Evidence of meeting #25 for Public Safety and National Security in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was used.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Sister of Robert Bagnell, As an Individual
The science exists. I'm not capable of addressing the science.
4:40 p.m.
Lawyer, As an Individual
There was a study that was conducted in Chicago on pigs, which was quite famous, and one of the people investigating that was a police officer, who was conducting some of those investigations. One of the points they made was that they could not get ethical clearance to do the testing on humans.
One of the points that I think I've always noticed is that nowhere in any of the testing--even where they tested on police officers--do they ever test it by shooting someone directly into the front. They always do the testing.... It seems to me, whenever I've watched it, and I could be corrected--I may be wrong--that I've only ever seen it shot into the back. Typically, the taser is discharged into a police officer's back, and he's usually young and healthy, and they've got a couple of guys standing beside him ready to catch him. In any event, the point is that they're not usually shot into the chest.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville, ON
If I'm correct, Patti Gillman, you recommended a moratorium until we have better knowledge and we have better protocols, etc. I am wondering if Mr. Kosteckyj is also recommending a moratorium.
4:40 p.m.
Lawyer, As an Individual
My position would be this: I would take the police, at the very least, back to where they were supposed to be in the first place, before they instituted what Mr. Kennedy described in his report. I commend that report because it seems to me that it was a very well done report, the initial report about this usage creep. That is the point where the taser has been used at such a low level.
Take it back, at the very least, to the point where it's an alternative to lethal force until such time as the police have either shown that it's safe in other circumstances, or the studies are in, or you've gone to where you've got to go, either by way of a royal commission, as I've heard has been suggested, or that other studies are taking place. In fact, there's one that's starting off with Judge Braidwood in British Columbia--as you probably know--in early May. But I would say that if not a moratorium--I don't know that I'd go that far--at the very least say it's an alternative to lethal force. Use it there, and prove where it should be used elsewhere.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville, ON
Mr. Kosteckyj, I think that most forces that have adopted the taser have adopted it with that phrase: it's the last force before lethal force. But now we have ten years' experience, and we can see that when people have that extra weapon, they're pulling it out way too often. They are not following these protocols, and therefore we could bring in a new protocol. We really don't have the authority, but we could say something is the national protocol, and my guess is that three or four years down the road we'd be into this usage creep all over again, because people are human and it's a nice alternative to actually having to take somebody down physically to get handcuffs on them. It's a lot neater for the police.
4:40 p.m.
Lawyer, As an Individual
With all due respect, we're in a sad circumstance if Parliament can't control our police officers and actually tell them what they're required to do. If we've got that problem, we've got a bigger problem in this country.
This is a democracy, but at the end of the day, the buck stops here, at Parliament. If our police officers aren't going to follow those instructions, it's time to get new ones. That starts at the top and works its way down. That would be my point.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Penny Priddy NDP Surrey North, BC
Perhaps just in expansion of the continuum of force piece, which you would both have looked at, we've been told that it was introduced originally--and it was in B.C.--as the next alternative to a lethal weapon, although there seems to be some debate about this.
I just read in my own local paper that it's being used by transit police and has occasionally been used on people who are escaping fare evasion. I wouldn't think that if you were escaping fare evasion on a sky train or subway that someone would pull out a gun and shoot you, but they are using a taser.
So that doesn't fit at all with my understanding of where it fits in the continuum of force. If those are the circumstances under which we're finding it used, then it reinforces what I think people have said about that usage creep or taser creep.
Thank you.
4:45 p.m.
Sister of Robert Bagnell, As an Individual
I think we are heading in the direction of the U.S. style of cowboy policing. They need to be reined in.
April 16th, 2008 / 4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Good day, everyone.
I want to thank you for coming here to meet with the committee members. I also want to offer you my sincere condolences, as well as to your families, on the death of your brother and son, respectively. I also want to salute your courage and above all your commitment to seeking answers with regard to the events which have befallen you and your respective families, and to the quest to enlighten our committee in our current study on the use of the taser.
The Bloc Québécois was the first party to demand a moratorium on using the taser gun. We know that, in general, the police are there to protect the public. We must salute the work of the majority of police officers; they do an excellent job. Nevertheless, we gave them a very dangerous weapon and told them this weapon was the solution and not dangerous, and this is the problem. During training sessions, police officers were told that this was a harmless tool to replace a gun.
My colleague Mr. Ménard has asked for an independent and objective inquiry. Two weeks ago, during our trip to Vancouver, I asked a question of one of the witnesses with regard to an almost absurd situation. In fact, I reminded him that in the riding next to mine, a taser had been seized one week earlier. There is always a black market for any weapon.
I asked the witness the following question: if a criminal repeatedly used a taser in order to inflict injury on an individual or even kill them, would the autopsy reveal beyond any shadow of a doubt that that person had been murdered? The answer was no. It's quite absurd to say that a weapon is safe without being able to say with certainty that an individual has been killed, knowing that that individual has died as a result of that weapon being discharged several times.
I think that my comment is in keeping with what your families have said. Until we have determined that this weapon poses no danger, we must demand a moratorium and for an independent and objective inquiry to be undertaken in Canada on the use of the taser.
In closing, I want to salute your courage again. I encourage you to continue to speak out, because this will help our committee. Your testimony and your commitment will be very valuable not only for our committee, but also to raise awareness of this situation throughout Canada. Thank you very much.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Roy Cullen
Does anyone want to add any comments?
I think that's it, then. We can wrap it up.
Ms. Gillman, I notice you mentioned the Canadian Standards Association, whose head office is in my riding. I'll be asking them if this would be something they could do. I know there have been concerns by members of the committee that the product, the taser, hasn't been tested in Canada as much as it might have been.
The committee is appreciative of what you've told us here today. We respect and value your contribution and your courage for being here, as my colleagues mentioned, to relive this again. We are very much seized with this issue. We're looking for answers, and we want to come up with some recommendations that will deal with this question. Again, thank you for coming.
I'm going to suspend this meeting for a few moments to clear the room. We'll go in camera for a while to deal with a couple of matters.
Thank you.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
