Public Safety Committee on Feb. 25th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'd like to bring this meeting to order. This is meeting 18 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Today we are continuing our study of tasers. We'd like to welcome as witnesses the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Vancouver Police Department, and the Ontario Police College.

Welcome, gentlemen. We look forward to your presentation. We're starting right on time because we understand it's a little more lengthy than usual. We'll ask the committee's indulgence in allowing you to make your presentation. Then we'll ask for questions and comments from the various political parties.

Without any further ado, please introduce yourselves and carry on with your presentation.

[Assistant Commissioner Darrell LaFosse, Community, Contract and Aboriginal Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Darrell LaFosse, and I am proud and honoured to be the assistant commissioner in charge of Community, Contract and Aboriginal Policing Services, or CCAPS, which is the national policy centre for provincial and territorial policing.

Our purpose today is to provide you with information on the conducted energy weapon, how the RCMP came to adopt it, what role it plays in police work, how it works, what its effects are, and what policies and guidelines we have developed to manage its use.

I am very pleased to have with us today several experts in the field of training, policy development, and research around the CEW. What's more, most have direct, street-level policing experience that informs everything they do and provides a real-world context that is so important to this issue.

The men and women of the RCMP, and of all police agencies, in fact, have chosen this career for the most part because they have an affinity towards people and they want to help. Keeping our homes and communities safe is behind everything we do.

A policing career means meeting thousands of law-abiding citizens and most of the time working on positive initiatives such as crime prevention and community projects. I'm compelled to state that the vast majority of Canadians support and are proud of our various police forces. Police work, however, also requires stepping into the path of danger. It's a risky business. Those of us in leadership positions in Canada's police forces must ensure that our members have the best training and equipment possible to do their work. Even then we will be spat upon, jeered at, injured, assaulted, and, unfortunately for some of us, killed because of our chosen career path.

So how do we prepare RCMP members? At the RCMP training academy in Regina, cadets are put through the paces with such subjects as physical fitness, self-defence, scenario-based training, and foot drill. They learn about Canada's laws, the Criminal Code, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and all the legislative issues that affect their work. They learn about themselves and about discipline and how resilient they can be in the face of adversity. They learn how to deal with mentally disturbed persons, the elderly, youth, and also people who simply do not want to cooperate.

When they are finally posted to detachments across the country, everything they learn in Depot is applied on every call. In addition, they are assigned field trainers to be their mentors as they launch their careers.

The tools and equipment we provide to our members are selected following extensive research and testing. We study fabrics for their uniforms, not only for comfort and appearance but for safety. We research ballistic qualities of their soft body armour. We examine reflective material to increase visibility of police vehicles. We track developments in police tools of all kinds to ensure that our members have the best equipment available.

The conducted energy weapon is one of many tools that we have researched for our members' use. It was adapted in 2002 after pilot projects and testing, and since that time training programs have been offered in its use across Canada. To date, some 9,000 RCMP members have received this training.

Often when RCMP members are called to an incident, things are highly charged. That's usually the time when people decide to call the police. Our members come into situations of danger and violence, and people look to them to take control and calm things down. That is simply our duty.

In a matter of seconds, a member must assess the situation and choose a response that will restore order, using only as much force as necessary. Protecting innocent people is paramount. Ensuring the safety of the police officer is essential as well, so that they can continue to defuse the situation.

You will hear much this afternoon of the incident management intervention model, the model on which our members base their decisions. If this model indicates that some level of force is required, the police officers are compelled to make a choice on how to react. Before the CEW was available to them, they could choose pepper spray, the baton, or physical holds and moves to gain control of a combative individual. If the officer risked serious bodily harm or death, their ultimate decision would be, and still remains, lethal force.

Much has changed in my 31 years of service, and there's been rapid change, I would suggest, in recent times. Frankly, the equipment and training I received in Depot in 1977 would simply not meet the needs of police officers working in Canada today.

