Public Safety Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'd like to call to order this third meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We have two items of business before us, the first being a motion by one of the members of the committee and the second being planning of future business.

The first question I have for you is whether you would you like to go in camera for this discussion. It's an option. I would like to go in camera for the second part of the meeting, but if you want to remain as is for this part, that's fine.

I will turn the microphone over to Mr. Dosanjh to introduce his motion.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you.

The motion is before you. I'm sure I'm not required to read it, but I'd be happy to read it if you so wish; it's pretty brief. I move that we study the incident involving Robert Dziekanski in Vancouver and invite the representatives of the Canada Border Services Agency, the Vancouver International Airport Authority, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and other parties or interested individuals to make representations to the committee to that effect.

Of course, one of the issues to be discussed would be the tasers, but that wouldn't be the only issue.

I'm suggesting that we invite witnesses. If there's a consensus in the committee, that would be better, but if there's no consensus, we might have to vote on it. A list of witnesses can be put together by the clerk. Some of these people would be representatives of CBSA, RCMP, Transport Canada, the Vancouver International Airport Authority, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and Amnesty International; use of force experts with knowledge of taser use; medical experts or doctors with knowledge of tasers; a representative of the manufacturer of tasers; police training experts with knowledge of the police training manuals for tasers and training generally; perhaps individuals with personal experience of being tasered, such as Matthew Gray or Karen Geldart; and in addition to them, perhaps even some officers who may have had the experience of tasering individuals, so you can hear firsthand from officers and under what circumstances they have used tasers and to what effect.

I know that Bill C-3 is coming before us and that it's a priority, but I'm suggesting that as we do Bill C-3, we do some of this as well before the break. Then, of course, we can come back and finish off after the break, as we do witness protection as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay. Well, you've heard the motion introduced.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Can I just add a few more words?

I think one of the reasons I felt it was important—not to be critical or partisan about this issue—is that we now have several investigations and reviews ongoing. We have the Nova Scotia one, and there's an inquiry in B.C., and all the parties have agreed to cooperate with B.C. We have the chair of the RCMP public complaints commission being asked to look into tasers, and he will look into the use of tasers in the RCMP experience. But I think we need to look, in a comprehensive way, at all the elements that come into play, for instance, at an airport, including the CBSA, the Vancouver International Airport Authority, Transport Canada, the RCMP, and any others, which would be the advantage of us looking at it in addition to the other elements.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay. We'll now entertain discussion. Please indicate to me or the clerk that you wish to speak.

Mr. MacKenzie, please.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Just speaking to the motion, not that we have any objection to the motion, in the sense that we think it's important that Canadians find out the details here.... First of all, as of today, we've heard of another investigation, the one in Nova Scotia.

I do have a copy of the news release from British Columbia, and perhaps the honourable member has read it, but the scope of the inquiry, interestingly, covers almost all of the issues that Mr. Dosanjh mentioned.

It would:

Review the appropriate use and policies currently employed by police in British Columbia with respect to the Taser, and recommend any necessary changes.

A full and comprehensive review of the incident involving Dziekanski, including (but not limited to) the actions of the RCMP, Canadian Border Services and immigration processes and Vancouver airport (YVR).

Provide further recommendations on how procedures can be improved with respect to the handling of foreign passengers coming into British Columbia through YVR.

All I'm thinking is that these are probably almost all of the issues that Mr. Dosanjh has identified that I think we would equally want to know the answers to, but I'm not sure it makes sense that we have two parallel investigations or inquiries ongoing, one here and one there, to get the same answers we're looking for.

I haven't seen what Nova Scotia is talking about with respect to theirs, although I understand the circumstances of that incident are considerably different from this incident.

I'm just wondering if it really does make sense to have two simultaneous inquiries going on, from a legislative perspective there and a parliamentary perspective here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Do you wish to respond?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

If I may, and that may shorten the debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Go ahead.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

It has been my view that what we needed was an independent, public, and comprehensive review of the use of tasers across the country.

I don't believe the British Columbia inquiry will be able to do that. The British Columbia inquiry will be able to proceed with what they want to do because the federal bodies over which they have no jurisdiction have agreed to cooperate with them. It may take longer than two, three, or four months to do this.

