Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the committee for inviting me to participate in this debate on the use of non-lethal weapons by Canadian enforcement agencies. I also appreciate the fact that the committee is allowing me to speak in my first language, which I hope will make my remarks easier to understand.
I am an ethicist and philosopher, which means I work in applied philosophy, and, since 2000, applied philosophy of science and technoscience. I am the coordinator of applied engineering ethics courses at the École Polytechnique de Montréal. I am also the current president of the ethics committee for research on human subjects at the École Polytechnique de Montréal. Previously, I had the opportunity to teach public safety ethics for the Sûreté du Québec, the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal and the Laval police. Furthermore, I was a researcher for the Sûreté du Québec on ethics issues. In addition to teaching, I also have experience as a consultant. I provide ethical advice on any kind of problem in many different fields.
The first point I would like to make is that I believe ethics is not a prescriptive system, as many people believe. And it is even less a system of duty and obligation. I think that ethics is about using critical thinking when the norms are not enough. Given the doubt in the decision-making process and the inherent imperfection of the laws, codes and standards that can influence our thinking, I think we are talking about ethical reflection.
I was very pleased to accept your invitation. It is a monumental challenge for me, and I am very humbled to close the period of presentations. At my age, to perform a feat like this in 10 minutes is truly something.
Three main points came to mind rather quickly. First, I would like to talk about the weapon itself. Second, I will speak about its use by police officers. Third, I will also discuss the objectives of police officers in using the taser or a non-lethal weapon. Then, if you would like, you may question me to go into more detail on any issues I bring up. I will bring up a lot of issues, which is not easy to do in 10 minutes.
First, let us talk about the non-lethal weapon itself. The first thing that struck me is that there are a number of definitions for this weapon. As my colleague mentioned, we can talk about an electrical impulse weapon, an electromagnetic weapon, or a handgun. We can also talk about a less-lethal weapon or a less-than-lethal weapon. These terms can be found in articles and in the literature. The term itself is ambiguous. I think it is not just a question of semantics or vocabulary. Do we know exactly what a non-lethal weapon means? Today, we are talking about the taser, which is one commercial example of non-lethal weapons, but they existed before.
I believe the paradox for the average person is whether the weapon is lethal or maybe lethal. Do we know the predictable consequences of its use? For the archetypal “good father” who is trying to determine what the current Civil Code would call “acting as prudent and diligent persons would have”, there is some confusion. What exactly does that mean? During a recent Radio-Canada interview, Quebec's justice minister started out by calling it a weapon, and finished by saying that it was an instrument. What is it, exactly? A weapon, by definition, is not harmless. A weapon and an instrument are not the same thing.
In the United States, police officers who currently use this weapon refuse to call it “non-lethal”, and understandably so. They prefer the term “less lethal” or “less than lethal” because they know that otherwise, if anything happened—an accident or a death—they would be sued.
Police officers are more likely to be protected legally if they use a term that actually represents the object. So, in refusing to use “non-lethal” when referring to the taser, perhaps American police officers know something we do not?
The weapon originated with the military. We must understand that we started using so-called non-lethal weapons because of media coverage of war. People were shocked to see the horrific scenes. We could perhaps go back as far as the Vietnam war. The Canadian people were shocked to see such horrific scenes. I do not think it is over-represented; these are shocking images of war. The armed forces decided that, since they had to deal with media coverage, they would develop non-lethal weapons, which was a good idea in and of itself.
The armed forces found that the intentions of the manufacturer and the user were enough to legitimize the use of this weapon. NATO and the U.S. Department of Defense officially stated in documents that their primary objective was not to kill, and that is why they were going to use a non-lethal weapon.
Whether we like it or not, the expression “non-lethal” seems to mean only one thing to the general population, which is that the weapon is clearly non-lethal, and that it does not kill. The definition of the weapon is a problem, which will have consequences for the public.
The simple fact of justifying a responsibility is not enough when it comes to ethics. In ethics, it is no defence to simply claim there is an intent to make a decision. There must also be the ability to make decisions. Do we have the abilities required to use these tools? Lastly, we must think about responsibility: when I use this object, are the consequences predictable?
If there are unforeseen consequences in a given case, and if that truly is an accident, it is appropriate to use the weapon, provided the individual has the required knowledge and has good intentions. However, if the consequences could be death—there are not enough studies to answer this question—we open the door to irresponsibility. I think it would be ethically indefensible. The intentions of the designer and user—the armed forces, originally—are good, but they are not enough to say that this use is ethically defensible.
My colleagues have provided more information than I can about the research, which is limited and generates a lot of controversy. The inadequacy of scientific studies and independent studies on this subject; the number of trials of the weapon on animals or the scientific validity of the results; and the practically non-existent research concerning the potential effects and consequences on the entire body, including psychological consequences, are questions that remain unanswered, as my colleagues mentioned.
The use of the weapon also raises some fundamental questions. Was the weapon proven to be safe before it was used? Considering Canada's research and ethical certification, it should be necessary to prove that a weapon is safe before putting it on the market. Is it necessary to prove it is safe? Yes. Is it necessary to prove that using the weapon poses no risks? No, because there is no such thing as zero risk.
So, we must think about it, do research and take responsibility for the predictable consequences of our actions. But therein lies the problem. People with different interests will show that death is not a predictable consequence of using a taser.
We hear that this person or that person died three minutes later, 24 hours later, and so on. It is not possible to take responsibility for something that one denies. In searching for a formal, scientific, causal link, we are denying.
I looked at some protocols, for example, the one concerning excited delirium. What should be done when the weapon is used in a case of excited delirium? How should it be used around women and children. At one point, I wondered something rather simple: how can one determine whether a woman is pregnant if she is a prostitute and drug addict and is confused? How will the police determine that?
The concept behind the term “excited delirium” is not very clear. We must not forget that, as my colleagues mentioned, there are several causes for the delirium, such as intoxication, of course, and mental illness. This raises some fundamental questions. Is this the answer when it comes to the least fortunate in our society? There is also talk of those who did not deserve to be tasered. There have been several cases. Twenty cases have been directly associated, but in Montreal, there was one group of cases where the use of this weapon was not necessary. Individuals were passively resisting or were handcuffed, and the use of the weapon was not necessary.
When dealing with individuals with mental illness and multiple substance abuse problems, will our society say that because these people are confused and causing a lot of problems in the street, the taser should be used against them? Is that the kind of society we want? There are less serious cases, but when there is a death during an arrest, a serious investigation is conducted. We want to know the cause of death. If the methods need to be changed, they are. In the case of the taser, this seems rather vague.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also seems to pose a problem. I spoke about objectives. We can also talk about abuse, loss of control and training problems with police officers, but at the end of the day, what kind of police officers do we want?
In conclusion, I will say that I believe it is important to enhance the role of police officers. It is a very difficult and corrosive line of work. I have seen takedowns related to criminal activities—I have been around police officers—and I can tell you that it is a very difficult environment. We expect a lot from our police officers. Their public image is often criticized. That is one of the major problems with the taser.
A fundamental tool for police officers is the quality of the public's trust in them. If that trust is lost, the number of problems associated with the taser will increase.