Remember, all this decision-making relative to the use-of-force continuum could be happening in a chaotic situation where people are screaming, resisting, violent, and capable of anything. On the other hand, a situation that to the untrained eye looks completely benign, such as a highway check, can instantly turn deadly. Either way, the officer has to bring every scenario he or she has ever practised into mind and be ready.

The adoption of the CEW brought a whole new outcome to some of the ugliest situations police are called to handle. Where they once faced a real possibility of bruises and broken bones, now members could deploy the device at a few metres distant, stop the suspect in their tracks, and place handcuffs on them, with far fewer injuries to all sides. Now, following a violent incident, our members could be on the next call immediately, instead of taking several weeks to heal from their injuries. Suspects, many of whom are in a state of mental crisis already, could be brought under control and given medical treatment quickly. This is an extremely valuable policing tool with huge benefits to police and perpetrators alike.

I hope I've given you a bit of context around the CEW and how it fits into our work. My colleagues will provide you with greater detail on a number of fronts.

RCMP Sergeant Richard Groulx will explain what the CEW is, how it works, and how our officers are trained to use it. He is a seasoned police officer and trainer for emergency response teams, which are the equivalent of the American SWAT teams, and has expertise in tactical training and weapons.

Mr. Chris Lawrence of the Ontario Police College will give some context around sudden, unexpected deaths of individuals whose erratic behaviour often brings them in contact with police. He's a 28-year police veteran, instructor, and internationally known subject matter expert on police responses to excited delirium syndrome.

I also have with me Inspector Troy Lightfoot, who can talk about how we build our RCMP policy to guide members in the use of this tool. He is currently the officer in charge and manager of the use-of-force program in the RCMP and has 22 years of service. He most recently came from Nain, Labrador, where he was the detachment commander.

In addition, we have Sergeant Bruce Stuart, our national use-of-force coordinator. Bruce has 18 years of police service, and his most recent field assignment was as a senior patrol NCO at our detachment in Surrey, British Columbia.

Also in our audience is Sergeant Kim Taplin, whose most recent field experience was in British Columbia. As you can clearly see, her approach to use-of-force situations requires a skill set that does not involve a lot of muscle power. She has called on that skill set many times in her 17 years of police work in traffic, general duty, and general investigations.

Finally, we have Staff Sergeant Joel Johnston from the Vancouver Police Department. He has over 20 years of service, much of it focusing on tactics using use-of-force issues in fact and in theory, and he is currently on secondment to the British Columbia ministry as the B.C. provincial use-of-force and emergency response team coordinator.

The RCMP is working closely with other police agencies to build consistency in our approach to the use-of-force issues. If the committee is interested in seeing a live demonstration of the CEW application on a regular RCMP member volunteer, we would be pleased to arrange that for you at an RCMP facility sometime other than today.

After the presentation we will have time to respond to your questions. Thank you very much for this opportunity.

With your permission, I will pass the floor to Sergeant Groulx.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much, sir.

You may go ahead.

[Sergeant Richard Groulx, Tactical Training Section, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Thank you, sir.

My name is Sergeant Richard Groulx, and I have been with the RCMP for just over 20 years now.

We do have handouts in French as well, and if you have any questions later on, feel free to ask in French; I'm fully bilingual.

My only relationship with Taser International is that I am a master trainer/instructor. I have never owned or purchased any of the shares, just for the record. I am in no way related to the company.

Today we're going to talk about how the weapon system works, under which guidelines RCMP members are to use the weapon system, and how it relates to the incident management intervention model, the use-of-force model.

We'll talk a little bit about technology. I will introduce the two models that the RCMP approved and that we currently use in the field--the M26 and the X26. We'll talk a little bit about nomenclature, how it works, and how it relates to the IMIM.

How does the weapon system work? Basically, when it's deployed it propels wire, and attached to the wire there is a probe that makes contact with the client on the clothing or on the skin. From there, it directs energy to the client, and it affects the sensory and motor functions and the nervous system.

Before I go on, I do have some spent cartridges here. They're not live. Feel free to have a look at them because that will help you during the presentation to visualize what goes on.

