Public Safety Committee on April 21st, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I want to thank the witnesses. Thank you. We appreciate your testimony.

We're going to suspend this committee for a brief time to allow our witnesses to excuse themselves and then we'll begin the next hour of our session.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'd like to reconvene this meeting.

I'd like to welcome, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Commissioner William Elliott.

We are conducting this study in this extra hour as a result of the motion that was brought forward. The study concerns the issue of tasers.

Again, we'd like to welcome you, sir. As per our usual practice, we'll allow you an opening statement of approximately 10 minutes and then we'll go to questions and comments.

Thank you very much.

[Commissioner William Elliott, Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Today I am accompanied by my colleague, Deputy Commissioner Darrell Madill, who appeared before you last time. I am happy to be here. I welcome the opportunity to appear again before this committee to talk about the work of the RCMP, and to expand on the information I provided during my last appearance.

The RCMP's use of force, including the use of conducted energy weapons, or CEWs, is an important and complex matter that understandably is of concern to members of this committee and to the public, whom we are all sworn to serve.

We recognize that in a democratic society public scrutiny is a fundamental aspect of maintaining the accountability of public institutions. This certainly applies to the police, who should be and are in fact held to a very high standard, given our extraordinary powers and obligations to enforce the law and protect the peace. The RCMP fully expects--and indeed welcomes--scrutiny by parliamentarians and others.

The RCMP's ability to provide effective policing services depends on the support of the communities we serve. We believe that the more the public knows about the work we do and the challenges we face, the more likely they are to support us, despite our shortcomings and despite the fact that, try as we might, sometimes we make mistakes.

The RCMP and I, as commissioner, are dedicated to working as hard as we can to ensure that we provide quality police services to Canadians in ways that respect and reflect the values that Canadians and the force hold dear. The RCMP's values include honesty, integrity, professionalism, compassion, respect, and accountability. An important aspect of our accountability is our interaction with Parliament and with parliamentarians, so as I said, I am happy to be here.

The RCMP is also committed to continuous learning and continuous improvement, including in relation to our policies.

I told you that the RCMP's revised policy restricts the use of CEWs and specifically warns of the hazards of multiple deployment or continuous cycling of the CEW.

As I outlined during my previous appearance, the RCMP has taken significant steps to improve our policies relating to CEWs, as well as associated training and reporting requirements. An important factor in this work has been this committee's recommendations in its June 2008 report.

The last time I was before you, I talked about the improvements we have made to our incident management intervention model, policy amendments that further restrict the use of CEWs, and enhanced reporting and more frequent re-certification requirements for those trained to use CEWs.

As a learning organization, the RCMP monitors its policies, procedures, and training on an ongoing basis to identify areas for improvement. Since its inception in 2001, the RCMP's CEW policy has undergone a number of updates and amendments. In June 2008, we directed that the CEW must only be used where there is a threat to public or officer safety. This and other restrictions and enhancements to the policy were subsequently incorporated in the RCMP's current CEW policy, which was published on February 23 of this year.

I'd like to take a few minutes to highlight a few of the significant changes in the policy that restrict the use of the CEW beyond what was provided in the previous policy. These changes and the policy itself do not stand alone, but rather are linked with and relate to our training, including our certification and re-certification of RCMP officers authorized to use a CEW.

Let me start with section 3.1.1, which provides that, “The CEW must only be used in accordance with CEW training, the principles of the incident management intervention model”—or IMIM, as we call it—“and in response to a threat to public or officer safety as determined by a member's assessment of the totality of the circumstances being encountered”.

This is a fundamental provision that underpins all elements of the policy. It directs that the CEW may only be used where a member has assessed all the factors of the situation and has concluded that there is a threat to public or officer safety. The section goes on to set out specific reporting requirements when a CEW is deployed.

The section goes on to set out specific reporting requirements when a CEW is deployed. The measures taken by RCMP members must be reasonable and any force used must be necessary in the circumstances.

I repeat: the policy provides that “a member's actions must be reasonable and the force used must be necessary in the circumstances”.

