Public Safety Committee on April 21st, 2009

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

You say you tried to do that, but, no, nothing was written.

[Commr William Elliott]

Honestly, I must say I don't understand. The policy is very clear. The words “reasonable” and “necessary” are in the present policy. They are reinforced in our public communications and within the RCMP.

In our training and in our now annual re-certification, first of all, there is a whole body of instruction telling our members that if they can avoid the use of force, not to use force at all. There is a common approach with respect to all use of force and doing only what is necessary in the circumstances. There is no prescription with respect to what the right amount of force is, what the number of times of the application of force is. The force to be used should be only what is necessary and, as I said, by de-escalation, by talking things through, by doing a number of things. If we can avoid the use of force or minimize the use of force, that is what we instruct our officers to do.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

In what situation can an officer use his weapon repeatedly?

[Commr William Elliott]

In circumstances which require that in order to deal with the threat posed to him or to the public. I guess you could pose another question: under what circumstances would it be reasonable for an officer to punch an individual more than once and what is the right number with respect to how many times an officer should punch an individual? Is it once, twice, five times, fifteen times, twenty times? The answer comes back to “it depends upon the circumstances”.

What we teach our officers to do is to use only the amount of force that they are compelled to use. That is what we teach with respect to the use of their hands. That is what we teach them with respect to the use of a baton. That is what we teach with respect to the use of a firearm, except that obviously any use of a firearm brings with it a very significant risk of serious injury and death.

There is no simple or universal prescription with respect to once, twice, three times, or five times. We are certainly very concerned about multiple use of the CEW, which is why we stress the risks and why we have in our policy, as we have had, the statement with respect to risks of multiple deployments. That's why we're working with the CPC and others to examine every situation where the CEW is deployed, including multiple deployments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Mr. Harris, please.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Commissioner, for your willingness to come back and be part of this accountability session on your force's policy.

I will suggest at the outset, though, that to add the words “necessary” and “reasonable” to constraints on the use of force is not really something new. I don't know if it was ever the policy of the RCMP to have unnecessary or unreasonable force used in the operation of its duties, so that really doesn't help at all. I'll just leave that to one side for a moment.

When you appeared before us on February 18, your explanation of the change in the policy was that you were suggesting, as you did on February 18, that weapons would only be used when it was necessary to do so in the circumstance of threats to what was called “officer or public safety”. I had some concerns about the public safety notion because, again, it's all up in the air.

That same day, the minister, Mr. Van Loan, kind of had the same interpretation that we did, I guess, which was that the RCMP has set a new policy, a clear message, that tasers are to be used only in situations where they assess there's a real threat, not simply to deal with someone who is unruly. The device was to mean fewer people are exposed to actually being dealt with by a gun. That was kind of in accordance with my understanding of what you had to say.

When we looked at it, that very same day one of your members was on national television describing an incident where the use of a taser was deemed to be appropriate where someone was intoxicated, in handcuffs, and lying on the ground. The use of the taser was prescribed to get this guy into the car because there might have been a potential threat from some other people who might have been around the area.

I have a real problem with the clarity of the policy, both as you expressed it and also as written. Your new policy, like the old one, says that the taser was approved for RCMP use as an “intervention option to control individuals and avert injury to members and the public”. That's number 1.1 of your policy. Some of the other aspects of it later on talk about assessment of the totality of the circumstances, etc. They use the term “public safety”, which is very general.

I want to know this specifically: are you prepared to commit to a strict prohibition on the use of tasers for the purposes of restraint? This is not just for active restraint, or combative, but restraint whether it's active or passive. As you say, it's a prohibited weapon. Are you prepared to say that this not a weapon that is to be used for the purpose of restraint, but only to avert, as our committee has said, a threat of death or grievous bodily harm to the police, himself, or the public?

[Commr William Elliott]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, with respect to a commitment to provide in our policy that the CEW is not to be used as a restraint device, that is certainly something I can do because of our current policy. I quote the note under section 3.1.5 that reads, “The CEW is not intended as a restraint device”.

With respect to a number of the other things raised, again, you have to take into account the totality of the circumstances. I agree with Mr. Harris that the notions of reasonableness and necessary force are not new. In fact, that is a point I made when I was before the committee the last time. Those are tests the courts have a lot of experience in applying.

I think what is new is the increased emphasis in all of what we have said and done with respect to the assessment of risks. Certainly, there is a heightened awareness, on behalf of the RCMP and our members, of the risks associated with the CEW and the risks associated with multiple deployments of the CEW.

Lastly, with respect to your question, Mr. Harris, about the appropriate threshold, as I said when I was at the committee before, we do not believe that the appropriate threshold with respect to the CEW is exclusively situations involving death or grievous bodily harm. The appropriate response when there is an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm is to use firearms, conventional firearms, that is, to shoot people.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

That's not the intention when the taser was brought in.

Your statement in your policy that says “it's not intended as a restraint device” is not the same as “it's not to be used as a restraint device”. I think there's a distinction there.