How does it work? When the probe makes contact with the individual, or the electrode on a conducted energy weapon, it just transfers electrical energy. The human nervous system communicates with simple electrical pulses. With the technology that Taser International uses, those electrical pulses are very similar to the ones the human body uses to communicate messages through the nervous system in order to function. What happens is those electrical pulses override the human nervous system.

How can we better explain this to make it easier to understand? Pretend you are on the phone with someone; you are communicating, so you are talking. If there is static on the phone, communication will be affected. If a third party jumps onto the line and starts talking louder than you are, you will lose communication with your partner, or whoever you are on the phone with. It's the same principle; electrical impulses are overriding the human nervous system.

The M26 and the X26 are the two models the RCMP has approved for use, and we do have both in the field. The M26 was released by Taser International in 1999. We did some studies, some evaluation, in 2001 and approved it for use in the field in 2002.

The X26 came in 2003; however, we waited a couple of years. We went through two evaluation phases and we released it in 2005. It is a much better technology than the M26. It is 5% more effective, and I will explain very shortly how it's measured. It's 60% smaller and lighter than the M26.

I have with me an M26 and the smaller version, the X26. They don't have batteries in them, so there is no power.

I think all of us have been exposed to the publicity in the media, in the papers or television. Even the vendor is promoting the conducted energy weapon or taser as generating 50,000 volts. It's their scary statement, and that's what we feel is really scaring the public.

What is important to understand here is that the voltage is not what is dangerous for human beings; it's the amperage, the amperes. I know that, like me, all of my colleagues experienced a Van De Graaff generator in high school. It generates over one million volts, but the amperage is so low it's safe.

Open circuit, the M26 and the X26 contain the pressure of 50,000 volts. Let's go back to your backyard where there's a water tap. When the water tap is closed, there is some water pressure behind it. That's the 50,000 volts. Once the water tap is released, you're losing pressure; you have a circuit of water going through the garden hose, but the pressure is less than when the tap was closed. That's probably how I can best explain this.

When we talk about amperage, what does it mean? Yes, 50,000 volts could be the amount of water. Let's pretend that over this ceiling here there's another floor, a 14-foot floor full of water. If the floor opened or collapsed, some of us might die because of the tremendous force of the water coming down on us. If I opened a water tap of about one inch in diameter, the floor and I may get wet, but I'm not going to get injured. So the size of the garden hose, the conduit, is the amperage with regard to a conducted energy weapon. So there are 50,000 volts. However, when these are released, the voltage or pressure, the amperage, is minimal. That is why we strongly believe that the conducted energy weapon is safe to use.

When I talk about amperage, both units offer less than 4 milliamps. The X26 offers 2.1 milliamps and the M26 offers 3.6 milliamps.

As for the joules, the M26 has 1.76 joules. And each pulse represents 0.5 joules, as the current is not continuous but is sent as electrical pulses from the weapon system. So it's on and off. For the X26, it's 0.07 joules. External cardiac defibrillators typically deliver 150 joules to 400 joules per pulse to cause the heart to defibrillate. So you can see how low the voltage is, not only the voltage but also the current and joules, of the M26 and X26 are in comparison to the defibrillator.

How does it work? We need a circuit; electricity must be able to flow between two probes or electrodes. On the floor right now we have two probes attached to the wires. The wires are embedded inside the cartridge up to 21 feet, and the probes are attached to the end of it. At the end of the probes, there is a small harpoon. That's what hooks on the clothing or penetrates the skin.

The weapon system, when we take it out of the safety box, comes like this. At the front there are two electrodes. Of course, this one is live. I will activate it. There is a safety lever, and all the M26 and X26 models do have safety levers for activation. It comes also with a flashlight and a laser. You can see the electricity arcing in between the two electrodes, but I need a circuit for it to work.

When the probes are deployed on a client, the two probes must be attached to the client in order to work. If one probe breaks the skin and the other one only attaches to a loose jacket, a loose piece of clothing--it could be baggy pants, a big shirt--what happens here is the current is trying to arc into the body, to jump into it.