Language was added to enhance accountability, both for the officer deploying the CEW and for the supervisor. It places responsibility on members to properly report and articulate their actions following CEW deployments. It also makes supervisors accountable for reviewing each deployment and ensuring compliance with policy.

Section 3.1.2 of the new policy adds to this, directing that “all members must recognize that any use of force entails risk”.

This is followed by section 3.1.3, which clearly warns that “multiple deployment or continuous cycling of the CEW may be hazardous to a subject”. With any prolonged struggle, the potential for injury increases. The objective is to reduce the potential of injury by reducing the exposure to the CEW either through multiple deployments or continuous cycling.

This provision is fortified by the addition of section 3.1.5, which directs members to take control of a suspect as soon as possible during a CEW deployment and clearly indicates that the CEW is not intended as a restraint device.

Finally, section 3.1.4 cautions that:

Acutely agitated or delirious persons may be at high risk of death. If an individual is in an acutely agitated or delirious state, and whenever possible when responding to reports of violent individuals, request the assistance of emergency medical services. If possible, bring medical assistance to the scene.

The section was changed due to a lack of consensus within the medical community regarding the term “excited delirium”. With the revised wording, the policy is now more encompassing and also eliminates any perception that members are being asked to make a medical diagnosis.

In considering all of this, it is important to note that only appropriately trained RCMP members are authorized to use the CEW, and RCMP policy has been changed to require yearly mandatory re-certification of these officers. Previously, the requirement was re-certification every three years.

The RCMP's training standard for CEWs is comprehensive, includes theoretical and practical components, and makes use of scenario-based training. It is important to note that before being trained to use a CEW, all RCMP members are taught the incident management intervention model, which guides them in their decision-making process. The IMIM helps police officers choose appropriate intervention options.

We have also developed a new subject behaviour officer response, or SBOR, reporting tool for reporting the use-of-force incidents, which is currently being piloted. SBOR will be used to report on all use-of-force incidents, not just those involving a CEW. This new reporting process will help members record relevant details following incidents, and will provide useful data for future analysis. It will also aid the articulation of the circumstances that led officers to decide to resort to the use of force.

I'd like to stress again that the RCMP believes that when properly used in appropriate situations by officers who are well trained, the CEW contributes overall to the safety and security of the public and police. It has been used in situations where, in its absence, police officers might have had to resort to greater force.

The RCMP strives to be a learning organization and to improve our services to Canadians on an ongoing basis. In fact, the story of today's RCMP includes a sincere commitment to change, renewal, and growth. While fully recognizing that there is more to do, we are proud that our comprehensive transformation initiative is progressing well, as confirmed by two reports to date by the Reform Implementation Council, an independent panel appointed to advise and report on renewal in the RCMP.

Perhaps on another occasion, Mr. Chairman, you will invite me to come back before the committee to speak further about our transformation initiative. Today, I know you're interested in learning more about our CEW policy, so I'll end there.

My colleague, Deputy Commissioner Madill, and I would be happy to respond to any questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much, sir.

As is the usual practice, we'll begin with the Liberal Party.

Mr. Holland.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner, for appearing before the committee today.

Commissioner, I'm particularly concerned with a couple of items I'm going to ask for your help on. We know that while there's been a decrease in the use of tasers, certainly one of the things Mr. Kennedy has noted is that it's his belief that the reason for this is more because of all the media coverage--Mr. Dziekanski and the horrible incident that occurred in the Vancouver airport--and less because of policy.

In fact, one of the things that I think particularly concerned the committee was when you said that “the RCMP's revised CEW policy restricts the use of CEWs and specifically warns of the hazards of multiple deployment or continuous cycling of” the conducted energy weapons.

Now, when you said that, the committee was left with the impression that there in fact had been a tightening around multiple deployment of tasers. In fact, it is a very large issue that in 2008, according to the most recent statistics, there were 16 people who were tasered five or more times consecutively.

