Thank you.
You are no doubt the group of witnesses that will be most helpful. Honestly, I would like to spend several hours with you to have a more in-depth discussion. I truly believe you are the people mostly likely to help us make the decisions we need to make, in spite of all the imperfections of politicians, who specialize in everything and nothing all at the same time.
Nevertheless, we have some diverse backgrounds here. I was Quebec's public safety minister for quite a while; our colleague was health minister; that gentleman was an attorney general and a premier, even if he is too humble to say so. On the other side, we have former chiefs of police. But despite all of that, we are still undecided when it comes to the use of tasers.
At the start of the 2000s, when the time came to decide whether or not they would be purchased, tasers were presented as a tool that would save lives, because they would be used in instances when the alternative would be to use a firearm. Clearly, a taser is less dangerous than a firearm. That goes without saying. I thought that tasers would only be used when the use of a firearm would be justified. But I have learned here that this is no longer the case. On the contrary, chiefs of police and the RCMP commissioner told us that the taser was classified in a lower category than firearms—I no longer remember the classifications we were given—but in the category where other instruments were found. I do not remember, but perhaps this could be found in the testimonies. I hate to say it, but it is in the same category as the baton. According to your testimony, you would not put it in that category.
I was aware of one of the things Ms. Hall explained, which I am sure police officers would have brought up. In principle, the firearm is really a last resort. It is also a weapon used as a deterrent. I completely understand that if a police officer is faced with someone who is about to use a weapon, and does not have a taser handy, he cannot—Well, there seems to be a period where there is a bit of a grey area where it would be difficult to justify using the taser.
Did I understand correctly? Right at the beginning, Mr. Butt asked the fundamental question: why have a moratorium on the use of tasers if they are an alternative to the use of lethal force? Personally, I will say with absolutely no hesitation that, if tasers are used only as an alternative to lethal force, there should not be a moratorium.
However, I see that, in practice, a taser is used when the situation could deteriorate into a confrontation. If there are weapons present it is easier, but not in situations that could deteriorate into more dangerous confrontations. That is when we start to worry. The situation at the Vancouver airport is a good example, although we would like to see the full video of what happened. And we will see it. That said, we are worried.
Another possibility is the use in cells. In the past, individuals have been killed at the time of arrest through the use of other immobilization methods. In Quebec, one person died while being arrested by Montreal police. It has also happened in Quebec City. A hockey player was killed, a really big guy, who appeared to be under the influence of drugs. It took almost 10 Quebec City police officers to try to subdue him. I remember that at the time, I was given examples. I was told that Mr. Kordic would still be alive.
Would you agree that we have a good idea of the circumstances in which a taser can be used? It is obvious that if the person is armed and could injure other people around him, the taser is preferable to a firearm.
However—and I would like to hear what you think about this—I think the problem arises in situations that could deteriorate into confrontations and where one of the individuals could be seriously injured or killed.