How far can the current jump? The vendor is suggesting up to two inches cumulative for the two probes, so not two inches per probe but a total of two inches.

If you've ever seen a video where the client basically seems to have the effect and does not fall down but is jerking, it's most probably because one of the probes is attached to the clothing and the current is trying to arc into the body, so it's on and off. The reaction we get from the client, in trying to control a client, is they have that jerking motion; they're moving. If they move and they fall and that probe gets closer to the body, then the circuit is on at that point. Without a circuit we have no effect.

The electricity follows the path of least resistance between the probes, with some dissipation. As I just explained, if one probe breaks the skin and the second probe is just attached to the clothing, there will never be 50,000 volts going through the client to start with. A lot of electricity will be dissipated. At the maximum, with an M26 we can anticipate about 5,000 volts, and with an X26, maybe 1,200 volts. Again, it's not the voltage that stops the client, that controls the client, it's the amperage.

The path of least resistance...electricity is very, very lazy. When it penetrates the human body, it just travels through the nervous tissue and muscle tissue at the surface of the body. It goes as quickly as possible by the easiest route to go to the next probe. Basically that is why you have strong, uncontrolled contractions.

I have been through this several times. I took some exposure for five seconds on a few occasions. In 2005 I took a 15-second hit, non-stop, for credibility, for court purposes as well. It just causes your nerves and your muscles to contract to the point where you don't have the ability to formulate a plan to lift one hand or to carry on with your goal. The muscles are contracting really hard, to the point where most likely you will fall to the ground. The risk of injury is in falling to the ground, or, again, if the situation is dynamic. Sometimes a probe can hit a sensitive area on the client, like an eye. That is a possibility in a dynamic situation.

The greater the spread between the probes, the greater the effectiveness, because we have more muscle mass contracting. Why do we use it? Why do we approve it? It reduces officers' and clients' or suspects' injuries by stopping the threat from a safe distance. The safe distance, the optimum range, would be anywhere from 7 to 21 feet.

It's extremely effective when it works, when you have two-point contact, even compared to lethal weapons, because it immediately causes incapacitation when successfully deployed. It does not replace a firearm. It's better than a firearm. It does control the threat immediately, which firearms most likely do not do. We talked about handgun calibre.

It's safe in numerous situations. It's safer for suspects and officers, and it's easy to use and maintain.

Before 2002, the RCMP did not possess any less lethal weapon that would effectively control individuals who were focused, aggressive attackers. For example, there is the baton. We have dealt with suspect clients who, when the officer has tried to control them with a baton, cannot feel the pain. The situation keeps escalating and we can't get immediate control of the client.

It's the same with OC spray. OC spray doesn't work. OC spray is no kung fu in a can. It doesn't work that way. Our officers now are trained, when they are OC sprayed, to fight for a minute or more, and they can do it. So OC spray is not stopping anyone. The conducted energy weapon does stop the individual immediately.

An emotionally disturbed person and the ones who are under the effect of certain substances, drugs....

What's the target zone? When we compare the conducted energy weapon with other weapon systems, such as firearms and OC spray.... With OC spray, we must make contact with the face area to affect the client. Firearms have basically a lethal zone from the head down to the groin area. We can basically target the conducted energy weapon to any location on the human body and it will work. However, we do not train our members to deploy at the head area unless the situation dictates death or grievous bodily harm, such as if it's a situation in which a firearm is required but the member does not have access to it. We train our members to aim at the centre of the back.

There are two modes of deployment. One is push stun mode, which means pressing the conducted energy weapon into a preferred push stun location. That is done without a cartridge. If the member decides to use push stun mode, he simply removes the cartridge, activates the weapon system, applies pressure to the preferred location where there are some nerves--sensitive nerves, like the common peroneal radial nerves--and provides one application for five seconds using an overhand grip.

The X26, every time we pull the trigger, will deploy for five seconds. However, the member has the ability to stop that deployment at any time.