Yet when we take a look at the actual policy, it has changed. There has been a deletion of this clause: “Unless situational factors dictate otherwise, do not cycle the CEW repeatedly, or more than 15 - 20 seconds at a time against a subject”. That was deleted.

The earlier section, which you referred to as though it were a change, was there previously: “Multiple deployment or continuous cycling of the CEW may be hazardous to a subject”. That was there previously. We've seen reports that have shown that lethality increases the more times a taser is used, but the biggest change when it comes to this critical issue is that the section that specifically warns against that and says that it's not to be done is deleted.

So why did you lead the committee to believe that it had been made tighter when in fact the opposite was true and when one of the more essential provisions restricting that happening was deleted?

[Commr William Elliott]

Thank you very much for the question.

I certainly agree, as I said in my opening remarks, that our policy and our practices are very important, and it's important for us to foster an understanding of them. I'm happy to have the opportunity to come back to provide further information.

I stand by my statement that, overall, our current policy and all of the things associated with our current policy, which, as I said, include the revised IMIM and all of the training associated with CEWs and the reporting requirements, is a more restrictive policy than in the past.

Certainly, the issue with respect to multiple deployments is very important and you asked a straightforward question: why was it removed? I will try to answer that question in a straightforward way, but I will tell you that there are a number of reasons for that. Again, I premised my remarks by suggesting that you need to look at everything in totality.

I will tell you my reaction when I first read the policy and read the previous provision with respect to exposures of 15 or 20 seconds. Having been tasered myself for a very short period of time, I can tell you that I was surprised and concerned to see a provision that, on its face, might suggest that a deployment of 15 or 20 seconds would be a normal or usual deployment. I think we also must look at the policy that talks about risks.

Certainly, I would agree that our members are very much more aware of risks associated with using the CEW, including for long periods of time and multiple deployments, as a result of all that has gone on. I think members of Parliament and this committee have played a role in that. The media, as you suggest, has certainly played a role in that. I think our training and policies certainly have played a role in that as well.

I think it's important to look at the IMIM that is specifically referenced in the policy. There are a number of principles set out in that. Those principles include that the primary objective of any intervention is public safety—

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Commissioner, I'm sorry. I apologize, but we have very limited time. You passed over, I think, the really important part, which is, again, that since Mr. Dziekanski, 16 individuals have been tasered five or more times. The provision that read “do not cycle the CEW repeatedly” has been deleted.

You referenced the 15 to 20 seconds. I want to know specifically why the clause that said “do not cycle the” conducted energy weapon “repeatedly” was deleted.

[Commr William Elliott]

With respect, I wish that all of this were simple, but it is not simple. I am trying to explain what our current policy is and why we changed it the way we changed it. As I said, it relates to our policy, it relates to the IMIM, it relates to our training, and it relates to our desire to have commonality in approaches between the RCMP and other police forces.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Let me try the issue of training, because one of the things that concerns me when you talk about training is that at depot when RCMP officers get their 16 weeks of training, conducted energy weapons are not part of the training. When they have their training exercises and drills and they look at the continuum of force, they know when to deploy pepper spray and they know when they're supposed to pull their weapon. They're trained against all of these scenarios.

Tasers, conducted energy weapons, are not part of that training. That training happens independently after the training that's done at depot. How can the officer have that experience contextualized when all their training with respect to conducted energy weapons is done after they've received their training at depot?

[Commr William Elliott]

With respect, Mr. Chairman, my understanding was that the central reason why you asked me to come back before the committee was to explain the change in the policy specifically related to multiple deployments.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Okay. Let me ask this question, then, because this is an important one.

I'm just on my last question, Mr. Chair.

This was your quote in committee the last time you appeared, on February 12: “The RCMP's revised CEW policy underscores that there are risks associated with the deployment of the device and emphasizes that those risks include the risk of death...”. Immediately afterwards, you were quoted in the paper as stating that conducted energy weapons can be “an effective weapon for controlling situations without causing major injury or harm”.

Can you clarify for the committee whether or not, in your opinion, conducted energy weapons can cause death?