This body can actually bring all of the information, knowledge, and experience available from all across the country, from various police forces, from various provinces, and try to set out some concerns that might be national, both for the airports per se and CBSA, and for tasers and the RCMP.

I think in that sense what's missing in the debate generally—and I don't mean to be critical—is the comprehensive, coordinated federal leadership. I think this committee, in a non-partisan kind of way, can provide that.

I don't believe this is going to be a situation where anybody is going to try to score points. That's not my intent. I don't think that's anybody's intent. I think we should just try to do the federal job in a non-partisan kind of way, and I think we can do that.

If we'd had a federal or a national independent review of these issues, including tasers, undertaken by the government, the beauty of that would have been that the rules governing the tasers or recommendations governing the tasers would have been imposed on the RCMP, but other police forces, provincial or municipal, would have been free to take those guidelines and adopt them, so you'd have some hope of uniformity prevailing across the country.

If we can be persuasive in the way we do work, and non-partisan, I think we may be able to accomplish that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay. Our next speaker is Monsieur Ménard.

I gather that you are actually going way beyond your motion now, by what you've suggested, that this be kind of a national study on various things, not just the incident at the airport.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

One can broaden it. We're never limited to what we said before.

My sense is that if you want to study tasers, for that you might want experience from all the jurisdictions, or most of them, across the country. I think it would be useful to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay, because that really changes the dynamics of what you suggested here.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Just so everybody's aware.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I am certain that Mr. Dosanjh is full of good intentions, but he is heading for very slippery ground.

Need I remind you that administration of justice is under provincial jurisdiction? I side with the notion that parliamentary committees have a role to play in reviewing similar incidents, but this happened in the RCMP, a federal police force that undeniably falls under our jurisdiction. As for the idea of expanding this to all police forces and wanting to establish a national policy on the use of Tasers, I think we could accomplish the same thing by discussing best practices, but no more than that.

In any case, would we not just be looking at the way the RCMP should use them? I think that we can also learn from what is being done elsewhere, starting with here in the provinces, before looking to the United States, which has other practices. Here, too, it might be relevant to invite American witnesses who could enlighten us on the subject.

I simply want to warn you that, in my opinion, you are stepping onto slippery ground by wanting to establish a general policy on the use of Tasers by provincial police forces. You are moving into the area of administration of justice, and I will not follow you there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Ms. Priddy, please, if you're ready, go ahead.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to speak to support this motion. There's a piece to this motion that is not explicitly, but I think implicitly, suggested under interested parties or individuals. I have a concern that this is a gentleman who is an immigrant. Vancouver, amongst other cities, has many, many immigrants who fly into that airport. We have, on behalf of Canada, the Olympics coming in two years or two and a half years, when we will have many more immigrants flying into Vancouver. I think part of this review is what supports there are for those individuals who do not have English as a functioning language and how do they find their way around the airport. How do they ask for help if they cannot speak English? How would they know that there were translation services available unless there were big signs posted? I don't think there are.

I think this is implicit in Mr. Dosanjh's motion, that in this specific case, because it is Vancouver, and I think it had a role to play in this, how we accept immigrants at that airport and how we ensure that they get through safely is an important part of looking at this. It's one of the reasons I'm supporting this motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

I have one more person on my list.

Mr. Mayes.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Dosanjh's motion is narrow, whereas his intent is very broad. It says right here, “study the incident involving the tragic death of Robert Dziekanski”. That's what it says. And if we were to pass this motion the way it is, that's all we would be studying. I don't think that's your intent, but that's what the motion says. It doesn't say anything else about any broader issues than that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Are you done, Mr. Mayes?

Go ahead.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I would suggest that you're probably correct. If we really want to make it of general interest and general application, then I think we should say, “study the issues arising out of the tragic death of Robert Dziekanski”. I think that makes it.....

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Ménard is right when he says that this is a provincial.... As far as what's going to happen with this incident is concerned, it's going to be pursued by the Province of British Columbia, and it is out of their jurisdiction. Is that not correct?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

They don't have an ounce of jurisdiction. But everybody is going to cooperate with them.

Can I just add...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Are you amending your own motion, then?