So what does it do? It seems to be the softest approach. You talk about probes and projectiles going, but what does it do? Personally, I don't like it, because nobody can stay still under an electrical discharge like this. The normal reaction is that we move.

Who fishes here? Who has fished before? What's your biggest fish?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I have to brag. It was a sailfish that was 120 pounds.

[Sgt Richard Groulx]

Let's say 20 pounds. Let's say a small one, nine pounds. Can you hold it steady? When it starts moving, can you hold it without moving? No.

Imagine, we're dealing with human beings of 120, 210, 260, or 300 pounds. When they feel the energy, the electrical shock...I did experience that at home—15 amps, 110 volts, and what was my reaction? Ouch!

Nobody stays there. So when we apply a push stun, the client will move and will then get multiple burn marks, because electrical energy will burn the skin.

The second mode of deployment is probe mode, allowing some probes attached to wires from a preferred distance. That's what I talked about earlier, the probe attached to the wire. It connects with two locations on the human body. The transfer of energy causes the muscles to contract, a nervous mass as well, causing the client to go to the ground—all this to try to change their behaviour.

How does it work? With the cartridge you have, basically the probes are embedded inside the cartridge. When it sits inside the conducted energy weapon, the top probe is parallel to the floor. It works with the aiming system of the weapon system. So the top probe will deploy straight forward and the bottom probe will deploy eight degrees downwards.

What does it mean? It means that for every seven feet of distance between me and my client, the muzzle end of my weapon system and the client, I can expect 13 inches of spread between the probes. So if I am 14 feet from my client, I can expect about 26 inches between the probes.

How does it relate to the IMIM? As always, the primary objective of any intervention is public safety. That's what we aim for. The best intervention causes the least harm or damage. So every time an officer uses a conducted energy weapon, there is a circle of situational factors.

What is my best option here to respond and control the threat that I have in front of me? OC spray is very painful. I have been exposed to OC spray. The contamination process can last anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour and 10 minutes.

There's the baton. The baton may cause bone breakage, lacerations, serious injury, exchange of body fluids. We don't know who the client is for the officer's safety in this instance.

The conducted energy weapon will control the individual, and after the exposure, it's over. You get back on your feet, you sit in your chair, or, if you want, you can continue and fight again.

I'm going to tell you how I felt after 15 seconds of exposure. I felt like I had just finished a workout at the gym. I was tired. That's how I felt. I could get up and fight if I wanted to. There were 56 of us who took 15 seconds. It's part of our research. The report will come out probably this year—right, Bruce?

[Sergeant Bruce Stuart, National Use of Force Coordinator, National Use of Force Program, Community, Contract and Aboriginal Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Yes.

[Sgt Richard Groulx]

I just felt tired, that was it, for about 10 or 15 minutes. I had a bottle of water and then it was life as normal.

Five seconds felt like you were a little bit tired but not as much, basically. It was probably like you just came up four sets of stairs, not a full workout. It caused some exertion.

Later on, my colleague will talk a bit about the incident management intervention model.

I just want to point out that we do have guidance. Our members are to use the conducted energy weapon when it is appropriate when dealing with clients who display resistant, combative behaviour and when we see that they present the potential to cause death or grievous bodily harm.

I want to get your attention. The conducted energy weapon is not a replacement for firearms. When I talk about death or grievous bodily harm, I'm only talking about isolated situations such as a suicidal person. Two officers show up; a person is suicidal. Yes, there is a potential risk for the person and the officer as well. We never know when the situation will reverse. In some situations it is safe to close the distance, but only with an officer who can provide firearm support so they become one unit. If they can get close enough and it's safe for the officer to intervene with a conducted energy weapon to control the individual, the victim, we may attempt that, but it's not a replacement for lethal force or when we deal with behaviour that could cause death or grievous bodily harm, contrary to what the vendor has been selling and what you hear that “Tasers save lives”.

Have you heard that before? That's often how the Americans use it. They try to replace firearms with a conducted energy weapon, and they put themselves in very vulnerable situations. We don't want our members to do that. We don't teach that. So if I'm dealing with a client who's presenting a knife to me, a conducted energy weapon is not a solution. If I'm dealing with someone who's presenting a crowbar or a baseball bat, someone who can take my life, a conducted energy weapon is not a solution. It's the same with firearms. I just addressed that.

