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?