Public Safety Committee on Jan. 30th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I would like to bring this meeting to order. This is meeting number 13 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. According to Standing Order 108(2), today we are going to be discussing tasers.

We would like to welcome to our committee two witnesses: from the Canadian Police Research Centre, Mr. Steve Palmer, executive director; and from Taser International Inc., Mr. Tom Smith, chairman.

Before we begin, I'd like to ask the media to please excuse themselves from the room.

I would also like to welcome everybody back to the committee. I hope you all had a good break and have come back rested, relaxed, and ready to do lots of work. I think we will have a very interesting study here before us today. So I look forward to this time together.

Just as a word to our witnesses, the usual practice at this committee is to allow you each an opening statement of approximately ten minutes, and then we will move to questions and/or comments, beginning with the official opposition and moving to the other opposition parties and then coming over to the government. Then we'll continue to rotate with our questioning. Questions and answers are usually about seven minutes in the first round for each one, and then we move to five-minute questioning rounds later on.

If you are ready, who would like to go first? I have Mr. Palmer listed first on my program.

Is it okay if you go first, sir? Okay, any time you are ready, you may begin.

[Steve Palmer, Executive Director, Canadian Police Research Centre]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Steve Palmer. I've been with the Canadian Police Research Centre for 10 years. I started as director in 1998 and took over the position of executive director in 2004.

For 29 years now, CPRC has been providing leadership in the search for real-life solutions to a wide range of threats to the safety and security of communities and of the first responders who serve them. CPRC works through a collaborative model that brings together diverse groups from law enforcement, responder, and science and technology communities from across Canada and around the world.

We call this a network of technology partner associates, and the success of CPRC depends on these partnerships, which enable us to draw upon the knowledge and expertise of experts from local, provincial, national, and international law enforcement and other government agencies. We also work with a broad spectrum of industry partners, professional associations, universities, research groups, and more.

Through these partnerships CPRC contributes to the development, refinement, and testing of new products, tools, and technologies in real operational settings. The knowledge and results generated from CPRC studies provide the foundation for further advances in policy, procedures, and technology.

It is important to note that CPRC itself does not develop policies and procedures. The work it does is intended to provide tools, information, and recommendations to be taken into consideration by the Canadian police community in the review or development of training programs, policies, and procedures. It strives to provide a central and objective source of knowledge on issues of interest to the police community and other first responders, including but not limited to conducted energy devices, better known as tasers.

Today I would like to take a few minutes to give you an overview of a study that was published in August 2005. I will also provide you with a brief outline of the study we are currently undertaking on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

In August 2004 the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or CACP, requested that we conduct a thorough review of the existing research and data available on tasers and provide a national perspective on the safety and use of these devices. We worked closely with representatives from the Victoria Police Department who at the same time were also studying tasers on behalf of the British Columbia Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner. We also consulted with our U.S. and U.K. counterparts, who were in the process of studying the use of tasers at the same time.

For the purpose of the 2005 study we reviewed research and data associated with the use of the taser M-26 and X-26, focusing on three areas: first, medical safety; second, policy considerations surrounding police conducted energy devices operation; and finally, excited delirium syndrome.

A steering committee was appointed to guide our activities and ensure appropriate representation from the community. Membership included medical professionals, police officers, police trainers, policy analysts, and other stakeholder representatives. Close to 100 sources were reviewed, providing a thorough analysis of the existing data on tasers and excited delirium syndrome in Canada. It was concluded that conducted energy devices are effective law enforcement tools with a low risk of harm to the subject when used appropriately.

Available research at the time also indicated that there existed no definitive research or evidence linking the use of tasers to death, but that excited delirium was gaining credibility as a main contributor to deaths proximal to taser use.

Based on the material reviewed, CPRC formulated the following recommendations for the police community to take into consideration.

It became apparent that there are no scientifically tested, independently verified, and globally accepted safety parameters for the use of tasers, meaning that police services are completely reliant on manufacturer claims regarding the safety of the product. CPRC recommended that further work is needed for the national coordination of tasers and other less lethal technologies' issues and testing.

Our review also indicated that more research is needed on the existence and nature of excited delirium and how people suffering from this condition can be best subdued by police to expedite medical treatment.

We also concluded there is a lack of scientific information on death proximal to restraint and recommended that a national epidemiological study of individuals resisting arrest be conducted to gather data on all aspects of these subjects and those dying in police custody. This recommendation is what led to the CACP requesting the restraint study, which was announced in November 2007.

Restraint is one of the three components of our most recent study of tasers. The other two components are to conduct an update of the 2005 report and to look at ways of creating a more centralized approach to evaluating evolving taser technology and encouraging information sharing on tasers.