Are there any questions?

[A/Commr Darrell LaFosse]

Mr. Chair, it's your pleasure, sir, if you'd like to ask questions at this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Did you have more to your presentation?

[A/Commr Darrell LaFosse]

Mr. Lawrence, sir, and we have two more to speak for a short time. So again, it's your pleasure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I think we should finish the presentation. That's my original plan, because once we open it up for questions, that may take up the rest of the meeting. So if you still have some information for us that you feel is valuable, present it now and then we'll go to the questions.

[A/Commr Darrell LaFosse]

Okay, sir. Thank you very much.

I'll turn to my colleague, Chris.

[Chris Lawrence, Instructor, Ontario Police College]

Good afternoon.

My name is Chris Lawrence and I'm an instructor at the Ontario Police College. For the past 12 years my duties have included training Ontario police officers on how to gain lawful control of resistive, aggressive, assaultive subjects.

I'd like to begin by quoting one of Sir Robert Peel's nine principles of policing, which states:

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

I'd like to point out that we are all in this together, and we should not lose sight of that. I don't think it should be looked at as a police versus public issue. As I said, we're all in this together--very much so.

Cases involving sudden death following a struggle precipitated by unusual or bizarre behaviour first appeared in the medical literature in Dr. Willis' Oxford Casebook in 1650. Since that time, reports in the medical literature were entered in 1832, 1849, 1867, 1939, 1944, and 1960. These reports did not involve the police, and they were essentially patients who would be recognized today as experiencing mental illness. The reports of these deaths subsided in the 1960s around the time that anti-psychotic medications became available. These types of deaths began to reappear in the medical literature in 1985 in southeastern Florida, and they were tied to cocaine consumption. Early modern reports began to use the term “excited delirium” in 1985. It was a term coined by Dr. Charles Wetli--a physician, not a police officer. That term was again used in 1993 and in 1995.

Critics point out that excited delirium is not a recognized medical diagnosis, and they're correct. It is a term used by police officers to efficiently convey a set of circumstances, much like the use of the term “domestic”. If I were to tell another officer that I need help with a “domestic”, that officer understands what I need when I call for assistance. I wouldn't have to use a lot of information to convey the needs that would be required. When the term “excited delirium” is used, another trained officer would understand that in all likelihood I'm dealing with a male, at least partially clad, who is acting in a bizarre manner, that a struggle may be involved, and the subject may be very strong, sweating, etc. “Excited delirium” is also a term that some physicians are becoming familiar with.

Deaths associated with these types of events have been related to a variety of causes over the years: prone positioning, a theory for which the scientific validity has been questioned; pepper spray, a theory that very few adhere to any longer; neck restraints--a recent Canadian Police Research Centre review did address this issue, I think it was last year--and today we're discussing conducted energy devices or weapons. Despite the mechanism of restraint being changed, people continue to die suddenly and unexpectedly.

Beginning in 1999, I began to examine these events in greater detail. I found a host of potential medical issues that seemed to be buried within the medical literature. The potential causes of death included arrhythmia caused by both substance abuse and by properly taken prescribed medications at therapeutic levels, cardiomyopathy or an enlargement of the heart, hypothermia, catecholamine rush, rhabdomyolysis, electrolite imbalances, metabolic and lactic acidosis, and indeed there's some suggestion that there may be a genetic component to this problem. As a partial completion for my master's degree, I examined 29 of these sudden deaths in the province of Ontario between 1988 and 2004. One involved the conducted energy weapon.

Recently I examined some records from Ontario's Special Investigations Unit that are publicly available online, and I discovered that they've classified 109 deaths that occurred in custody between 2001 and 2007. After examining the synopsis of these events and adding the data that I gleaned from my earlier investigation, it appears there may be 40 events between 1998 and 2007 in a population of 12 million people. Of these 40 events, five involved a conducted energy weapon.

