Public Safety Committee on Feb. 27th, 2008

[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, meeting number 19. We are continuing today our study of the taser.

We would like to welcome our witnesses to this committee. We look forward to your information and to your answers to our questions.

From the Toronto Police Services Board, we have Mr. Mukherjee. I don't know if I'm pronouncing it quite right. We welcome you here. I got it ninety percent right? I won't ask you to pronounce my name and then we'll be even.

From the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board, we have Mr. Federico.

Welcome, gentlemen. The usual practice at this committee is to allow you to have an opening statement. I'm sure the clerk has probably given you a bit of an idea of how we do this. You will have approximately 10 minutes. I'll let both of you present. That will take 20 minutes or so, and then we'll open it up for questions and comments, if that's okay with you.

Mr. Mukherjee, perhaps you'd like to explain your position and then go ahead and make your presentation.

[Alok Mukherjee, Chair, Toronto Police Services Board]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, members.

My name is Alok Mukherjee and I'm the chair of the Toronto Police Services Board. I have with me Staff Superintendent Mike Federico, who is uniquely qualified to speak to the operational side of the deployment of tasers by police services.

As the first unit commander of our Toronto anti-violence intervention strategy, or TAVIS, Staff Superintendent Federico was tasked with overseeing the use of tasers by our emergency task force. Currently his responsibilities include oversight of the service's training and education unit. He is also the senior officer responsible for our innovative mobile crisis intervention teams, a police-hospital partnership that works to assist people undergoing a mental health crisis.

I appreciate this opportunity to share our experiences and learnings related to the use of tasers as less than lethal devices. The use of tasers by the Toronto Police Service has long been an issue of debate for members of the Toronto Police Services Board, members of the Toronto Police Service, and members of the community at large. The decision to equip certain officers with this device was one that was entered into by my board with much scrutiny and forethought. Once the board decided to approve limited deployment of tasers by the Toronto Police Service, it, as well as the service, stressed the importance of placing adequate controls around the device, providing comprehensive training and ensuring that accountability and oversight mechanisms were firmly in place.

First I will discuss tasers in the Toronto Police Service.

In July 2002, following a successful four-month pilot project conducted by the Toronto Police Service emergency task force, or ETF, what was then the Ontario Ministry of the Solicitor General approved the M26 advanced taser for use by police tactical teams and hostage rescue units in Ontario. The ministry had authorized the Toronto Police Service and the Ottawa Police Service to do a preliminary pilot project. In February 2004 the ministry authorized the use of the M26 advanced taser by front-line supervisors. However, our board did not immediately agree to provide the equipment to all of the service's front-line officers, embarking instead on a methodical decision-making process.

At its November 18, 2004, meeting the board requested information regarding the status of de-escalation training and taser medical safety risks, including copies of reports and research studies that had been conducted. The board also requested a taser protocol and an implementation plan for the possible second pilot project.

On March 30, 2006, the Toronto Police Service commenced this pilot project in 31, 42, and 52 Divisions. It involved the use of tasers by front-line uniformed supervisors. Only after receiving the results of the pilot project did the board approve the continuation of taser implementation on an interim basis.

As part of its consideration, the Toronto Police Services Board heard deputations from members of the public and requested additional reports from the chief, the Toronto medical officer of health, and board staff regarding any medical and operational research that had been conducted. The board endorsed a draft protocol for taser use and required that it be notified of any changes to this protocol. The board also put in place regular reporting requirements on taser use.

At the conclusion of the pilot project in September 2006, satisfied with the procedures and methods of accountability that had been established, the board approved expansion to all front-line supervisors. The board also noted that in a report to the board, the Toronto medical officer of health indicated that there did not appear to be any studies evaluating long-term health effects, if any, on individuals who had been exposed to tasers.

This has been a long-standing concern of board members, who have voiced an interest in seeing independent studies conducted regarding taser use and long-term effects.

