Public Safety Committee on March 5th, 2008

[Commr Dirk Ryneveld]

If I may respond to your first suggestion that my argument about the proximal time of death after deployment of the taser was fallacious, sir, I'm not a medical expert. This is not what I am saying; I am saying what is in the studies in the report. The doctors, the cardiologist, and these people have said in these reports that if there isn't death within minutes of electrical shock, any subsequent death is likely not attributable to the electric shock that was applied. That's not me. I have to rely on other experts, and it's clear I'm not a doctor.

On the weapons used for arrest in England, in Canada we do give our police officers guns. What we're trying to do is provide them with yet another tool to make the situation safer to the public. That is deployment of a taser, which has a less likely lethality rate than if they have to shoot their weapon. If they shoot their weapon, the chances are there is going to be serious bodily harm or death. With use of the taser there is less than 1% risk, and then only to a particular susceptible individual.

[Paul E. Kennedy]

I can respond to your general question on whether the taser is necessary. If you look at the history of policing, police through their history, starting with Bobby Peel in the 1820s, clearly used different tools. They didn't always start out with weapons. They started out with batons and things like this. There has been evolution of what they used or didn't use over a period of time. Until about 2001--certainly it was December 2001 for the RCMP--they didn't use the taser in Canada; they used other techniques.

That doesn't mean you should stick to the status quo. You evolve. It is there. It is a tool. The issue is whether it is an appropriate tool.

You talked about the United Kingdom. I believe the Royal Ulster Constabulary for a long time didn't have....

That's a Canadian example--

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Can you confirm that firearms were involved more often in arrests before tasers were introduced? You cannot confirm this.

[Paul E. Kennedy]

The problem I have is we don't have any empirical data. I'm quite prepared to let the data lead me to a conclusion. It has been said that the use of the taser results in less injury to officers and to members of the public. I haven't seen the empirical data as to the number of instances prior to taser use, in terms of harm to the officer and the public, and after taser use. It's not there. It's said as a statement that everyone agrees with, and I believe even the representative from Taser International said that, logically, if I'm there and I don't make contact, if I taser you and you fall to the floor...I'm not hurt; you get up, you're not hurt, except for that momentary incapacitation, and everything is okay. But I don't know if it follows.

In CAPRA, the model the police have, an officer can consider the size of the individual, the skill set, the number of individuals, and the degree of violence, and that tells them whether they should use it. So a woman who could be overpowered by a much larger man clearly would have recourse to something like a taser.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

We'll have to go now to the government side.

Mr. Mayes, do you have some questions?

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to direct this question to Mr. Kennedy, please.

In classifying the taser, would you say it's an intermediate-level force tool, or would you say it's an impact force weapon, and if so, why?

[Paul E. Kennedy]

My recommendation at this stage, based on the information we have, is that in the RCMP model a taser should be put up in the same category as an impact weapon and not an intermediate....

And by the way, what's important to bear in mind, because people say we classify it the same way other police forces do, who put it as an intermediate weapon.... In fact, if you look at the definitions of “intermediate” and “resistant”, police forces use different criteria; they don't all match up. Some of them, like Toronto, will have it classified as an intermediate weapon, saying use it on assaultive and above. So they call it intermediate, but it's not the same definition. If you look at Northern Ireland, they call it “potentially lethal”. So when you start looking around, you will find that the categories are there, but they don't necessarily mean the same thing, and police forces don't all treat them the same.

I'm indicating what our state of knowledge is right now, in terms of the movement of the RCMP away from the language they used when it was introduced in 2001, where it was described at that time as “a less lethal means for controlling suspects and averting injury to members, suspects and the public” and that it could only be used to “subdue individual suspects who resist arrest, are combative or suicidal”. That's how it was started in 2002 when they put it in. There was no proper data analysis, and yet, in 2004, it changed and you could use the taser for all sorts of other things. All I'm saying is that if we look at the data, and the data indicate it's appropriate to move it down to an interim...with an appropriate description, fine. But there was nothing there that justified that movement; there was no factual basis on which it was done.

So I'm saying, yes, it should at this stage be moved to be for combative persons, subject to further research; and then you either keep it there or move it down. But if you don't have that bright line to an officer, saying that if the person isn't combative, don't use it, you are going to find the floor falling away from under your feet, and it will be used not only in active aggressive but also passive aggressive situations, which include, by the way, flight—mere flight. Other jurisdictions said that flight alone was not a factor for using a taser, that you also had to look at the gravity of the offence you were arresting people for. None of those factors is in the RCMP model.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

But that's the challenge here, because in some earlier discussions there was talk about low and high pain tolerance. And for an arresting officer looking at a subject of interest, standing there, and trying to assess who has pain tolerance.... I mean, they didn't do that with the baton. I'm sure if they're arresting Mr. Cullen or me, they wouldn't be able to determine who had the best pain tolerance for a baton. So how practical can that be? That's the thing that would concern me.

If anything needs to be there, just use some common sense in the application of this device. So how are you going to determine how you're going to put some guidelines for the use of this tool?

[Paul E. Kennedy]

I didn't include pain tolerance as a factor in whether or not you deploy the taser. The officer uses his normal judgment, in terms of, is the individual going to be violent or combative? Just what is there—because it is designed for a particular purpose. You don't look at a person who's done nothing and say, “I wonder what your pain tolerance is? I think it's pretty high, so I'll hit you with it.” There has to be a proportionality to the event.

The pain is relevant to the fact that it is a weapon. In my interim report there are quotes from the Hannibal case, which Judge Challenger looked at, and which had expert-led testimony. There's also the Amnesty International report, which has comments from officers who have been tasered. This wasn't described as a tonic. I saw some of the testimony at this committee about it being a brisk shot, that you're up and then you're ready to go again, just as if you've been to the gym. But the officers describe it as intense pain. What officers? These are police officers. They've been punched a hundred times. These are officers, not people who are inexperienced in terms of physical encounters, who said, having been tasered once, they'd never want to be tasered again.

So it is a weapon. Assuming it's a weapon, then you treat it as such, but where do you place it? I'm saying that if in your mind as an officer you can ask, would I use my baton, then we're in that category in which you can use your taser. And I'm not saying use your baton before you use your taser, because clearly you don't want to have to close with the person. But if it is at that level where you think there's going to be violence toward you or other people—and you can anticipate that, as you don't wait for the first punch—use your common-sense judgment.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

The applications are interesting. I spoke with an officer who said there was a particular subject who'd been tasered before. As soon as the officer pulled out the taser gun, this fellow just dropped what he was doing and stood still and that was it. If the taser didn't have the punch to make a good first impression, the person would not have done that.

[Paul E. Kennedy]

I'm quite happy to have that punch. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about when it should be used.

[Commr Dirk Ryneveld]

The notoriety of the taser may also have an unexpected positive effect. When people see the taser come out, they may become compliant before it's necessary to deploy it.

I don't think Mr. Kennedy and I are in disagreement about where this taser should be used. Part of it has to do with the definition of less than lethal force. If you're going to use your baton, you can break bones and do all kinds of nasty things to people. The taser may be preferable in those circumstance. We're not going to judge this that finely.

Officers have to make common-sense judgments about what to do to control the situation. If it requires assertive, hard behaviour such as a baton or a taser affords, I'm not going to be so judgmental as to tell them they should have pulled their baton first and then gone for the taser. I'm sorry, that's micromanaging. It's split second stuff, and we have to let our police officers do their job.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Ms. Brown.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Kennedy, you produced this interim report. Did you brief the minister on it, and if so, how much face time did you get with the minister?

[Paul E. Kennedy]

No, I didn't brief the minister on it. However, I did provide an executive summary. The document is in very plain language, and I gave an action plan in three or four pages that spoke for itself.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

When you present your final report, are you going to ask to face the minister and brief him on your final report?

[Paul E. Kennedy]

I would enjoy doing that, and I will do it, because the minister has asked for this. The first one was an interim report, but I want to have all my details, and I will sit down and take the minister through it.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Am I correct in hearing you say that you have no indication that the RCMP has implemented the recommendations in the interim report? Is that correct?

[Paul E. Kennedy]

There are 10. They have implemented a number of them, some partially. There are two that are the most important. The first one deals with where you position it. This hasn't been acted upon. They have a coordinator for the use of force. I believe they are finishing up their first quarterly report, and I haven't seen it. Maybe they're not finished yet. At any rate, I don't have the content to see if it meets our standards or not. But they have done a number of things in part, and I'll have to wait until it plays out.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

You commented that they did not implement the two most important recommendations. Then, at the end of your presentation, you said the RCMP were very cooperative. To me, those two things are totally exclusive.

[Paul E. Kennedy]

No.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Either they were cooperative or they weren't.

First of all, they couldn't be cooperative in giving the statistics because they didn't collect any.

[Paul E. Kennedy]

They were cooperative in that they produced what we asked for, if they had it. We are now taking some of the data and we're going to reformat it, re-input it, and design a computer program so that we can do a proper analysis of it. To that extent, they certainly have been open and cooperative with us. Clearly, there is no obligation in law for them to follow my recommendations.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Unless the minster tells them to.