While the present common thread appears to be conducted energy weapon use, these types of deaths occurred long before conducted energy weapons were deployed in Ontario and continue to occur when conducted energy weapons are not used. Deaths of this nature have been reported since before policing began. They continue to occur in medical settings.

Recent research on conducted energy weapons has been inconclusive with respect to studies using the swine model. Pigs are used as human surrogates in medical research. There are limits to applicability. Despite the controversy, there is an ongoing Canadian effort to synthesize current research information and report on that later this year to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

I believe we can do better than that. There exists in Canada the ability to study this problem in real time in the real world, completely independent of industry. Preliminary work has started. Current barriers include lack of funding and the capacity or opportunity to analyze that data. Much work has already been accomplished. Unfortunately, the information is not getting to the public very well. While controversy is reported, significant inaccuracies exist. Communication on the science and research efforts relating to this problem needs to improve. Members of the public would benefit from hearing this type of information.

An additional barrier to our understanding of these events, which I would submit for your consideration, comes from the popular media--what's been termed the “CSI effect”, if you will. There is a confidence--indeed, an expectation--that an autopsy will find everything. It may not. Further, once a crime has been ruled out, the ability to thoroughly investigate the incident is significantly diminished. Often the necessary authority to secure search warrants that would allow the investigation to continue ends. The result can be a family left with unanswered questions and an investigation that can no longer provide them.

Another point that must be considered is the role of law enforcement agencies and the public expectation of their capacity. Police services provide exactly that: police service. Few are funded to such an extent that scientific research is being done within the organization. Statistics are being requested when reporting on them has never been required before. The information is available, but a mere push of a button will not bring it up. On this issue, Peel stated “the basic mission for which...police exist is to prevent crime and disorder”. Sir Robert Peel mentioned nothing about research. Further, current expert opinion is that these types of deaths may be a complex, multifactorial medical crisis difficult for expert physicians to manage. Yet police officers armed with a first aid certificate are being asked to handle these events.

As a public citizen, I see today that there has been a devolution of public trust in the men and women who police our communities. In a country whose icons, recognized internationally, include a police officer, in a country with a reputation for being a peacekeeper, this is indeed unfortunate. Among Peel's admonishments was that “the ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions”.

I believe answers to our questions exist, and I believe they are discoverable, and in some instances in the near future, if barriers are removed. In other cases, the answers will come more slowly, but I believe they will come. Police agencies are trying to do what they think is correct and in the best interest of the public. The police are aware that, again, as Peel stated, “the degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force”.

CEWs were deployed in the interest of police and public safety. As stated within the principles of the national use-of-force framework, police and public safety are intertwined and co-dependent: one cannot exist without the other. “Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.” Again, these are principles going back to 1829.

There are cases in which police officers have acted in an exemplary manner. I can think of one particular case in which the subject was never touched, was allowed to calm down and have his concerns addressed, and was convinced to go willingly to the hospital. The circumstances suddenly changed. An unprecipitated altercation ensued, and the subject suddenly and unexpectedly died. Despite the best efforts of very well-trained police officers, some people have died without the involvement of conducted energy weapons.

Peel also said that “police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law”. Policing has always been a difficult task. The complexities of an officer's career expand as our social demands grow and our society's complexity broadens. What remains unalterable is our service to the law.

The deaths that have brought this problem to your attention have occurred for hundreds of years, and will continue, I believe, with or without the availability of conducted energy weapons.

There exists in Canada a research acumen and capability that may be able to answer some of these questions. I would seek the support necessary to get answers, and then to make an informed decision, rather than have it decided by something less.

I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important matter, and I'll do my best to answer your questions at the conclusion of the presentation.

I'd also like to point out for the record that I have no current funding relationships with Taser. I did at one point purchase Taser stocks on the open market as part of a retirement portfolio, and when it became apparent to me that my work might have an impact on the integrity of that relationship, I disposed of the stocks on my own volition without anybody telling me to do so, despite the fact that some people assured me that they saw no conflict of interest. So I have no relationship with Taser. I've never worked for them, I've never been to Scottsdale, and I've never done any training for them. I just want to make that clear.