The board has consistently focused on the importance of training when equipping officers with tasers. While the taser is a powerful tool--like the many others a police officer may carry--it is important to focus not just on the device but on the controls that have been placed around it, which very much include the provision of appropriate and regular training in its use. Staff Superintendent Federico will provide further details in this area.

With regard to annual reporting to the board, at the meeting of March 8, 2005, the board directed the chief of police to provide an annual report on the use of tasers within the Toronto Police Service. The report, which is placed on the public agenda, is required to include information on complaints and investigations related to taser use; officer training; availability of tasers to front-line officers; incidents of taser deployment, including diversions, circumstances, numbers of persons involved, and reasons for deployment; and any injuries sustained, deaths, and civil actions. Board members have been able to analyze this information, note trends, and ask questions arising from the reports.

With regard to injuries and deaths attributable to the use of tasers by Toronto Police Service officers in 2005, of the 73 total taser deployments in 2005, injuries were reported in only five cases. In three of the five cases of reported injury, the injuries were self-inflicted. In the remaining two cases of reported injury, it is believed the injuries were sustained when the officers attempted to subdue the individual and were not as a result of the taser deployment. In 2005 there were no deaths attributed to the deployment of the taser by members of the service.

In 2006 the taser was used 174 times during 156 incidents within the defined categories of taser deployment. In 2006 there were no injuries sustained, other than minor skin punctures, as a result of taser deployment by members of the service. In 2006 there were no deaths attributed to the deployment of tasers by members of the service.

The board has not yet received the 2007 annual report on tasers. However, between January 1, 2007, and July 31, 2007, the service had 215 taser incidents, and there were no injuries or deaths resulting from taser deployment.

In conclusion, the Toronto Police Service board views the taser as an important tool to be used by a police officer in certain limited and clearly articulated situations--that is, where an individual is acting in an assaultive manner--rather than simply as a tool of compliance. The board supports the philosophy of Chief Blair that the tasers can be a valuable tool for police officers as long as the proper parameters for use are outlined, the necessary training is provided, and the relevant structures of accountability are established.

I look forward to our discussion and will now pass this over to Staff Superintendent Federico.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you, Mr. Mukherjee.

You may go ahead, Mr. Federico.

[Staff Superintendent Michael Federico, Senior Officer, Staff Planning and Community Mobilization, Metropolitan Toronto Police Service]

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I appreciate the invitation to be before you.

I propose to provide you with the position and the statement of the chief of police of the Toronto Police Service, William Blair, and then indicate to you the topics and the areas upon which I can comment or explore with you and invite you to ask me questions. I'll be guided by your questions.

Chief Blair has gone on record saying:

There has been considerable comment in the media on TASERS and whether or not they are appropriate for police use. TASERS have an important role to play in protecting the public and our officers from violent people, as well as protecting violent people from injuring themselves....

Organizations that use TASERS must have the proper policies and procedures, the training and the supervision, to ensure they are used in the right circumstances, for the right reasons. Within those policies and procedures, there must be clear accountability and transparency. In Ontario there are many examples of police officers exercising good judgment in the use of TASERS to resolve tense and dangerous situations. These examples exist because the use of TASERS has been implemented with proper procedures, training, supervision, and transparent accountability.

In Toronto, we have devoted considerable time and resources to canvassing North American police practice, to ensure we provide those using TASERS with the best training and supervision, and the policies and procedures that provide clear guidance on when and how they are to be used.

The work that has been done cannot and should not be overlooked in the public debate about the place of TASERS in our use-of-force continuum. Police officers across Ontario are professional and dedicated to the safety and security of their communities. Let there never be any doubt about that. With clear policies and procedures, a well trained officer with a TASER, properly supervised and fully accountable for all use-of-force decisions, can save lives. They have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

The record of TASER use by the Toronto Police Service shows that officers are using good judgement under difficult circumstances and making appropriate decisions to use the minimum force necessary to resolve often tense and dangerous situations. The TASER has proven to be effective in reducing injuries to the public and the officer, particularly when other force options such as the baton or firearm might otherwise have been deployed. Consequently, the Service believes that with proper policy, procedures, training, and accountability, the TASER is an appropriate police force option that can help improve public safety.