As part of the restraint study, we are reviewing a variety of documents, such as police reports, ambulance route sheets, and coroners' reports, to identify and evaluate the situational and individual characteristics of persons who resist police interaction and undergo police restraint, as well as to look at the incidence of subject death and the relationship between varying methods of restraint and the risk of death in the restrained subject.

As part of the update of the 2005 report, CPRC is reviewing the expanded body of research that has become available since 2005. Project methodology and structure is similar to that used to produce the 2005 report. The CPRC is working in collaboration with the research community, end users, and other stakeholders, and a working group has been established. Experts from the scientific, medical, and operational communities will again be consulted for their objective analysis.

A steering committee will be established to guide activities and assure appropriate representation from the community. Membership will include medical professionals, as well as representatives from non-governmental organizations, emergency responder organizations, police oversight bodies, and relevant international organizations. CPRC is also collaborating with experts who have participated in other studies and reviews of tasers nationally and internationally.

CPRC is involved in a number of other taser-related initiatives. We are currently waiting for final approval of a joint research project with the United Kingdom Home Office Scientific Development Branch and the United States National Institute of Justice. The aim of the project is to study and evaluate the new extended range wireless projectile being developed by Taser International to ensure it meets or exceeds the necessary safety standards for use in law enforcement.

CPRC is keeping an eye on the taser cam issue and is considering conducting an independent study into the use of these devices in Canada. A taser cam is a weapons-mounted audio and video recording device that is designed to capture video footage of use of force incidents when taser is deployed.

We are also collaborating with federal, provincial, and municipal agencies to determine the level of interest for a research project that would review the different use of force frameworks being used by the police services across Canada to move towards one consolidated, nationally accepted use of force framework.

Finally, CPRC is currently establishing test-based lines for tasers, and we will begin testing weapons for police services this spring.

The work we do in collaboration with our network of technology partner associates generates important data that can assist decision-makers in developing relevant policy, procedures, or training programs. Building on 29 years of experience, CPRC will continue to build partnerships and draw upon the rich knowledge and expertise found here and abroad to support the law enforcement and responder community in Canada.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to our next witness.

Mr. Smith, please, go ahead.

[Tom Smith, Chairman, Taser International Inc.]

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I thank you for the invitation to be with you today. My name is Tom Smith, and I'm the founder and chairman of the board of Taser International.

One of my chief duties is to travel to meetings such as this one, where we offer information of a scientific and technical nature to stakeholders, the law enforcement community, and legislators. I take these duties very seriously. Every session I attend is an opportunity not only to share information but for me and my company to learn. Sadly, sometimes these meetings are called due to tragic circumstances.

I intend to give you a brief overview of our company's history, but more importantly, I want to help you understand the scientific and technical research and the operation of our device.

Let me start with the taser electronic control device. What is it? It is a hand-held device that emits an electrical charge, through conducted wires, a distance of up to 35 feet to temporarily incapacitate a subject who poses a threat so that he or she can be taken into custody safety.

My brother and I started our company with the mission of protecting life. That remains our mission today. We have produced two products that are used extensively in law enforcement: the Taser M26 and the Taser X26.

Let me give you a brief history of taser technology. It's been around since the 1970s. It was introduced to the law enforcement market in 1974. However, the technology at the time didn't truly incapacitate; it was more based on pain compliance. Through the 1980s and 1990s it had some use here and there, but it had very limited application.

The reason my brother and I started our company was that we had two friends who were shot and killed in a crazy road rage incident. We looked at that and wondered why there wasn't a better way to stop somebody without having to resort to lethal force. We grew up watching Star Wars and Star Trek and asked why we couldn't make a non-lethal phaser. That's what led us to start the company. At the same time, our mom was looking for a way to protect herself. She didn't like the options and wasn't comfortable with a firearm.

So we decided to start Taser International and expand upon the history that had been out there for, at that time, 20 years. We introduced the first products in 1994 in the commercial market in the United States. We really got into the law enforcement market in 1999 with the introduction of the M26. After that product was introduced and had seen success and we had started some initial studies, we introduced the X26 in 2003, because it was 60% smaller and 60% lighter and it met the demands of the law enforcement community.

One of the things we also wanted to do was contribute to accountability for the command staff with respect to how use of force is applied. Every taser that has been produced for the law enforcement community has an on-board clock and a computer system that records every time the trigger is pulled. So if there are any accusations or allegations concerning the use of the device, you can actually take the device from the officer and download the date, time, duration, battery temperature, and other information about how, when, and where it was used.

We then went to the cartridge and serialized every single cartridge. In a case where you issue it to a particular officer, you can validate not only where it was used, because it leaves little ID tags all over the scene, but whether it was assigned to an appropriate officer, if it was his cartridge that was used. Again, it was another step in accountability.

