Public Safety Committee on Feb. 12th, 2009

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

If I've misunderstood, Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I didn't understand the comments that way.

Regardless, certainly, the safety of our members is important as well.

I have nine different RCMP detachments in my riding. One of the things I like to try to do on a regular basis, especially given my role on this committee, is to visit with the officers in those detachments. A couple of comments arise from the visits I've had with officers in my riding in relation to some of the comments in your statement today.

Certainly I appreciated the example you provided in terms of a scenario under which lethal force may have been required had the taser not been a tool in the tool belt of our officers. That's certainly something I've heard from officers in my riding as well. That's certainly something they find very valuable, so we don't see deadly force where it's not required, and from everything I've heard, the taser provides that opportunity. So I appreciate the example you provided, and I think there are other examples like that.

The other comment I picked up on is that there are certainly some increased requirements for paperwork. I hope those aren't going to be...we want to make sure there's a balance between ensuring that the reporting is there but that the paperwork isn't too onerous on our officers. That's something I hear time and time again from our officers, that paperwork takes away so much of their time from their duties in ensuring public safety. So I hope we ensure there's a proper balance there as well.

Those are just a couple of comments I had. You're certainly welcome to comment on them in your answer to my questions, if you'd like, but these are more just comments for your advisement.

My two-part question goes back to some of the questions you received from Mr. Norlock and Mr. McColeman, but it's a bit of clarification for me. How many officers or what percentage of our officers carry tasers now?

[Commr William Elliott]

I understand that approximately 12,000 of some 18,000 regular members of the RCMP have been trained and are therefore authorized to carry the device. Obviously they don't all do that; we have some 2,600 CEWs in our inventory.

If I could take up the honourable member's suggestion to comment on his remarks, I appreciate the concerns he has raised, first of all, for the safety of our members, and second, with respect to the burden of paperwork. I agree wholeheartedly that we need to properly balance the need for proper accountability with the demands on our officers for paperwork and other administrative functions.

With respect to the overall safety of our members, I would agree with comments made today. Certainly I, as commissioner, and the force are very concerned about the safety of our officers, but that is not our primary concern. Our primary concern is the safety of the public; otherwise, frankly, we wouldn't send our men and women out on shift. They undertake risks every day. They rush into situations where the public is running away. So the very nature of the job means they are asked and voluntarily take on risks that members of the public do not. Public safety is our raison d'être and our first priority.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Briefly, please.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I'll take up some of the comments I made earlier on the paperwork in particular. I think paperwork is done daily--daily activity reporting. Is that not correct? That's what the paperwork they do on a daily basis is called?

What percentage of an officer's time is spent daily on these reports and on the paperwork, as compared to being out on the streets?

[Commr William Elliott]

I think it varies, but I would say too much time is spent. And that certainly is a concern that's been raised with me, and we are trying to take steps to reduce the administrative burdens on our officers. We're doing that by trying to make adjustments to our demands, to the efficiency of our systems, and by adjusting the mix of employees between regular members on the one hand and other staff on the other.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

We're going to go to Mr. Kania in a minute.

As chair, I would like to ask you about a conversation that I had with an RCMP officer recently. He indicated to me that in the past decade or so, RCMP officers have been undergoing higher risks because of the danger of transfer of bodily fluids and so on, and sometimes the use of a taser may alleviate the situation. Would you care to comment on that? Is that a reasonable assessment of the changes that may have taken place in the last decade?

[Commr William Elliott]

I certainly would agree with the comments of that officer that there are greater and new risks faced today on the street. The risks associated with communicable diseases are very much front and centre in the minds of our officers and in our training.

One of the aspects of a CEW deployment is certainly that in one of its modes there is some distance between the officer and the individual, but you really cannot do police work without getting up front and personal, if I could put it that way. There are risks associated with that.

I think it's a combination, actually. We face risks that we didn't face before, and frankly, our knowledge of risks is probably better than it was in the past. But certainly, any time, for example, that we encounter somebody who is bleeding, I think all of us are very aware of risks of diseases like hepatitis C and AIDS. That certainly is a reality of policing in this century.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Kania, please.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

I'm going to pick up on that. Do you train your officers or give them direction for the use of a taser based on perceived risks for bodily fluids?

[Commr William Elliott]

No.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Fine. You'll agree with me that tasers can malfunction, correct?

[Commr William Elliott]

Yes.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Also, it's possible for an officer to determine, after discharging the taser, that a taser has malfunctioned, by its crackling or cackling. There's an industry term for it. Is that accurate?

[Commr William Elliott]

Yes.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Would you agree with me that if an officer has discharged a taser and has heard that cackling, it would be prudent not to use the same taser again until it's tested?

[Commr William Elliott]

No. I think that sometimes there's a noise made. I'm not certified in the use of a taser, so perhaps others may help you. My understanding is that when there is not a good connection.... Basically, when you fire a taser, two probes are shot from the weapon. They are attached to wires, and the impact of the device is really the transfer of electricity between those two points. If there is not good contact as a result of the clothing that a person is wearing, for example, there won't be a good connection, and electricity will not flow through the body, as the device was designed. It will be otherwise discharged, which makes this noise that you are referring to.

So if I've been tasered--by the way, since my last appearance before the committee I have been tasered--and one of the probes lodges in my chest and the other is attached to my shirt, depending on how I move, that probe will come in contact with my body or not. In fact, it might be quite appropriate for the officer to recycle the device, because it might not impact me if I'm leaning forward, but it may impact me if I'm leaning backward.

But certainly after a device is used in an incident and an incident is resolved, if there were issues around the malfunctioning or functioning of the taser, there should be testing. In fact, our policy requires that.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

I'm sure you'll agree with me that if an officer suspects, after the discharge of a taser, that it's malfunctioning, they shouldn't use the same weapon immediately before testing it.

[Commr William Elliott]

I absolutely agree with that. Our policy, as I've just tried to indicate, requires mandatory testing in those circumstances.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Okay. Great.

So in the Dziekanski case, the officer suspected that it was malfunctioning and then used it again. You'll agree with me that was wrong?

[Commr William Elliott]

No, I will not agree with you that it was wrong.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Why is that?

[Commr William Elliott]

I'm not going to comment on the specific matter, which as we all know is subject to an ongoing inquiry. By the way, it's also subject to an ongoing investigation by the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP.

But you asked me whether or not, in circumstances where the weapon was making that cackling sound and was not being effective, it would be improper to cycle it again, and my answer--which I repeat--is that it could very well be appropriate and necessary to do so.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

You indicated you're not trained in the use of tasers.

[Commr William Elliott]

That's correct.