I can provide information to the committee on the nature of the device and its deployment in Toronto; how the device might be used; the accountability, policy, and governance of the use of the device; the training that surrounds the deployment of the device to our officers; legal issues we've had to consider and respond to; and medical and safety issues we have researched and that may have arisen.

I am at your disposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I don't know if we'll get into all those areas, but we'll do our best.

We will begin with the official opposition, the Liberal Party.

Mr. Cullen, you have indicated you have some questions.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Mukherjee and Mr. Federico.

Mr. Federico, are there any areas you are not mandated to speak on today or answer questions on?

[S/Supt Michael Federico]

I'll let you know if the question arises.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you. I thought it might be easier to do it that way.

How many tasers are in use in the field right now in the Toronto Police Service and how many are on order or in the queue to train officers? Do you have those sorts of stats for us?

[S/Supt Michael Federico]

Currently we have about 454 devices in the field, and they are issued to our front-line supervisors. Those are generally uniform sergeants who are in charge of a platoon of officers. We have a number, I think less than 50, who are dedicated to high-risk units, which are squads such as our holdup squad, the intelligence bureau, the drug squad, special investigative services, the fugitive squad, and the ROPE squad. Once again, these devices are issued to the supervisors of those squads.

There are almost 500 tasers currently in our inventory. We order new devices as the old ones need to be replaced. It's a life cycle process.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

So those are the ones that are in the field; there are no big orders out there for the time being.

[S/Supt Michael Federico]

Not at this time. The board and the chief are discussing whether or not the program should be expanded.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay.

Mr. Mukherjee.

[Alok Mukherjee]

As Staff Superintendent Federico said, the chief of police thinks the taser can be a useful alternative to lethal force. He had a report before the board in July, recommending that the board consider a wider deployment of tasers. We did not deal with it at that time. We requested the chief to come back with more information and a business case. Particularly, as I have mentioned, there are concerns among board members about medical effects and long-term effects, and we wanted the chief to be able to report back with further information from international research that has been done.

Then last month we had a public forum, where we invited the chairman of Taser International, Mr. Tom Smith, to come and answer questions publicly about the device; however, somehow the impression got around that we were very close to ordering thousands of the device--I believe it even had a positive impact on Taser's share price in New York--but we had no such intention. The situation is that the chief needs to come back to the board with a more detailed report, at which time the board will have to discuss his recommendations in public and make a decision.

So there is no plan right now to buy millions of dollars' worth of tasers.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay, thank you.

Actually, at an earlier meeting of this committee I was asked to follow up with Chief Blair about perhaps a tour of the training at the C.O. Bick training centre, and he put me in touch with Inspector Eley. I can report to the committee that they're happy to organize a tour. I gather plans might have changed in the interim, but they will be very helpful in organizing a tour if we want to do that.

I'd like to come back to the question of--if I can call them this--the rules of engagement, or when tasers are to be deployed. I presume the Toronto Police Service, in addition to training, has some manuals, has some definitions of when tasers should and shouldn't be used. I don't want to read that into the record today or anything, but could you make that available to the committee at some point, the rules of engagement or the policy rules that define when the taser should be used and when it shouldn't?

[S/Supt Michael Federico]

Yes, absolutely.

In terms of providing you with the instructions, the protocols, and the procedures that apply to the Toronto Police Service, I can make those available.

I would like to say, though, that the Toronto Police Service, in accordance with the Police Services Act of Ontario--which does dictate when a police officer can use force, along with the Criminal Code--uses the devices to gain control of a subject who is assaultive, as defined by the Criminal Code. This can include threatening behaviour, in which the officer believes the subject intends and has the ability to carry out the threat. So the device is used strictly to gain control of a subject who is at risk of causing harm, not to secure compliance of a subject who is passively resisting.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Now, we've heard from some witnesses that the taser is recommended to be used in many situations where the person to be arrested is in a state of excited delirium. There's a lot of discussion and debate about what exactly that is, but what you're saying is that if the Toronto Police Service officer came upon a person who is in a state of excited delirium, if they were not exhibiting these assaultive--that's the term you use--characteristics, they would not necessarily use the taser. Is that what you're saying?

