First of all, the situation you described of somebody driving and getting into an altercation with a police officer is unlikely to happen, for the simple reason that we have restricted the deployment of tasers. In Toronto, members of certain units, called emergency task forces, and front-line supervisors are the only ones who have tasers.
Front-line ordinary police constables do not have tasers. So if a constable stopped a driver and got into an altercation, he or she would not have a taser to use on that individual.
Secondly, these front-line supervisors and ETF members are called to attend a scene when it escalates and gets to a certain point that requires more use-of-force options.
As to the availability of medical services, that was one of the issues that the board dealt with, namely that given the lack of knowledge about the effects of tasers, we wanted to make sure that whenever a taser was used by somebody from the Toronto Police Service, there was access to medical attention immediately.
As you've said, it's a cost on the taxpayer. Well, policing is a cost on the taxpayer. It's paid for by the property taxpayer. If somebody dies because there was not a taser available and the people attending the scene used a gun, the costs are even higher. All kinds of investigations take place--there are criminal cases; there are coroner's inquests. So one way or another, doing a cost-benefit analysis might be very interesting, but there is a public cost involved whenever force is used.
If the taser can be demonstrated to be beneficial in terms of saving lives in particular situations, we have to consider that as perhaps more important than some of the costs that may be associated with or attendant upon the saving of that life. So it's a balancing act, basically, that from a policy perspective we have to look at and then try to fit the best possible framework, the best possible resources, so that we can deal with any after-effects of the use of a taser.