Evidence of meeting #19 for Public Safety and National Security in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was board.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville, ON
Maybe we should get them to give some lessons to some other people--who shall go nameless.
Chair, Toronto Police Services Board
It is true that the number of times firearms were drawn was much less than the number of times tasers were drawn. Now, there was a previous question about whether we receive a report on the use of firearms. The way we get a report on firearms is that each time a firearm is drawn or used, there is an investigation by the special investigations unit. Those reports are brought to the board—not in public but confidentially, because they involve conduct issues—and they give us a sense of the number of times firearms have been used in the city.
So there's no question that the rate is much lower for firearms than tasers in terms of deployment, but the majority of the time, the taser is simply demonstrated and not used.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Thank you.
One more person has indicated that they have a question.
Ms. Barnes.
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
Thank you very much.
I'm just wondering, as chair of a police board, whether other police boards in Ontario do a similar protocol of using this not as an intermediate device but further down the scale. Are you the norm or are you uncommon?
Chair, Toronto Police Services Board
I believe we are the only ones who have a public reporting requirement. As the staff superintendent mentioned, the use-of-force reporting is required by the province, so all of them would be doing that. I believe our training is double the minimum number of hours of training required. So we give double the amount of training; that's different. And we have public reporting; that's very different.
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
You're telling me that your criterion is to use it more as a last resort than an immediate one. Is that normal throughout, say, Ontario with other police boards?
S/Supt Michael Federico
Yes, the circumstances under which it's to be used across the province are that it has to be used only for a subject who's assaultive. I'm not certain what the committee has heard in other jurisdictions—
February 27th, 2008 / 4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Chair, Toronto Police Services Board
I think the staff superintendent mentioned earlier that how people interpret “assaultive” may differ from place to place. We have a very fairly restrictive definition of what constitutes assaultive. We have had some discussions during coroners' inquests about the difference between assaultive and combative. In our mind, assaultive is more extreme than combative. Some people have said that tasers should be used if the only other alternative is drawing the firearm.
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
One of the other areas I don't think I understand is this “excited delirium”. Part of the reason I don't understand it is that I don't believe the medical profession has made it a condition that they say exists. Could you give me your thoughts on that?
Chair, Toronto Police Services Board
I think the medical profession is now beginning to question whether excited delirium is indeed a diagnosis. Finally, after a recent coroner's inquest, there is a decision by the coroner to review excited delirium as a condition. So we may see some revisions happening to people's understanding and the use of excited delirium as a category.
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
Thank you.
Staff Superintendent, in your protocols about use, is there any consideration given to the physical appearance of, for instance, an elderly person, a visibly pregnant person, or a very young person? Mr. Smith has told us that you could use the weapon on any person over 60 pounds, which literally would involve children.
S/Supt Michael Federico
I just return to the circumstances under which we can deploy it. If the person is a public safety risk because they're assaultive, whether or not they display any kind of physical characteristics or attributes is not the primary judgment issue for the officer; it's whether or not they're assaultive.
The officer may say, “The person's assaultive, but I can deal with it using an alternative use of force; I may simply be able to apply sufficient pressure with my hands to bring the person under control—even though they would fit the definition of assaultive.”
The choice of using any force is based on the behaviour of the individual, not their condition. A police officer may in fact, notwithstanding the assaultive nature, decide, “I can deal with this; I can handle it using my own devices, without resorting to a weapon.” Those are always discretionary options available to the police officer.
We generally advise that use-of-force options are to be avoided against children. I can tell you, there might be circumstances when you would have to put the handcuffs on a child simply to maintain control, but it wouldn't be considered the first way of dealing with the situation.
This allows me to expand a little bit upon what we teach our police officers about exercising judgment. De-escalation and containment are the primary tools of a police officer to be employed in the first instance. If we can de-escalate the situation and not use any force option, that's preferable. Once again, we need to put the emphasis on the choice to use force rather than a particular device to be used; that's the first consideration a police officer has to take.
Then, if the device appears to be such that it will have the most effect with the least harm to anybody or the least intrusion, that's the choice of option.
I'm sure you've heard of the use-of-force model. This is taught consistently in Ontario; I'm certain it's nationwide. It requires the officer to continually assess the situation. While I might initially choose a particular force option, I am not now cemented to that choice option. The situation may change such that I can put that force option away and go back to perhaps just talking.
We teach our officers—and that's why the training is as long as it is, and that's why we do training every year—about the use-of-force options given.
I'm glad you asked that question. Thanks.
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
I really appreciate your input here today. I think it puts things in a different perspective for us. Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
I now have two more people who have indicated they have some questions.
We'll go to Mr. Cullen and then to Ms. Priddy.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Staff Superintendent Federico, in your statistics for 2006, both of you talked about the three levels: the first mode, the drive stun, and full deployment. I'm wondering if those are cumulative. In other words, you could have a situation where the gun is shown to someone and that might just end it. They might say, “My goodness, there's one of those nasty things; I give up.” Or they might look at it and recognize it, but it might not be sufficient. Do these numbers show when you're using, let's say, the first mode and that resolves the situation, or are they cumulative through to, let's say, an incident?
S/Supt Michael Federico
No, we didn't double count if the situation was resolved by the last use of the device. So it might have been displayed, but if it was fired, that's what we count, not the fact that it was also displayed previously. These are singular, discrete events, not totals. We're not double counting or triple counting.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
I have another question.
This might be anecdotal. One of the ironic results of seeing a lot of this taser activity on television is that one of the unintended consequences might be that more people might recognize the taser. You could pull out a taser and someone might look at it and say that it's a plastic thing and they won't care. Have you noticed any difference? Are people becoming more aware of the taser and how it's a very powerful tool and backing off more? Do you have any sort of anecdotal comments or statistics on that?
S/Supt Michael Federico
I would say that it would not be unreasonable to suspect that this is occurring, given that the number of incidents resolved simply by displaying the device are at the rate they are. There is no question that this is a pop culture phenomenon now. There is rap music about the device. I'm pretty confident, at least in Toronto, that more people are aware of them and the circumstances in which police have deployed them. That may in fact influence the number of successful resolutions in cases where we don't actually have to apply the device, we simply present it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Okay.
The Bloc Quebecois doesn't have a question.
Go ahead, Ms. Priddy.
NDP
Penny Priddy NDP Surrey North, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have found today very useful. I'm not sure I feel better, but I certainly am impressed with the information you've given us and with the approach you've taken to taser use in the city of Toronto.
Because I'm from Toronto, I actually say it correctly, as opposed to the rest of my family, which is not; they still say “Toronna”.
Obviously, officers have had handguns available to them for many years, so there have been many years to refine protocols for reporting, training, and so on, although I realize that they would have evolved in sophistication over the years.
This is a two-part question. We've heard about some differences in taser training, follow-up, and so on from people who have come. There are a variety of reasons for that, but there are significant differences. Do you know whether we would see the same thing with respect to the use of handguns in police forces across the country? Would there be significant differences in either protocols or reporting protocols?
S/Supt Michael Federico
It's not been my experience that there are significant differences in the protocols. That probably is in part due to the fact that we've had service-issued firearms for hundreds of years. The use-of-force model we use in Ontario and the protocols we've used to govern the deployment of firearms are quite common across the country. So it's not been my experience that there is a marked departure.