incidents in which they used force. Our objective is to increase accountability. This reporting should also assist ongoing improvements to policies and training.

In conclusion, let me again thank the committee for having us here today and for your ongoing interest in the important issues relating to the RCMP's use of CEWs.

In conclusion, let me again thank the committee for having us here today and for your ongoing interest in the important issues relating to the RCMP's use of CEWs. My colleague and I would be happy to respond to any questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much, Commissioner. We appreciate those opening remarks.

For the information of the committee, this will be the order of the questioning today. We'll go with the Liberal Party first, then the Bloc, then the NDP, then the Conservatives for the first round. Then we'll go to the Liberals and the Conservatives for the second round. Then we're going to go to the Bloc and the Conservatives for the third round, then to the Liberals and the Conservatives for the fourth round. My apologies; one of you will not get a turn. We will start then from the beginning again, and so I think in two hours we should have enough time to do it. According to what we agreed at the beginning, this is about as close as I can get to giving everybody one turn before anybody gets two turns.

Mr. Holland, you have indicated you'd like to go first. Go ahead, sir.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner, for coming before the committee today.

By your comments I can assume obviously that you've read the report. Do you know if the public safety minister has? And have you had an opportunity to discuss the committee's report with the public safety minister?

[Commr William Elliott]

I've certainly discussed the report with the minister, yes.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

The committee undertook around 11 weeks of study, including going out to Vancouver, in the wake of Robert Dziekanski's death, and obviously there was an enormous amount of public interest in this. The committee took it very seriously and it took its recommendations very seriously.

Commissioner, one of the things I'm concerned about is that since that report was tabled on June 8, we have been unable to get any sort of response to our recommendations from the minister. Today is the first time we are hearing from you in terms of the response to a variety of questions. A number of the answers you've given frankly concern me. I am going to start with the very specific recommendation that the committee made with respect to an independent peer-reviewed study of the impact of taser weapons.

You stated in your response that there are three studies, all of which are in the U.S., two of which are conducted by law enforcement agencies, which certainly don't meet the criterion of being independent. To the best of my knowledge, you haven't provided any evidence that any of them were peer reviewed, and none of them were conducted in Canada.

In fact, the only independent study that we have in Canada was done by a media organization. It was done by the CBC, which found that the X26 taser models expel more energy than the manufacturer had stated and therefore were more dangerous than thought.

Can you tell me why specifically that recommendation has been ignored? Why has there been a refusal to have an independent, third party, peer-reviewed test of tasers, particularly in light of not only this committee's deep interest in the issue but also the great deal of public interest in the wake of Mr. Dziekanski's death and also in the wake of other incidents?

[Commr William Elliott]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. With respect, I would suggest that a number of the premises advanced by the honourable member are not factually accurate.

First of all, in my opening comments I indicated that I wanted to refer to three studies. I did not indicate that they were the only three studies. I also indicated specifically with respect to one study that it was published in a medical journal and that it was peer reviewed.

I don't believe any of the studies I referred to were actually conducted by police forces. I indicated that we support independent research. We are very supportive of efforts undertaken by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and by the Canadian Police Research Centre.

With respect to the CBC reporting about not the subject matter that I referred to in my opening remarks--that is, the injuries associated with deployment of CEWs--but with respect to the actual performance or output of the device, we are certainly very aware of the CBC study. On learning of the issues raised by the CBC, even before the broadcast of the CBC story, we undertook research. We contracted for CEWs in the RCMP's inventory to be tested. Those tests are being conducted by an independent firm here in Ottawa. To date, we have tested 60 devices. They have been drawn from our inventory across the country. Testing continues.

We are working with many others, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and outside experts, to refine the protocols for testing. We are committed to introducing testing on an ongoing basis with respect to our CEWs.

Lastly, I would say in answer to the question that we have not ignored any of the recommendations in the report. We have not followed the recommendation with respect to impact weapons for reasons I referred to in my remarks.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I'm going to come back to impact weapons. I'm sorry, I only have two minutes. I do want to go to impact weapons.

I just have a concern. All three examples you raised were American examples. The one you cited was a peer review. It was a retrospective study of people who had already been hit by the weapon; it was not a study of the weapon itself. So you're not giving me anything about the weapon itself being tested. The example you gave was a peer review of post-mortems of incidents that have already occurred.

So it is my feeling, sir, that the recommendation has been ignored. The committee was explicit in wanting a Canadian third party study, and it shouldn't take a media organization to force the RCMP to begin testing some of these weapons, in my respectful opinion.

