Public Safety Committee on March 12th, 2008

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

That's what they're reporting. Doesn't that, then, kill the theory that the taser should be used—and we've had witnesses suggest this—on individuals who are in this state, so that they can quickly be calmed down and restrained and given the proper attention? That statistic would seem to fly in the face of that.

[Prof. Pierre Savard]

The main point of my presentation was about cardiovascular disease. On the use of drugs or the presence of this type of disorder, I'm not an expert.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay. But just going from those stats, it seems to me that these people all died as a result of the use of this conducted energy device, and 76% of them prior to that had been in a state of excited delirium. I'm not sure it argues well that the taser should be used on people in a state of excited delirium.

Anyway, I'll come back.

In your presentation, you also talked about the heartbeats per minute, when the taser is applied, being...I think the top range was 137 or thereabout. Now, when I go on my elliptical machine in the morning and I look at the range, 137 is pretty normal, if you're exercising. So 137 beats per minute is not way off the chart, is it?

[Prof. Pierre Savard]

No, you can go higher, to 180 beats; there's no problem with that. When you have a normal heart, there's no problem with increasing the heart rate when it is an organized electrical activation. That's what we call sinus rhythm.

The problem comes when you have the other type of arrhythmia, ventricular tachycardia. You don't have that in people who have a normal heart, who don't have any myocardial infarction, who don't have any Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, or other type of heart disease.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

In your presentation as well, Mr. Savard, you said there's insufficient data to conclude that the taser is completely safe. What I thought I heard Ms. Hall say is that there's insufficient data to conclude that the taser is more dangerous than other interventions—the pepper spray or physical constraints. In other words, I think that in coming at it differently, you're saying similar things: that more data is needed, more study. This would lead one to conclude, it seems to me, that it would not be unreasonable for this committee or the government to say that while there is this uncertainty, the way the taser is applied and the way it's used, in terms of the rules of engagement, should be very carefully constructed.

Would that be a fair comment?

[Prof. Pierre Savard]

My point of view is that police officers already have firearms, which are much more dangerous, but they have learned how to use them. They have a strict protocol of usage of those arms, and I think that's what should happen: we should have a strict protocol for using a taser, such that when you use a taser, you should have to file a report, and it should have to be investigated, just as when you use a firearm—maybe not as much, but there should be this type of association with the use of the taser and a report afterwards.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Ms. Hall?

[Dr. Christine Hall]

I have no problem with that line of reasoning, with a couple of caveats. Those would be that recommendations are easy to make and hard to make sensible.

Take, specifically, the issue of not tasering a pregnant female. How does a police officer know if a 300-pound methamphetamine addict is pregnant or not when she's in a drug-intoxicated state? Not every pregnant female is a 27-year-old soccer mom. Not to be disrespectful, but it's very easy to make recommendations and hard to make them sensible.

It's a similar case with respect to children and to children and tasers; the notion of that terrifies me. But have you seen a 14-year-old boy lately? It's difficult to assess a 14-year-old who's high on cocaine, who weighs 195 pounds, and who's not telling you his age.

So I agree with the principle.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Your point is a valid one, I think, in the sense that it's a catch-22 with respect to a moratorium, where you wouldn't have the ability to collect the data.

I have just one more quick question, if I may, to Ms. Hall. I think this is some of the work you'd like to do more study on, and I hope the federal government will fund some of your research, because I think it's very useful. We'll talk to the parliamentary secretary afterwards.

It's the idea of whether there is a profile—in other words, this business of cause and effect—of what the police or law enforcement call a “client” that would lead law enforcement more easily to use a device like the taser. I think we've touched on some of it: that people in very drug-induced states or people in this state of delirium would necessarily be of the profile that would lead to the use of the taser, which would actually be the kind of profile that would be the problematic one.

Is that the kind of work you're going to do, or do you know the answer to that?

[Dr. Christine Hall]

Yes, exactly, and that's exactly the point.

Sudden in-custody death from 1979 until now has identified a very similar profile of the person who experiences sudden death in custody, regardless of the restraint methodology used. It is nearly universally the violent, incoherent, agitated, semi-clothed, rampantly destructive individual who undergoes struggle in futile resistance. There's no always, no never, but that is the individual who suddenly and without warning dies in custody.

That is not to say that the individual is at a higher risk from taser application, and that's an important point. In 1980, that same type of individual was experiencing sudden in-custody death, and there was no taser to be had.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We really need a lot more time, and we'll have to have the committee decide where we're going to go with this.

I want to thank the witnesses very much for their testimony. I appreciate it.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

I had my name on the list for some questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

There are a whole bunch of people on the list. I'm sorry; we ran out of time.

I want to remind the committee that the whips have to approve the trip we have on the day we come back, March 31. That's not yet happened, so please talk to your whips.

[A voice]

Is it RCMP headquarters?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

It's to go to RCMP headquarters. That has not been approved by the whips.

The other thing is that on April 2 we are departing for Vancouver to continue our study on tasers there. That is just to give you a heads-up.

Is there anything else?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I'd definitely like to try to see if we can get the two Vancouver witnesses in when we're there. It is crazy to get so many witnesses here and not....

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

If we're going to be there, and if we have any time, even if it's an evening....

[The Clerk]

Do you want to add the two doctors to Vancouver?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Yes. They are Dr. Butt and Dr. Hall.

This meeting stands adjourned.