I'll answer any questions you have when the time is suitable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Johnston or Mr. Lawrence, did you have any brief comments to make before we open it up for questions?

[Staff Sergeant Joel Johnston, British Columbia Use of Force Coordinator, Vancouver Police Department]

I think Inspector Lightfoot has a brief piece.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay, let's try to do it as quickly as possible.

[Inspector Troy Lightfoot, Officer in Charge, Operational Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

I'll be as quick as possible.

First I'd like to provide a few details on our policy development process and then comment on a few recent developments in relation to our conducted energy weapon program.

The RCMP's operational policy section has developed one of the most comprehensive policy development processes for use by the RCMP. It includes approximately 30 steps from start to finish. Our process has been identified by a number of external and internal stakeholders as a best practice, including the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP.

The presentation on our policy development process is approximately an hour and a half long. For this reason, we do not have time for a full presentation on the process. However, I would like to highlight some of its attributes.

Some of the attributes of this process include a needs analysis; a risk assessment; environmental scans; an examination of industry standards; and comprehensive consultation, including consultation of national and international experts on a regular basis. For example, while drafting our new excited delirium syndrome policy, international experts from the mental health community were consulted. A feedback process is also included, as well as a communications strategy.

I would now like to provide information on some recent developments in our conducted energy weapon program. In August 2007, the RCMP enhanced its conducted energy weapon policy by adding information on excited delirium syndrome, including reporting processes, data downloading, volunteer exposures, and deployment after care. We are currently working on a stand-alone excited delirium policy, which will further enhance this area.

In November 2007, the RCMP completed a review of CEW and excited delirium syndrome. This report was completed by Sergeant Bruce Stuart of the RCMP and Chris Lawrence of the Ontario Police College. This report was forwarded to the Minister of Public Safety, as requested.

Recently, the RCMP completed a draft framework for our CEW report, covering the periods between 2001 and 2007. We anticipate that the report will be completed by June 2008. The RCMP has completed a draft of our CEW quarterly report, in line with the recommendations made on our interim report by the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. Since December 2007, the RCMP has been monitoring, at a national level, all incoming CEW reports as and when they occur. This adds another level of accountability and shows consistency in terms of application.

The RCMP has appointed a national use-of-force manager as well as a national use-of-force coordinator and is augmenting resources to create a stand-alone unit dedicated to the use of force. The RCMP's use-of-force coordinator, Bruce Stuart, is involved in the conducted energy weapon study currently being undertaken by the Canadian Police Research Centre. This study has been labelled the most independent scientifically and medically based study ever undertaken on the subject of CEWs.

We're working on assembling an independent group to review the RCMP's CEW training, policy, and accountability. To further enhance our accountability, one of our divisions has piloted the attachment of the CEW report to one of our record management systems. This will allow immediate access to the report by supervisory and criminal operation sections for review.

On January 22, 2008, the RCMP drafted a unit level quality assurance form, an audit tool that will assist district and detachment commanders to ensure that the use of CEWs complies with policy.

On January 23, 2008, the British Columbia use-of-force coordinator, Joel Johnston, and I, the RCMP use-of-force manager, made a presentation to an FPT group consisting of deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers from the Department of Justice and Public Safety Canada on the topic of CEWs and the use of force in general.

Now I'd like to turn the floor over to Sergeant Stuart, if I may, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Go ahead.

[Sgt Bruce Stuart]

I was going to do a piece on our prevention model and use-of-force escalation. If we're pressed for time, I can skip through a bit of that and go to some of the other material. It's at your pleasure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

How long would it take to go through the condensed version?

[Sgt Bruce Stuart]

Five, maybe six minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay.

Mr. Johnston, how long would you have?

[S/Sgt Joel Johnston]

Not that long.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Not that long.

The usual practice here is to have the presentations and then we'll take turns. So if you can do it in five or six minutes, go ahead.