The second point I want to come to is the reclassification of the weapons, which you began getting into, maybe in anticipation of the concern I was going to raise. That recommendation wasn't followed. Obviously Canadians are deeply concerned about this issue. There have been a number of grave injuries and deaths that have involved tasers. And the committee, after studying the issue for a great length of time, made a recommendation for reclassification. This is the first we've heard in response to that. All previous responses were that tasers are here to stay.

Now, I have a question. The use of force continuum is maybe an improvement over what's there, but it certainly isn't going nearly as far as the committee's recommendation for reclassification of the weapon. So can I ask why you have ignored that recommendation and haven't, in fact, moved forward with the reclassification?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Time is almost expired for an answer.

[Commr William Elliott]

Mr. Chairman, I again repeat that we have not ignored the clear recommendation.

The term “impact weapon” is not a term that, frankly, is helpful, in our view. It's not consistent with the IMIM model that we have adopted, that police forces across the country have adopted.

With respect to the categorization of the weapon, I might point out that our policy actually is very clear that the CEW is a prohibited firearm. So I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that there is a problem with respect to how we have categorized this weapon. It is a weapon that delivers considerable force. There are risks, including the risk of death, associated with the delivery of considerable force. Our policies, our practices, and our training are all based on a recognition of that fact.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go over to the Bloc.

Monsieur Ménard, are you going to question first?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Elliott. I am favourably impressed by the way in which you carefully answered our questions and by the explanations you have provided.

I have practised long enough to know that police forces have used a variety of methods to subdue uncooperative individuals. Before the existence of the taser, many of these methods had been considered dangerous. I recognize that the invention of a device like the taser raised great hopes that the former methods would be used less frequently and that there would be a method which is absolutely safe, as far as that is possible, to subdue uncooperative people.

In time, it became clear that this method also involved some danger. The only studies that were available where those produced by the manufacturer, whose commercial practices were extremely persuasive, as is often the case with American companies. There is reason to doubt the reliability of the studies, which quite often had been funded by the manufacturer itself. I am pleased to see that there are now studies which are funded otherwise. I do appreciate the effort you have made to improve the situation.

I would like to get back to a point which was raised by my colleague from the Liberal Party: the investigation carried out by CBC. You state that you knew the results of the investigation before they were published. You also stated that you had already begun testing your devices.

Correct me if I am wrong: you intend to test all of your devices to determine whether their output may be far superior to that expected by the manufacturer.

[Commr William Elliott]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have one point of clarification. We were aware of the results of the CBC study before the broadcast, because the CBC contacted us with respect to that study. And as I indicated, we immediately undertook our own testing, not testing conducted by the RCMP but testing of RCMP weapons. As I indicated, we've tested 60 to date.

We'll proceed to test our devices, beginning with the oldest devices. It was the pre-2006 devices the CBC report raised particular concerns about. We are working to establish a protocol with respect to testing, both with respect to the conduct of the tests themselves and with respect to what an appropriate strategy would be for testing. We have about 2,600 CEWs in our inventory.

I think we will continue with our testing. Then we will make more informed choices with respect to whether it's necessary to test all our devices or whether it's necessary to test only a representative sample on a recurring, ongoing basis.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

So, you carried out some tests. Did you indeed find that, among the devices you tested, there were some that had an electrical output far superior to that indicated by the manufacturer?

[Commr William Elliott]

The short answer is no. There have been two devices whose peak open-circuit output was somewhat beyond what was indicated by the specifications supplied by the manufacturer, but all the experts we have consulted, including those who were involved in the CBC study, have indicated that particular measurement is not relevant with respect to the amount of electrical current that is delivered to an individual. It's subject to great variation as a result of changes in temperature and atmospheric pressure. In fact, in the new protocol we have established for testing, we are not testing that element. So there have been no test results that raise any concerns with respect to the output of the weapon and its impact on individuals as a result of that output being greater than anticipated or as specified by the manufacturer.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

You are essentially saying that the CBC tests were not relevant in determining the dangerousness of the weapon. It is somewhat strange, however, that you should arrive at such totally different results. I do not have the exact figures, but if I recall, the tests carried out by the CBC showed that the voltage or electrical output—well, I am not an electrician—in almost all cases, was far superior to that indicated by the manufacturer. The tests you did did not produce the same results.

[Commr William Elliott]

That's correct.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Did you inform the CBC that your tests did not produce the same results as theirs?