Then several years ago we introduced the taser cam. Now, whatever you are pointing the taser at, when it is activated it records audio and video of the event. That again contributes to accountability so the command staff can make sure there's appropriate, responsible use within the training and policies that have been established. There's no other device today that gives that kind of use accountability when it's used in a use of force situation.

Let's talk a little bit about the electrical system of the taser. When I sit here and pump my fist open and closed, there's an electrical signal that's being transmitted from my brain to my muscle to make that occur. In its most basic form, that's what the taser has copied. We plug it into you remotely with two wires and send that same signal that caused the muscles to contract and release. That is where the success was. When we do that 19 times per second, we can actually make those muscles contract and release to the point where you cannot override it. And that's where we get the true incapacitation.

Now, a lot has been made of the 50,000 volts number, and while that sounds very, very scary in relation to 110 volts coming out of a wall outlet, you can actually get a static shock on a doorknob that's as high as 35,000 or 40,000 volts. So that just tells us the distance the energy will jump through an air gap.

The actual application into the body is at a very, very low power. It's actually less than four milliamps. On the X26 it's about 2.1 milliamps. I think some people are surprised to learn that the energy source for the taser, the batteries that power it, are the same batteries as are in most digital cameras. So we are able to take only that fixed energy supply and make it go high voltage to arc through clothing, but it's at a very, very low amperage. In fact, in terms of joules, which is another measurement of energy, 0.07 joules per pulse come out of the X26. To give you a context, a defibrillator that's used to stimulate the heart usually outputs between 150 and 400 joules per pulse, again compared to 0.07 joules coming out of the X26.

Now let me reference the medical studies. I have these binders before me today. They represents over 1,300 pages and over 120 scientific and medical studies that have been done surrounding the use of the device. The majority of them have been peer-reviewed, meaning they've been looked at by other scientists. I also have studies that have been done in the United Kingdom and by the Canadian Police Research Centre, the Alfred Hospital in Australia, and the United States Air Force, among a few.

We've also gathered together some incredibly scientific and medically minded individuals to create our medical advisory board, like Dr. Hugh Calkins, the director of electrocardiophysiology at one of the leading heart institutes in the United States. We have world-class experts helping us conduct the studies and research so we can answer those questions and know and take corporate responsibility for knowing what we're going to introduce before it hits the marketplace.

We've done the theoretical research surrounding the electricity of the device and the medical research surrounding it, and it continues to go on. We've done animal testing, which was a good base beginning. Over the last several years there have been over 15 published peer-reviewed human studies looking at the analysis of how a taser actually works on a human subject.

While all of that needs to be done and is appropriately being done, we've also had over one million people exposed to the taser--over 600,000 law enforcement officers, and nearly 500,000 field uses in the world. So we've had over one million people exposed to the energy, which again is an incredible number in terms of the use of force and how this device can work.

We have over 12,000 agencies deploying taser technology, and 300,000 officers in the world are carrying tasers on their hips today in 45 countries. The biggest reason this has had a tremendous impact on law enforcement is the ability to reduce injuries, not only to officers but to suspects. That is documented in nearly every agency that has used it. We've seen injuries go down in Winnipeg, Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver, Montreal, and Quebec. Everywhere they have implemented the taser, we've seen injury rates to officers and suspects decrease with overall use of force.

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. We would welcome the opportunity, should it be needed, to come back at any time to help the committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

We'll begin with the official opposition and Mr. Dosanjh for seven minutes.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Palmer and Mr. Smith.

This is not an easy issue. One of the things I've noticed, with all of the coverage Mr. Smith has received over the last number of years, is the claim—and correct me if I am wrong—that tasers don't kill. We are told--and I have believed it to date but I'm questioning my own belief--that tasers are non-lethal alternatives to guns in the hands of police.

Are you suggesting to us--and if you are, I want you to admit it--that while 300 people have died in North America, 17 of them in Canada, subsequent to being tasered, tasers have not played any part whatsoever in their deaths?

[Tom Smith]

Again, I would suggest that you have to look at the scientific research that has been done today. I've been tasered myself. We rely on the scientific experts to look at the data, and in the studies that have been done, we have not seen anything conclusive come back scientifically to say that a taser has killed.

In fact, in the vast majority of the cases you just referenced, when certain emotions have been removed—certainly these are tragic scenarios, and our hearts go out to the family any time that occurs—and you have been able to look at the science, the taser has been removed in almost all the cases. There are less than 30 cases where the taser has been listed as a contributing factor, meaning it's listed along with other devices. But that is completely different from saying the taser caused a certain outcome.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Are you then suggesting to me that the 270 who have died--other than the 30 deaths you say may have been contributed to by tasers--would have died regardless of whether or not a taser was used?