[Commr William Elliott]

As I stated.... And I would counsel the honourable member and others to not necessarily believe everything you see in the paper.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Okay, just say yes or no, Commissioner.

[Commr William Elliott]

Again, Mr. Holland, I wish the world was as simple as yes or no--

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Do they cause death or don't they?

[Commr William Elliott]

I do not believe that there is any evidence directly linking the deployment of a CEW to a death. I do believe that there are risks associated with the use of force, and I believe that the risks associated with the use of force include death.

That's what I have communicated. That's what we teach our members. This is really a question for medical experts in specific cases. We've reviewed many specific cases and I am not aware of any incident in this country or elsewhere where there has been a direct causal connection between the deployment of a CEW and the death of an individual.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We'll have to move on to the Bloc Québécois now.

Ms. Lavallée.

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

Thank you very much for being here this morning, Mr. Elliott. However, I must say that I don't understand much of what you are saying. I understand very well, however, that we have invited you today because you have a former policy that was a kind of warning. I'm going to take the time to read it; it was your section 3.1.3:

(1) 3.1.3 Multiple deployment or continuous cycling of the CEW may be hazardous to a subject. (2) Unless situational factors dictate otherwise, do not cycle the CEW repeatedly, no more than 15-20 seconds at a time, against a subject.

So it was clear. Now we find ourselves with a new policy, dating back approximately two months, which reads as follows:

(3) Multiple deployment or continuous cycling of the CEW may be hazardous to a subject.

So the warning in your new policy is less precise. In fact, there isn't any warning. It simply states that it may be hazardous. That's not a tightening. On the contrary, it's a broadening of the possibility of multiple deployment. What I understand is that you chose not to explain it to us in your opening statement, whereas you should have explained it to us more precisely. I sense that you're beating about the bush.

Tell me why you changed your mind and why that change was included in your policy.

[Commr William Elliott]

With respect, there was a warning in the policy and there continues to be a warning in the policy. There was a reference to 15 or 20 seconds. That reference is no longer there. Perhaps I could continue to explain the overall policy, our overall approach, and what it is that members are trained and expected to do.

Again, I refer to the policy. The policy indicates that the force used must be necessary in the circumstances and the force used must be reasonable. I was referring to the principles of the IMIM, which provide that: it must always be applied in the context of a careful risk assessment; the risk assessment must take into account the likelihood and extent of loss of life, injury, and damage; the best strategy is the least intervention necessary to manage risk; and the best intervention causes the least harm or damage.

In the totality of what we have said, what we have written, and what we instruct, we have made our members more aware of the risks associated with the use of CEWs, including being more aware of the risks associated with multiple tasering. I commented as well when I was before you on our desire to not be overly prescriptive in our policy and commented that there were benefits to having similar approaches across law enforcement.

We've looked at other police policies. With respect to specific restrictions, the approach we have used is similar to that used by the Toronto Police Service, the Halifax police service, the Peel police service, the Ontario Provincial Police, and by Edmonton, to name a few examples. Calgary, in its policy, has an approach similar to the previous version of our policy.

Mr. Holland, in his question, actually raised a very important matter, which is how our training and our policies associated with CEWs relate to our training and policies with respect to the use of force overall. We do not prescribe in our policies, for example, how many times at minimum or maximum it is permissible or advisable to strike someone with a baton. As I said, when I read the policy, the provision of 15 or 20 seconds.... In fact, I was concerned that it suggested that such use was normal or to be expected. The truth of the matter is there is no prescription--

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

Pardon me for interrupting you, but my time is limited. I want to get back to essentials. Your old policy stated that there should be no multiple deployment of the CEW. However, now nothing is written in your new policy; that sentence has been deleted. Does that mean that you agree to multiple deployments of the CEW by officers?

[Commr William Elliott]

Yes, officers can use the CEW repeatedly if it is necessary and reasonable in the circumstances to do so.

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

Why didn't you write it that way?

[Commr William Elliott]

With respect, Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what we have attempted to do in the policy.

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

Nothing was written.

Is my time up?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You have one minute.