[S/Supt Michael Federico]

Correct.

The person--the subject--has to be a threat to somebody's security and safety. Just simply acting out in behaviour that might be causing a disturbance or bringing attention upon themselves would not justify the deployment of the taser at that point.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

In terms of using other methods, like pepper spray or the baton and the use of physical force, does it come into play at all that the person might expose officers to bodily fluids or secretions that might put the officers at risk? In other words, is it better to use the taser because we can subdue quickly, handcuff them, and deal with them that way? If we get into some physical altercation, there could be officers put at risk if people are bleeding or spitting or whatever.

[S/Supt Michael Federico]

Once again, any choice to use force is predicated on the threat the person presents. And the threat has to be a threat against somebody's safety—the police officer's, the individual's, or a member of the public's—before really any force option can be used. So the choice of the taser is then determined by the specific threat. If somebody is simply acting in a bizarre and curious manner and not posing an immediate threat, force is probably not justified, regardless of the instrument of force used. Now, if the police officer is required to make an arrest and must take physical control of somebody, and the person reacts in an assaultive manner, that would justify the application of some use of force. And that could very well be the taser.

The benefit of the taser, of course, is that, unlike pepper spray or the baton, you have that distance. There's a tactical advantage to using the taser. But once again, as the chair has pointed out and as my chief has said, if the situation is not threatening to anybody, no application of force is warranted. The police officer has to move in and make the arrest, but if the person is simply passive, an application of force, beyond taking control of them physically and putting the handcuffs on, isn't justified.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Your time is up. Do you have a brief follow-up?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I have just a quick follow-up in the sense that you said you've done some benchmarking against other law enforcement agencies in North America, and perhaps indeed around the world. Would you say that your rules of engagement, if I can call them that, are similar? Or is it quite a mixed bag if you look just across Canada? Do different police forces have different rules of engagement for the use of tasers?

[S/Supt Michael Federico]

There are two points I'd like to make. To answer your question generally, our practices are similar across the country. There may be variations, depending on some circumstances, but I'd need to hear what they would be specifically.

For example, ours is based on the generally agreed upon principle in policing that the behaviour of the subject has to be assaultive in nature. There may be some services that have defined “assaultive” perhaps more liberally. I'm not in a position to comment on that because I haven't seen some of that material.

I was just reminded of this by the chair, and I'd like to pick up on it. In the deployment of the taser, there are three modes. One of the modes is called force demonstration. That's just activating the device in front of the subject to demonstrate that we have such a tool and that we can use it if necessary. The taser has two signals on it. One is a laser sight that lights up. The other is that we can spark the electrodes so you can just see and hear a little crackle of electricity. So we may demonstrate that we have the capability to apply this instrument. That is considered an exercise of the use of force, but obviously it doesn't come in contact with the individual. That's just force demonstration.

There may be a situation when we have yet to move in to take control of the individual, but just to make sure there's no misunderstanding about how seriously we're taking this situation and the fact that the person is subject to a lawful arrest, we might spark the device just to let the person know we have it. In many cases, that is the mode of deployment the Toronto police have used.

The second mode of deployment is touching the device to the individual, and that's called “drive stun”. It's just a technical term. You actually apply the device, but you don't let go of it or discharge the darts. The third mode is when you actually discharge the darts, and you do that from a distance.

So those are the three modes. What we're hoping for is the minimum use of force, or the least intrusive use of force.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Mr. Mukherjee.

[Alok Mukherjee]

Perhaps I could just add that in 2006, in 44% of the uses of tasers it was the first mode, which is demonstrated force presence; in 19% of the cases it was the drive-stun mode; and in 37% of the cases it was the full deployment. So in fact in the majority of the cases the taser was not fully deployed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay.