Public Safety Committee on March 5th, 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 21. We are continuing today with our study of the taser.

We'd like to welcome to our committee, from the Commission for Public Complaints against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Mr. Paul Kennedy, the chair, and Mr. Michael MacDonald, director, strategic policy and research; and from the Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner for British Columbia, Mr. Dirk Ryneveld.

Gentlemen, we welcome you to the committee, and we look forward to the testimony you will give us and the answers to the various comments and questions that will be coming.

The usual procedure here is to allow you an opening statement of 10 minutes or so, and then we start with the opposition questions and comments. It's a timed thing, with about seven minutes for each one, ending with the government side.

Mr. Ryneveld will start, so anytime you are ready, sir, you may begin.

[Commissioner Dirk Ryneveld, Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner of British Columbia]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair and honourable members, thank you for inviting me to come to this committee to give you my thoughts on the matter you presently have under study. It's my understanding that I've been invited to speak to you regarding my role as British Columbia police complaints commissioner in relation to conducted energy devices, sometimes referred to, colloquially, as tasers.

It may assist you, though, to know that my jurisdiction is with respect to all municipal police departments in the province of British Columbia. As such, I'm an independent officer of the legislature and report to the speaker of the legislature, and not to any minister of the crown. As you are aware, my counterpart, Paul Kennedy, has jurisdiction respecting complaints against the RCMP, both in British Columbia and across Canada.

In recent months, especially since the highly publicized event involving Mr. Dziekanski at the Vancouver International Airport last year, a number of investigations and inquiries have been announced by various organizations and governments. Very recently, British Columbia Attorney General Wally Oppal announced that former minister of justice, Thomas Braidwood, has been appointed as commissioner for a public inquiry concerning this very topic.

Given the recent escalation of interest in this matter, perhaps you would find it beneficial if I provided you with some background respecting my early involvement in commissioning a study on the use of tasers by the Victoria Police Department in British Columbia.

As early as 2004, reports that subjects had died shortly after the taser had been applied to them caused me to wonder whether there was any direct link between the use of the taser by police and the subsequent death of the subject. My concern was that if the police had mistakenly been using the taser in the honest belief that it was a non-lethal weapon, and therefore a safe alternative to lethal application of force, the matter should be investigated.

When Mr. Robert Bagnell died on June 23, 2004, shortly after Vancouver police had deployed the taser twice while trying to remove him from a locked hotel bathroom because they believed the hotel was on fire, I ordered an external investigation into the matter on August 5 of that year, to be conducted by the Victoria Police Department. I ordered the Victoria Police Department to investigate a matter within my jurisdiction where the Vancouver police had been involved.

In discussions with then-Victoria Police Chief Constable Battershill, he readily agreed to expand his investigation, which I did have jurisdiction to order, into the death of Mr. Bagnell, to include—and here I will read you a quote from the order that I made:

...review the present use of force protocol and make such interim recommendations as he deems appropriate for the use of the TASER by police officers in [B.C.] pending the results of emerging studies presently underway.

I pause here to reflect that even in 2004 there were a number of studies under way, but I wanted some answers right away—if I could possibly get them—for British Columbia municipal police.

You might ask, why Victoria? Well, Victoria was one of the first police forces in Canada to use the taser and was therefore the most experienced force I had available within my mandate to conduct the study. As you can appreciate, I use municipal police forces to do these sorts of things, although I do have the power under my legislation to order the RCMP to conduct certain investigations for complaints against municipal forces.

Now, the Victoria Police were extremely diligent in conducting this study, and Chief Battershill allocated significant resources to it. They produced an interim report on September 29, 2004, entitled Taser Technology Review & Interim Recommendations. That can be found on our website at www.opcc.bc.ca, under “Reports”, then “Archived Reports”, “2004” and “Victoria Police Department”.

Those interim recommendations from the Victoria Police Department included the following:

Based on our research to date, this Investigative Team is of the opinion that the TASER should be retained as an Intermediate Weapon for use by police in British Columbia, subject to any recommendations that may emerge from our Final Report. Our analysis of the field usages and the medical literature suggests appropriate use of the TASER presents an acceptable level of risk to subjects being controlled.

At the same time, we believe that more can be done to ensure uniformity of training across the Province, to provide enhanced levels of accountability, and to decrease the risk to those groups most at risk from sudden and unexpected death associated to restraint, whether or not the TASER is used.

You may have already heard about what they call excited delirium and positional asphyxia. They are often correlated with the use of the taser because it's exactly those types of people, under medical or other stresses, who act out, resulting in police involvement and use of the taser.

The interim report of September 2004 also made some recommendations on standardized training:

There appears to be significant inconsistencies throughout the province in the training of police officers in the use of the TASER.

If I may just pause there and ad lib, I believe that lack of consistency is not only in British Columbia but all over Canada. The only consistent thing is inconsistency in reporting, training, and use.

To go on:

Therefore, we are recommending the creation of a standardized Lesson Plan/Course Training Standard for TASER users in British Columbia. This Course Training Standard would be developed by the Justice Institute of British Columbia in consultation with Use of Force coordinators representing all municipal police agencies and the RCMP. This “core curriculum” would be delivered to all recruits and all in-service TASER users. Agencies would be free to provide training beyond the Course Training Standard, once that initial training had been received.

The second thing they recommended was mandatory reporting. Not all agencies in the province currently require officers to properly report taser deployment. Some agencies with a mandatory reporting policy may not be capturing all usages due to insufficient levels of supervision.

Because of time, I'll just give you the bullets on the recommendations. A copy of my speaking notes will be available to you afterwards.

Acquisition of new taser technology is the next recommendation. If agencies wish to acquire new taser technology, they recommended the X26 taser as opposed to the M26, which was the older version. The X26 apparently has a higher output—for lack of a better expression—due to its enhanced data collection capabilities and lower electrical output. So the newer version was deemed to be a better instrument for data collection and might be safer.

Then it said:

Although there is no evidence to suggest that the output of the M26 TASER exceeds acceptable levels, the X26 provides a greater margin of safety as documented in the Alfred studies.

That's one of the studies they used as part of their report.

They also recommended excited delirium training:

The phenomena of Excited Delirium still appears to be under recognized in the policing community. Although relatively rare, changes in patterns of drug abuse make it likely officers will encounter victims of Excited Delirium more frequently.

Again they recommended more training and a standardized lesson plan.

On restraint protocols they said:

Although medical evidence remains inconclusive, there does appear to be a linkage between restraint positions and enhanced risk to arrested subjects.

That was the interim report. The final report....

I hope I'm not going too quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

It's okay.

[Commr Dirk Ryneveld]

The final report was produced on June 14, 2005. It too is published on our website in its entirety, including a couple of letters by some experts, some doctors—an emergency room physician, and Dr. John Butt, who is not only a coroner but a forensic pathologist.

That report, in my respectful view, is a very thorough one, which made recommendations that, in conjunction with the interim recommendations I've just bulleted for you, if implemented, may well have prevented some of the problems that have subsequently arisen. If you look at the fact patterns of some of the anecdotal reporting of incidents that have happened since, had some of these recommendations been followed, it is speculative on my part, but my guess is that we may not have had the frequency of them.

They said:

There will be situations, particularly in areas where back-up officers may be distant or unavailable

—and let's face it, not everybody is in a large centre—

where multiple applications are necessary to control violent subjects. Training protocols, however, should reflect that multiple applications, particularly continuous cycling of the TASER for periods exceeding 15-20 seconds, may increase the risk to the subject and should be avoided where practical. Conventional use-of-force theory dictates that officers abandon any particular tactic after it has been employed several times without achieving the desired result.

In other words, don't keep using it.

Conversely, recognizing that a prolonged struggle heightens the risk to both the officer and the subject, it may be appropriate to use a TASER as soon as it becomes clear that physical control will be necessary and that negotiation is unlikely to succeed.

And here is the caveat:

A single TASER application made before the subject has been exhausted, followed by a restraint technique that does not impair respiration, may provide the optimum outcome.

The report makes a number of recommendations, along with the reasoning behind them, but briefly stated, they are summarized on pages 34 and 35 of the report.

1. With respect to CED's, including the TASER, we are recommending, subject to the situational factors, that they not be used against subjects who are demonstrating only passive resistance.

Many of you will have heard the anecdotal reports of, “Drop the beer, sir.” “No?” Zap. Those are passive resistance things. They ought not be used in those situations.

2. For subjects who are displaying active resistance, those who are resisting an officer's efforts to take them into custody without attacking the officer, where an officer believes the use of a CED is appropriate we [believe] the CED's [should] be used in a push stun mode only.

I suspect you're pretty alive to the issue that the taser can be used both in the stun mode, which is sort of a cattle prod situation, and the probe, which fires up to 21 feet with two prongs that insert in the skin.

3. In situations where officers are confronted by active resistance, assaultive resistance, or the threat of grievous bodily harm or death, where an officer believes that the use of a CED is appropriate we are recommending that CED's be used in either a push stun or probe deployment mode.

So they're setting out some guidelines for use along what I would call and what has been known as the use-of-force continuum. You've probably seen that with the police use.

In my view, one of the most significant aspects of this report was the fact that it had been subjected to peer review by a medical review panel. That was one of the things that Chief Battershill and I discussed. I didn't want just a police-initiated report. I wanted whatever came out of this to have been subjected to peer review that included a multi-discipline panel. So a multi-discipline panel of experts reviewed this report.

They included a forensic pathologist, an exercise physiologist, a cardiologist, a forensic psychiatrist, the vice-chief of emergency medicine, a neurologist, a trainer with the Ontario Police College, the district superintendent for the British Columbia Ambulance Service, the executive director of the Canadian Police Research Centre, and an advanced life support paramedic.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

May I just interrupt for a minute? How much longer do you think you will have, because you've twice gone over your time?

[Commr Dirk Ryneveld]

If I can do it in two minutes, I will.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay.

[Commr Dirk Ryneveld]

Dr. Butt, who is the forensic pathologist, said that one of the conclusions he drew from his reviews of the studies then available was that more than one expert in the field of cardiology and electrophysiology has been consulted about the issue of the taser shock being capable, or potentially so, of producing fatal arrhythmia of the heart called ventricular fibrillation. He says:

There seems to be general agreement that in but one or two circumstances, most notably persons with pacemakers, the electrophysiology of the normal heart would not be affected by discharge of the Taser shock/energy when the weapon is used properly.

There are two more things I want to say. It must be remembered that in my role as police complaints commissioner, I do not have the power or the jurisdiction to ban, approve, or otherwise regulate the use of weapons in the province; I can just make recommendations. That's the sole jurisdiction of the Solicitor General and/or the Attorney General.

In conclusion, having said I am not in a position to approve the taser, I am nevertheless not advocating a moratorium on its use at this time. Apart from anecdotal accounts of inappropriate use of the taser in situations where it ought not to have been used, there is not, to my knowledge, a body of evidence that directly connects taser use with resultant death as its sole cause. In my opinion, what is required is further study, further independent testing, and training.

Because I've gone over time, I'll try to fit some of the rest of it into your questions. I hope they'll be responsive.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I appreciate that. We're under a time constraint today. We've got votes at 5:15 and we've got a couple of items of business before then, so I'm trying to keep things moving.

Mr. Kennedy, please.

[Paul E. Kennedy, Chair, Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to shoot into an eight- to ten-minute window.

I certainly am, with my colleague, pleased to be here with you today. Mr. MacDonald is my director of strategic policy and research.

I would first like to take a few minutes to talk about the conducted energy weapon and our role in providing advice to the Minister of Public Safety on this issue.

I certainly want people to note that while I'm concerned with the issue of the conducted energy weapon as it's used as a force tool, I in fact will refer to it as the taser, a brand name, during my address, just for the sake of ease of reference and of course based on the fact that the RCMP employs that particular model.

I would then like to turn to how the commission has historically addressed complaints and appeals related to specific instances where RCMP members have used the taser and some of the challenges we've experienced.

Finally, I would like to address systemic issues within the RCMP, as highlighted in my 2007 interim taser report.

In November of last year, the Minister of Public Safety approached the commission and requested a review of the RCMP's taser protocols, implementation, and compliance. This request was the first time, to my knowledge, in the commission's recent history that a minister solicited our advice and assistance on a policing policy issue.

The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP was created by Parliament in October 1988. Historically, the bulk of the commission's work contains the intake of public complaints and the examination of appeals.

The government in fact recently provided the commission interim funding, which was used in part for the creation of a new strategic policy and research division. While focusing on our core business activities, the commission is now in a position to examine in greater depth systemic policing issues, and tasers are one example.

The value-added of the commission's involvement in such systemic policing matters is that we ask the questions that the police typically do not. This is not due to a singular unwillingness to address issues but because the commission, as a civilian oversight body, brings a different perspective to policing issues.

In looking at the issue of tasers, I want to be very clear. The taser is a pain-inducing weapon whose application to the human body, unlike a service handgun or baton, leaves very little residual evidence of use. The device causes intense pain.

Law enforcement and Taser International speak of the fact that the taser renders subjects incapacitated and unable to fight back. While this may be true, this is a thoroughly sanitized description of what happens to someone who is subjected to the taser. What is missing from the debate and what concerns the commission is that a pain compliance technique is being wholeheartedly advocated without a full appreciation of the impact on the human body or a full understanding of the circumstances in which RCMP members are using the device.

Despite my concerns about the inducement of pain, the commission recognizes that police work sometimes involves violent encounters with people in order to gain control of a situation. This reality must be situated within the broader context of public support, accountability, and transparency.

The commission is not at this time recommending a moratorium on taser use by the RCMP. Rather, it is our position that the use be restricted to only those situations where the individual is combative or poses a significant risk of death or grievous bodily harm.

There are numerous reviews and inquiries occurring across the country at this time on law enforcement's use of tasers. Our count is approximately 10. This indicates a serious public concern with this weapon.

The commission has been addressing the issue of taser use by the RCMP since its introduction in late 2001. We have received 144 complaints related to taser use, with an additional 21 appeals relating to the deployment or threat of deployment of a taser.

In the 21 appeals processed, the commission has made adverse findings in cases where members failed to properly assess the behaviour being presented to them and then inappropriately categorized the behaviour as more threatening than it actually was. This inappropriate categorization has the result of elevating the level of intervention beyond what was acceptable according to the RCMP's use-of-force model. This is the commission's main concern.

Since the introduction of the taser in 2001, the commission has seen a policy shift that allows for the use of the weapon in circumstances far less constraining than what was originally proposed. In addition, we have seen situations in which members have deployed the taser outside of the permissible usage scenarios provided for in policy. The commission refers to this expanded and less restrictive use as usage creep. It has resulted in cases wherein individuals who have exhibited behaviours that were clearly non-combative and that could not be classified as actively resistant have been tasered.

I'd like to point out that the commission only receives about one-half of all complaints lodged against the RCMP members annually, because you can file a complaint directly to the RCMP and they can make a resolution. Unless it's appealed, we wouldn't see it. My 144 number shows what we have received. It makes it difficult for the commission to fully appreciate the size and scope of any problem.

Additionally, the commission is aware that the public at large may not fully understand what their rights are with respect to filing a complaint or requesting an appeal. To address this issue, we are making community outreach a priority. We've in fact embarked on a quasi-internal audit of all RCMP-completed complaint records to determine whether complaints, especially use-of-force complaints, are being disposed of in an appropriate manner. We're doing that for the past calendar year.

I can tell you this. I have seen situations where use-of-force complaints, including improper use of tasers, have been informally settled by the RCMP. The thing is, if it's informally settled, the person is not advised of the right of appeal because they mutually agree, so we don't show up, or in some cases the complaint is withdrawn, so it doesn't show up statistically. This, in my view, is inappropriate, as use-of-force complaints are serious allegations and must be processed formally and include the right to seek review by the commission.

You'll note in the material that I think has been handed out to you the use-of-force model the RCMP uses. On it, you'll see our interpretation of where the taser is currently positioned, and you'll see examples of use and where the commission believes the taser should be situated.

For ease of comprehension, you can look at this as being the face of a clock that proceeds from one o'clock through to twelve o'clock. You start off with the least form of intervention, officer presence; moving to verbal interventions; to empty or soft hand, where you direct someone; then they can move to arm locks, at empty hard-hand control. You can have, as you move up, OC pepper spray, taser, batons. Of course, lethal force would be the use of a gun. Then you return, right back to the top of the clock again.

If you look at this particular diagram, you'll note the placement of the RCMP's new policy, which then was modified following our interim report of December 2007. It's at about seven o'clock on the dial. It says, “Previous RCMP policy”. You'll see where it is in terms of use-of-force intervention, and you'll see “Active” resistance and “Passive” resistance. Then you'll see, right above it, “Current RCMP policy”.

You'll notice that both boxes are attached to the same line. In other words, it's my belief that since receipt of my interim report, there has been little difference in the placement of taser use by the RCMP.

When you look at the document where it shows green over here, right after the blue, you'll see a green line. Those are examples, from there on, in which we have seen the taser deployed; in other words, immediately following a verbal intervention without recourse to any other technique. Even under RCMP policy it's supposed to be over here, after you've tried other techniques, such as soft-hand techniques. I've recommended that it be up here, almost about eight o'clock or nine o'clock on the dial, where it would be for a combat situation or a situation in which you would give consideration to using a baton. Instead, it is down here with a mix of other devices.

In my opinion, the RCMP has not gone far enough in implementing my first and second recommendations on where it be placed, and of course on the training and advice to members. This in fact is a significant issue for me.

Central to the debate of RCMP taser use is that employment should be based on the principle of proportionality. The amount of force used should bear some reasonable relationship to the amount of resistance the member is facing.

My interim report made a number of recommendations that encompass broadly three categories. First, the RCMP needs to coordinate and strengthen its efforts related to data collection and analysis of taser use. The RCMP needs to empirically justify policy shifts with respect to taser use, especially when that shift loosens the restriction on deployment.

Third, the RCMP needs to clarify to its members and to the public when it is permissible to deploy the weapon. The commission will release its final taser report in early June of 2008. It's important to know that the final report will not address the medical concerns surrounding taser use. We are cognizant of the wider medical debate, but the commission's mandate and expertise prohibit this kind of specialized analysis. And you'll see if you read the studies, they're all over the place.

Our final report will focus on the following: best practices of law enforcement both nationally and internationally; a comparative analysis across the country of other police forces and their placement of the taser in their use-of-force model; an in-depth analysis of RCMP taser usage reports; and of course the testimony we're hearing today. We'll be tracking that as well.

By the way, I want to underline that the RCMP's cooperation and openness with us have been commendable, both for the interim report and during this stage here, and that relationship is key to our being able to fulfill our mandate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

We'll go over to the official opposition, the Liberal Party, for a seven-minute round of questions and comments.

Mr. Dosanjh, you've indicated you want to lead off.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you very much, all three of you, for being here. Since we don't have too much time, I will get right into it.

I understand from Commissioner Ryneveld's remarks that the Victoria force in the interim report and the final report essentially recommended the same policy the RCMP currently has, the intermediate use of....

If I'm correct, the question I have is for Commissioner Kennedy. You made these recommendations pursuant to a request from the minister. You obviously took into account what you felt were important information and principles, and essentially the RCMP have not done anything on the first two, the most important recommendations you made. What do you intend to do about that?

[Paul E. Kennedy]

Well, like my colleague's, my job is to review and to make recommendations. My recommendations are not binding. Hopefully the document can be persuasive enough that when my final document comes out, the RCMP will look at it and see its merits, and that will cause them to examine their position.

In addition to their being an audience, clearly the minister is an audience for me, because like my counterpart in B.C., the Minister of Public Safety, under the statute, in subsection 5(1), can issue direction to the RCMP. The Commissioner of the RCMP has control and management, but the minister can in fact, if he chooses, issue a directive as to where the device should be placed.

So this is an issue, and I will certainly keep speaking publicly. I'll make my documents public. This is not going away, and at the next unfortunate tasering incident in which someone is killed, we're going to have a firestorm on our hands if no action has been taken. And we haven't seen the end of YouTube. These days everyone has a cellphone that can take films, and you're going to see more of these captured on YouTube.

My concern is that if we don't take appropriate action, there will be an erosion of public confidence in the police, which we can't take. The police need public support.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Commissioner Ryneveld, but if I remember correctly, when Victoria adopted the use of the taser, it at least assured me at that time that it would be used as a replacement for lethal force--at least in the conversations I had. I have no notes to back up anything; I didn't keep any of that information with me. That is essentially what Commissioner Kennedy is now recommending, but not what was recommended by your study or the Victoria Police study.

The problem I have, my concern, is that I agree with Commissioner Kennedy that there has been usage creep, and that the RCMP in particular has been absolutely negligent in the way they have allowed that usage creep to happen. They have not educated the public, and they seem to be acting totally imperviously to the recommendations you made upon being requested by the minister.

I just want to put that on the record, because I believe that's absolutely irresponsible for the RCMP to do. They are a police force that deals with the public, and obviously they need to deal with issues that are important to public safety.

I come to my question to you, which is on the medical aspects of it. You say you have not been asked--that's not your mandate--but that is an important question. In fact, you have the authority to ask that question of yourself and examine the medical aspects of this issue. I would ask you to seriously consider doing that, because nobody else seems to be doing it. We've asked the minster to order a comprehensive national review on these issues and he hasn't done so.

So I would urge you to think about it and tell me if that is within your purview—to ask that question of yourself and then do the study.

[Paul E. Kennedy]

If I could respond, I'm not indifferent to the medical issue, but the documents I've seen are all over the place. What is a factor for me is the impact on people, and there are identified at-risk groups. The at-risk groups would be those who have mental health issues and those who have a lifestyle where they're using drugs, particularly methamphetamine and cocaine. These seem to be the ones who may lend themselves to more frequent encounters with the police. They may, in fact, be the ones who are tasered more often. And because of their lifestyle, they tend to have underlying health challenges. So they tend to be the ones who show up statistically, more often than you would think, in terms of being tasered, and they are also the ones who suffer what is called excited delirium.

I've adopted the default position, without being a doctor, that for me there's enough there in terms of proximal death from a taser application to these high-risk people, where they die sometimes within seconds and minutes, that an average person would say there might be a problem here. I don't think it's fair to put the onus upon counsel for the deceased or someone to bring to an absolute level of perfection of proof that this device caused the death.

I'm working from the assumption that there is a material risk to it, but it is less than the risk associated with someone discharging a firearm at you, and it may be more commensurate with the risk of a person deploying a baton. Police use violence, so that's the view I've taken.

I've identified the high-risk groups as ones, if you look at the cluster of excited delirium, that a police officer would recognize, and unless that individual is posing a physical risk to the officer or to a member of the public or to themselves, don't taser them.

The current policy is crafted almost to suggest that officers should use the tasers in probe mode to put that person down so they can receive medical treatment. Police officers are not doctors, and we're imposing on them one heck of a burden in using a force device that results in death. If the medical response is to do that, I say give it to the paramedic or give it to the doctor, and let them prove that it's a proper medical device.

When the officer uses the device, it should be for public safety issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you. That's a seven-minute round.

The Bloc Québécois is next.

Ms. Thi Lac.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Good day. Thank you for coming here this morning. I have several questions for the witnesses. My first one will be directed to Mr. Ryneveld.

You stated earlier that tasers can be used in either stun mode or probe deployment mode. A number of deaths have occurred recently, although it has yet to be determined if the deaths were directly caused by the taser deployment or whether the victims likely had health problems. While not direct, the link may be indirect.

Have you compiled any statistics on the number of deaths directly linked to taser deployment, whether in stun mode or probe mode?

[Commr Dirk Ryneveld]

If I may, the problem with statistics is that there is no national way of recording all of these things. As a matter of fact, in studies I've read lately, the suggestion is that--especially in the 2004-05 study--the actual amount that's been reported is probably one-tenth of actual use.

I don't have up-to-date statistics on how many deaths have been proximal, but no one has directly linked the deaths with the use of the taser. They often are attributed to pre-existing situations such as excited delirium or other forms of stressors. Some medical reports will tell you that with an electrical charge, basically if you're breathing a few minutes later, any death wasn't related to the electrical charge.

To answer your question directly, I don't have those statistics available.

One thing I do want to say in response to your question is that when you ask about stun mode and probe mode, policing has changed over the years. In the olden days the officers were more upfront and physical with the subject because there wasn't danger from AIDS or there wasn't danger from a number of other things. Now the officers are using distance kinds of applications to subdue subjects more readily. You can understand from a common-sense point of view that it might be for officer safety.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

You stated that a number of tests needed to be carried out. Most tests were ordered and paid for by TASER International. Last week, when I asked an RCMP official if the force had conducted independent tests, I learned that the last tests were done in 2001-2002.

Are you aware of any more recent independent studies, aside from those done by TASER International?

[Commr Dirk Ryneveld]

Are you talking about the taser itself--the output, the amount of zap, as it were? We have been trying since our report--for over two years--to find an independent laboratory capable of doing that. We have been pushing almost on a monthly basis: “When are you going to do it?” The national police research council, I believe, just told us on Friday that within two weeks they will be in a position to actually do an independent test.

There was an interim test done by an agency called Intertek that suggested the taser output was many, many times higher than the advertised amount by Taser International. However, Taser International then hired another agency, called, I think, Exponent, Inc., that then called their testing methods into question, and Intertek backed off and basically said, “We used different criteria, so it would be misleading to use our results.”

We have been unable to find an independent laboratory, and we've been pushing. I don't have a budget of my own to do that, but the police research council have assured us that within two weeks they'll be able to test it.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

As everyone knows, real life situations are very different from controlled situations. The program “Enquête” reported that testing on RCMP members had been suspended because of the high risk they faced. Last week, when I spoke to RCMP officials, I was told that testing had resumed, but in a controlled manner, that is officers were monitored and the tasers were not aimed at any body joints. That's not how things happen in real life. Furthermore, most police officers are in good physical condition.

The fact that we cannot conduct tests on people who may have ingested some illegal substances makes the results even harder to interpret. We cannot ask people to ingest illegal substances just to get them to react in a particular way.

Do the studies that you have confirm my assumptions?

[Commr Dirk Ryneveld]

Well, I think the studies are all over the map. In terms of the results by trainers, for example, some of them say there are no problem. Some of them.... There have been people who have urinated, and some people have lost complete control. There are others who are concerned about the dangers after tasering, such as if it makes you drop to the floor, you're going to have subsequent injuries.

But you're right, the kind of people who are supposed to be tasered, even within Mr. Kennedy's proposal, are the ones you would otherwise have to resort to lethal violence on--pull your gun and shoot them. It is a weapon, and obviously it's a weapon designed to stop people from behaving in such a way as to present a public risk, to the officer, themselves, or other members of the public. The police argument that a lot of lives have been saved by use of the taser is because it was used as an alternative to lethal force.

On your question, though, the subjects in the test results are usually in good shape. Yet there have been complaints by them about burning sensations and other things like that.

The people that police officers find they need to taser are out of control; they are going to do harm. You don't know if they're mentally ill. You don't know if they're on drugs. You don't know whether they have some other predisposition. Yet you can't prevent them.... I mean, what's the alternative? Shooting them? There's definite predictability that there's going to be harm then.

The low incidence of after-tasering adverse effects, by common sense, leads me to think that a taser is a better alternative to lethal force.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

We'll have to move on now.

Ms. Priddy, please.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Thank you very much, and thank you, gentlemen, for being here.

I don't know whether it's coming from British Columbia or not, but tasers, long before the incident at the airport, have been very much in the forefront of the public's mind in terms of their use, and so on.

What I've heard people say today I think is very consistent with what I at least gathered from the witnesses who appeared before us, although they didn't state it in quite that way, and the questions raised by the public about the incredible inconsistency in how tasers are used, recorded, followed up on, decided to be used, and so on, across the country.

As Mr. Kennedy said, people are fairly quick to criticize, perhaps, the RCMP, perhaps in general, but this has eroded confidence enormously, certainly in my province. I say with great pride that I come from a city of 400,000 that is still policed by the RCMP. We've been very pleased with that. But I also know how little faith, in many places, people have. So there is incredible inconsistency in recording, usage, charting, follow-up, all of that, and that has been confirmed by you here today.

The other thing we have not spoken of here is when people read in the paper—and I think we just had one example locally—that an RCMP officer had been charged or there was a complaint and it was found to be fine. I don't doubt that might be the case, but the question of oversight does come up in terms of who is overviewing or overseeing the evaluation. Well, yes, it might be somebody from another police force, but that doesn't necessarily always give the public the greatest sense of confidence—as it doesn't with any profession, by the way—when people of the same profession are reviewing each other. We see that with physicians and many other professionals.

I have several questions that I will leave with you.

I'm very concerned about Mr. Kennedy's comments in two respects. One of them is that nobody has any ability to actually ensure that these recommendations are carried out. We might think the recommendations are great and might be exactly what should be done, and so what? That does worry me.

Also, the health piece worries me. We have found, as Mr. Kennedy has spoken to, that there's a dearth of health research out there. What is there is all over the place. The piece I haven't found in health research is that we all have very different pain thresholds. If somebody has a very low pain threshold, that person is going to have a much more severe reaction to a taser. I don't know what the long-term effects of that kind of really severe pain will be to somebody with a very low pain threshold, because they're getting the same amount of electricity. So the fact that the medical part sits over here and nobody yet has done that worries me quite a bit, because those are the concerns that people raise, or those deaths or those people who have health consequences.

First of all, the interim recommendations have been made. When do you think they should have been acted upon?

Secondly—I'm afraid part of this is medical and part of it is training—did I hear correctly that the Toronto police force must retest every year? The police force in Toronto has to retest or requalify every year, so that would still be an inconsistency with police forces. I would be curious at some stage, and I don't have to have that answer today, why you picked two years when another police force that seems to have handled theirs well picked one year.

Thirdly, around accountability to the public, regarding the quarterly reports you're recommending go to this variety of people, is there any reason they could not be up on a website? Obviously there are no names or places attached. I don't want the public, who are very concerned about this, to have to apply under freedom of information in order to receive more information. So is there any reason that could not be more publicly available? I would certainly recommend that it should be.