[Tom Smith]

I'm responding to the medical community—

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

No, I'm asking you a question. Give me an answer in layperson's language. Are you suggesting that those 270 would have simply vanished, even if a taser had not been used?

[Tom Smith]

I'm telling you that the research that was done on those particular cases has shown that the taser did not cause, or contribute, in those 270 cases.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

And they would have died regardless?

[Tom Smith]

I'm not going to make that statement. But I am going to tell you the research that has been done claims the taser had nothing to do with the outcome of those tragic incidents.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Look, you say the taser is not risk free. Obviously you admit there are risks. And so does the U.S. Department of Defense, which actually concluded in 2004 that it didn't want its military personnel to be tasered during training because, they said, there are risks. So they know what you know, but you are not prepared to actually admit, in simple layperson's language, that those 270 persons might have been alive today if they had not been tasered.

[Tom Smith]

Well, sir, with all due respect, there is no perfect solution out there. I have to rely on the scientific community, which said that in those 270 cases, when they examined the science, the taser did not have to do with the outcome of those incidents.

In regard to the U.S. military, there are certain risks. We do cause incapacitation where you can fall to the ground, and that can certainly result in an injury, but it's going to be much more similar to an athletic type of injury. I would also point to the United States Department of Justice study that recently looked at 1,000 incidents and showed there were roughly two or three that resulted in that exact type of an injury. Out of 1,000 incidents, it's a very, very low injury rate.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Let me preface my next question by simply saying that I still believe the police ought to have this non-lethal alternative, if it is non-lethal—and there are increasing questions with respect to that in my own mind, although I haven't come to a conclusion.

I was the attorney general in British Columbia when, for the first time in Canada, the device was introduced by the Victoria police subsequent to a pilot project. I was assured that it was absolutely non-lethal and that it would be used sparingly by the police. I have now come to believe that it's riskier than I was led to believe, and in fact it is not being used as sparingly as it ought to have been used.

The question I have is the same question that someone asked you in Toronto, I believe. This is not to cast aspersions on police officers, but this is a real question that I think the public needs to know. The fact is you admit that you pay police officers every now and then for certain things. I would like to know, how much have you paid in terms of actual money to police officers in Canada, and for what purposes do you pay them? That's a huge issue of conflict. It's the same police officers who then come to us and say they would like to be able to use this device.

[Tom Smith]

I was asked that question in Toronto and, at the time, I did not have an answer. I can give you the answer today: it's two. One is Officer Darren Lauer, who was paid for the design of a holster he created in the year 2000. We paid him for the design of the holster that we used and then reproduced to sell. We have paid one other officer who did some training for us on his own time in Europe.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I understand you also said that you pay for training.

[Tom Smith]

We pay officers when they take their own time for training in the United States. That is correct.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

But not in Canada, not for Canadians?

[Tom Smith]

The two incidents I just gave you are the only two in which my company has paid officers in Canada.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

All right.

Let me ask you another question. Most of the studies you have, you say have been done on humans. Initially you started out with the studies on pigs, then you obtained authorization to use this device with respect to humans—and then, obviously, subsequently you had this data with respect to humans.

I've looked at those studies. Most of the studies exclusively focus on the age group between 19 and 43. Those are people who are aware they are going to be tasered. They are healthy people. When you take those two or three factors out, when the police go onto the street and taser an individual they know nothing about, who could be older, younger, or unhealthy, do you think your research takes all of that into account?

[Tom Smith]

I believe the research we're doing today is the best available. We are following the ethics standards set by our leading institutions worldwide, not just in the United States.

I can tell you that in the classes where law enforcement officers do get trained, we don't de-select anyone. In fact, we looked at recent studies where the members in the class had a previous heart attack or a previous heart condition, or had been exposed to that. We've also now been subjecting them to alcohol, or that type of application—which is also going to be seen on the street—and we are also exercising them to the point of their becoming acidosic, literally exhausting them, before hitting them with the taser, and then scientifically measuring their blood, breathing, and pulse rates. We're using an ultrasonic waveform so that we can see how they're reacting. That's being done independently of our company. It's being funded by the National Institute of Justice, the University of California at San Diego, Dr. Ted Chan.

So I do believe the research is out there today. While you'll never be able to look at every possible scenario that exists, the research certainly covers the vast majority of cases that exist within the human body.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We will now go to Monsieur Ménard, please.

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

One of my colleague's first comments makes me realize that you have before you on this committee two former ministers of justice, a former minister of public safety (myself), and two former chiefs of police. This is not because you are appearing, it is probably because of the very fact that we are concerned with public safety. So our views come from our experience and we would like to benefit from yours.

My first question is for Mr. Palmer. Who finances the Canadian Police Research Centre that you represent?