[Commr William Elliott]

I believe we have spoken to the CBC about that and we're certainly quite happy to share the results of the testing. We have undertaken to do that with the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. We're happy to share the specific results of that testing with this committee.

As I indicated, we went back to the experts the CBC used to speak to them about our test results and what they meant. So we probably had more discussion with the technical experts the CBC hired than the CBC itself. But the CBC has been made aware of the results of our testing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

We're going to have to go on now to Mr. Harris, please, for seven minutes.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner, I think we all would agree that the example you used of this young man who was tasered in lieu of being shot with a service revolver is the reason Tasers were brought into use, and I think everyone would support that because it prevents death in circumstances where it otherwise might be inflicted.

But I want to get to recommendation number one. You did say you responded to the recommendation; you didn't say you followed it. I don't want to play with words like impact weapon or non-impact weapon; I want to go to the specific recommendation that says “where the subject is displaying assaultive behaviour or posing a threat of death or grievous bodily harm” to the police, himself, or the public. You said your order with respect to the use of tasers refers to threats to an officer or to public safety. Public safety is a very broad, vague, open-to-interpretation situation, and I realize you've used that terminology perhaps in consultation with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

I don't get comfort from that wording. Is that the exact wording you used? Can you provide us with a copy of this directive to your members? Do you think the words “threat to public safety” are adequate in terms of instructing RCMP officers as to when the taser is permitted or not?

[Commr William Elliott]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Perhaps I could quote directly from the policy:

The CEW must only be used in accordance with CEW training, the principles of the Incident Management/Intervention Model (IM/IM) and in response to a threat to officer or public safety as determined by a member’s assessment of the totality of the circumstances being encountered.

NOTE: Members' actions must be reasonable and the force used must be necessary in the circumstances.

It goes on to say: “All members must recognize that any use of force entails risk.”

So yes, I am satisfied that our policy and our training are appropriate.

I might just comment that while the example I gave was one of the deployment of a taser preventing death or grievous bodily harm, in our view that is not the only circumstance in which a taser can be used appropriately. In fact, the classification of the CEW in the committee report recommending it be treated as an impact weapon would suggest that a CEW could be used in circumstances where another device like a baton might otherwise be used. A baton in police parlance could certainly be referred to as an impact weapon; you basically hit somebody with it. You wouldn't use a baton if there were a risk of death or grievous bodily harm.

We train our members that if there is a risk of death or grievous bodily harm, they should use their firearm. The only instance where they should not use their firearm and where the application of force is necessary is as in the example I gave in my opening comments, where there is lethal overwatch. In other words, if the taser doesn't do it, another member is there who will use his firearm.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

The notion of public safety, though, is a very broad one, I think you'd have to agree. Leaving that interpretation to the judgment of an individual officer, despite all the qualifications here, may not satisfy the public. We've seen—not in your force but in the OPP—a recent example where a taser was used on an inmate in custody, a 14-year-old girl, who may have been uncooperative or displaying behaviours that were contrary to the wishes of her custody holders, but we don't want a situation where the terminology and the usage is so open to interpretation that officers can make their individual judgment of what “public safety” involves.

Would you not agree that there ought to be more specific restrictions on whether it's impact weapon? I wasn't part of the committee that chose those particular words, but wouldn't you agree there must be something more specific than what you have now?

[Commr William Elliott]

I would suggest there is something more specific, and I'll comment in a moment with respect to our officers' discretion. But as the policy clearly indicates, the force used must be reasonable and necessary in the circumstance; and that is a test that is well established and which the courts, over the history of criminal jurisprudence, have applied and interpreted.

I would caution very strongly against the notion that we would write policy and directives that were overly prescriptive. We hire and train intelligent, dedicated men and women and we expect them to exercise discretion. It is not possible for us to write policy and directions that will cover all of the circumstances our officers encounter every day. Some 7,500 people will call the RCMP today for help. We have to have policies that allow our officers to exercise discretion within reasonable parameters, and I believe the policies we have do that.

We are certainly very keen on ensuring that our officers act appropriately and that the explanation of their actions is fully reported and reviewed. We have mechanisms within the force to do that, and there are certainly lots of other mechanisms for that, including the CPC, the courts, and in the case of Mr. Dziekanski, the ongoing public inquiry in British Columbia.

I am very concerned about the notion that we would be overly prescriptive in our policy and directions.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Paul Kennedy, chair of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, has recently indicated that his commission reviewed 3,000 complaints last year, 13% of which claimed improper use of force by members. Now, those are only claims, and I'm not assuming that all of them are justified, but do you know how many of those might be related to the use of tasers?