The second point I want to make is in relation to our recommendation 2, this committee's recommendation, that the policy be revised to include clear and strict usage guidelines that would include clear restrictions on multiple discharge. Your policy does not. It may warn of the concerns, but it does not provide clear restrictions on multiple discharges.

Are you prepared to agree that there ought to be restrictions on multiple discharges similar to those proposed by biomedical engineer Pierre Savard, of the École Polytechnique, in that exposure to one or two shocks and not more than 20 seconds in total would be an appropriate restriction on the use of tasers, not just stressing that there are problems if you use them for repeated cycling or multiple uses?

[Commr William Elliott]

I think the short answer is no. I don't think that is an appropriate restriction, because, as I said, you really have to teach officers to make good decisions based on the situation they are actually encountering. As I said, we are paying close attention to the deployment of CEWs, including multiple restrictions, and we have put an increased emphasis on supervisors to review each and every situation in which a deployment was made.

I am not suggesting that the current language of our policy is perfect and I am certainly not suggesting that we're not prepared to look at further changes to the policy. I talked about the comparison of our policy with the policies of other police forces. The United Kingdom has done extensive work with respect to CEWs. They warn specifically in their policy against the notion of being overly prescriptive, but they do have provisions, not specifically time-related or number-related, and they have a longer description of risks associated with the CEW, including multiple deployments.

We'll certainly look at further amendments to our policy in that regard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

We'll go now to the government side, with Mr. Rathgeber, please.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner, for your attendance before the committee again.

Unlike my friend, Mr. Holland, I do accept your representation that the new policy regarding CEWs is more restrictive than previously, but I would like a little bit of clarification.

The first issue that I would like clarified is this one. Mr. Holland indicated that RCMP trainees were trained at depot for 16 weeks. I understand that new recruits are actually in Regina for six months. Is my understanding correct?

[Commr William Elliott]

Your understanding is closer to the mark. The current period of training at depot is 24 weeks. That is followed by six months in the field where recruits work with a trainer, a more experienced officer. Certainly, training, including recurrent training--that is, training on the use of force--continues throughout the careers of all our officers. It occurs at least annually with respect to CEWs and the use of force more generally, including firearms, but it also includes specialized training.

Certainly, we would review training and policies whenever a situation arose where there were any concerns raised by us, the public, or the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP with respect to the appropriateness of what our officers may have done in any given situation.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

That training occurs in the field?

[Commr William Elliott]

Yes.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

On indicating that the CEW is not intended to be used as a restraint device--and the memo goes on to indicate that medical assistance ought to be brought in when necessary and other protocols--is that going to require further training?

[Commr William Elliott]

Certainly, our officers are all trained, including licensing, in CEW, but more generally with respect to first aid and the requirements to provide medical assistance or to get medical assistance for members of the public.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I'm very curious about this training and I'm glad to see it's going to be done annually as opposed to every three years.

In your opening comments, you talked about theoretical and practical components. Could you, or perhaps Deputy Commissioner Madill, walk me through some of the theoretical and practical components that an individual is exposed to before one is qualified to use a CEW?

[Assistant Commissioner Darrell Madill, Deputy Commissioner, Community, Contract and Aboriginal Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

I'm not a trainer myself, so I'll just provide you with what I understand are some of the key functions.

From a theoretical perspective, the members are trained about how the weapon, the CEW, actually functions. They understand some of the electrical issues around it—the battery, the use of batteries, and that kind of thing. That's some of the theoretical training.

When they get into the practical training, they focus on actual deployment, unholstering, and the kinds of circumstances the CEW is intended for. They reinforce the training that's identified in the new policy enhancements. Also, very importantly, they do scenario-based training, wherein information from previous deployments—things we've understood from the CEW reports that we get from every member on deployment—is used to provide scenario-based training.

As the commissioner said, we are continually looking for mechanisms to make our use of the weapon more current, more relevant, and safer for Canadians and for our members.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you.

Does the medical training of an officer include how to deal with what you defined as acutely agitated or delirious persons and how that person might interact if they're subject to a CEW?

[A/Commr Darrell Madill]

What that's all about is the different types of behaviours the member may deal with.

As the commissioner said, it's not expected that members provide a diagnosis. In fact, the situations our members face are extremely dynamic and sometimes very, very violent. It's not about prescribing what could or should happen; it's all about providing the members the tools, the understanding, and the experience so that they can perform their duties in a safe manner. What we've done at the divisional level is incorporate EMS personnel in some of our training, and we have incorporated some of the responses.

To get right to the point of whether they're trained in identifying acutely agitated people, whatever the definition of the day is for that, no: they train to behaviours.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you.

Finally, I understand that the new policy restricts the device to the X26E model and discontinues the employment of the M26. I was wondering--technically--why the decision was made to no longer use the M26.

[Commr William Elliott]

That's not completely accurate. What it indicates is that we will buy only the newer model and will phase out the older models. In fact, today and certainly for a while, we will continue to deploy both models in the field. There are a number of reasons why the new model is preferred. Those include that it is smaller and delivers less energy than the previous model.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Is there a cost differential between the two models?

[A/Commr Darrell Madill]

There is. The X26 is more expensive.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you.