Public Safety Committee on Feb. 12th, 2009

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Is there somebody at a senior level who would be more appropriate to testify before this committee?

[Commr William Elliott]

I'm sure there are many of them. We gave a very detailed technical briefing to the predecessor committee, where we brought in use of force experts from both the RCMP and the Canadian Police College. We would be very open--in fact anxious--to provide further technical briefings to the committee as a whole or any members of the committee on very short notice. I think it is very important that members of this committee understand the technical aspects of the device, just as it is important for them to understand our policies, training practices, and reporting requirements.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

In terms of recommendation number one of this committee on reclassifying the weapon as an impact weapon, when it was preparing its report this committee visited the RCMP headquarters. Is that correct?

[Commr William Elliott]

That's correct.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

At that time, this report indicates you disagreed with the suggestion that it should be classified as an impact weapon. Do you acknowledge that?

[Commr William Elliott]

In simple terms, we don't classify anything as an impact weapon. It's not a term that is helpful. It's not a term that is in our policy. With the greatest of respect, based on our current policies, it is a misnomer or a red herring. I think the question honourable members should be seized with is whether our policies and practices are appropriate or not. On general principle I would suggest that defining an implement as a prohibited firearm is a more serious definition than the term “impact weapon”.

I don't know what else to say in answer to the honourable member's question. As I understand the thrust of the recommendation, we should further restrict the use of the weapon, and we have done so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

Mr. MacKenzie.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner, I was part of that original committee, and I am very satisfied with what I've heard today. The force has moved completely in the direction of what that committee asked for. Like you, I'm not sure what my friend thinks an impact weapon is. Certainly a fist is an impact weapon at times, and so is a baton. I'm quite satisfied about where you're using it--the whole circumstances.

My friend opposite indicated that there had been no testing in Canada when you talked about the three tests. I found it very difficult to understand the logic there. I suspect that Americans are physiologically the same as Canadians, and the tasers are the same. You also made it very clear that they had been peer-reviewed, which we had asked to be done. With all due respect, I think the member asked disparagingly whether or not the minister had read the report. I would direct him to read your comments. I believe you indicated in them that they had been peer-reviewed.

We talked about the testing of the tasers and the subsequent conversations that took place with the people who did the testing for the news media. Do you know--or is it a fair question to ask--if they would concur that the testing of the equipment you provided from the inventory of the RCMP was within the tolerances they would expect the equipment to have?

[Commr William Elliott]

As I indicated, we have worked with the very same experts as the CBC used, and we have received and listened to their advice with respect to the testing we have undertaken.

Perhaps I could make two very quick points.

First of all, with respect to the Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center test, I stated in my opening remarks that it was published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, a peer-reviewed scientific journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

I do not, however, want to leave any room for the suggestion that I believe the amount of independent study, including peer-reviewed study, with respect to this device is adequate. We are very interested and very actively supportive of further research and further analysis, and part of that is work being undertaken in Canada. We will continue, as I indicated in my opening remarks, to follow and monitor it and to make adjustments as appropriate with respect to our policies and everything associated with our use of the weapon.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, sir. I believe that's the openness that the committee should expect, that things will change: recommendations will change and policy will change. That's part of the reason you have the reporting you have, I believe. It's part of the reason you're going to continue doing the testing. Those were the things this committee, which was active at the time, felt were important: they wanted to know that those things did occur and would occur in the future.

One of the other things you indicated—and someone was not heartened by it—is that the policy is consistent with that of police forces across Canada. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police are in concurrence with the policy. The RCMP frequently take part in joint force operations with municipal and provincial forces across the country. Members interact with each other. Is it important that they each know what the other is going to do?

[Commr William Elliott]

I believe it's very important. Certainly we collaborate more and more with other forces, both with respect to standing capacity, such as IBETs, our border enforcement teams, and also in joint operations across the country. We have in the Lower Mainland in British Columbia, for example, in cooperation with other police forces, established an integrated homicide investigation team. I'm sure members of the committee will be aware of the alarming incidence of violence, including murders, in the Lower Mainland.

I think it's very important that we have common understandings. I'm not suggesting that the IMIM that we have adopted has been adopted universally across the country. We continue to work with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and others with that objective in mind—that is, that we will have more standardization. That helps also with respect to training, and we also want to cooperate with respect to the gathering and analysis of data.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you. That's all I have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

That completes the first series. We'll now start from the top again.

Mr. Holland.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Here's the problem, just so that I'm clear, with the independent third party testing. The centrepiece of what is being presented today concerning that independent third party studying is a study from 2007 done by an obscure Baptist U.S. university. That's what is held out as the centrepiece of testing for Canadian decisions on tasers. This committee asked in mid-2008 for an independent, third party, peer-reviewed study. I don't think they had in mind that you would find some Baptist university in the United States that had done a study. I don't think that's what we had in mind.

Secondly, I don't think we had in mind that you would wait until the CBC phoned you and said there were some problems with some of the devices you were using and then commence initiating a study. I'll be bringing forward a motion with respect to that.

Of course, I was a member of a police services board; I have enormous respect for the work that RCMP officers and anybody on the front line of our police forces does. I recognize the point Mr. Oliphant made, that precisely what makes those people so brave is that they always put public safety ahead of their own safety. That's precisely the point Mr. Oliphant made.

What I'm concerned about, Commissioner--whether you want to call it reclassification or whether you think there's some other term--is that there's ambiguity. There's a lack of clarity going through to the officers. I'll point to your most recent report, which came from the RCMP itself. The report for January to March 2008, your most recent report, said that officers pulled their tasers against one cooperative person and eight passively resistant people. This is very recent. It's certainly a lot more recent than the U.S. Baptist university study. My question to you, in light of the fact that we're getting that many incidents against passively resistant people, against cooperative people, and that this committee made such a strong recommendation about there needing to be....

It's really a leadership issue. It's saying to the force that these are the conditions. And reclassification sends a clear signal to the force about that. There is clearly still ambiguity if we're seeing these instances. If this is working so effectively, why are we continually seeing tasers being pulled against individuals who are either passively resistant or, in this instance, cooperative?

[Commr William Elliott]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I would like to begin by suggesting that in my opinion, the American College of Emergency Physicians could hardly be called obscure.

Second, I believe that the information the honourable member has put forward in fact supports the position that our policies have changed. He cites a report that covers deployments from January 2008 to March 2008. The change that followed the committee's report in June 2008 occurred on June 18, 2008. So as of June 18, 2008, some months after the incidents the honourable member referred to, the RCMP changed its policies to make it clear to our members that they were not to use the CEW in situations in which people were merely being resistant. There had to be a situation of threat. So I believe that the honourable member and the committee will see, in our subsequent reporting, that there will be a decline in, and hopefully an elimination of, situations in which the device is used against resistant or cooperative people. And if those incidents occur, they will occur contrary to policy, and the officers who have been involved in those incidents will be held accountable for not following current RCMP policy.

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

I don't have that, and I continue to have concerns about ambiguity and the report of the committee. We don't have the most recent figures. Those are the most recent figures we have. If you have something more recent, I'd be pleased to look at those.

Given that I only have one minute left, I want to ask a question that's very important with respect to a disturbing case in Ontario that was brought to light with respect to the use of tasers on minors. I know that this practice has been condemned by everybody from Amnesty International through to the provincial advocate for children and youth in Ontario. We know that from 2001 to 2008 there were 90 documented instances of tasers being used on minors. Can you confirm whether the RCMP has ceased the practice of allowing the use of tasers on minors? And can you provide the committee with any incident reports of RCMP taser use on minors in the last two years?

[Commr William Elliott]

I'd be happy to provide the committee with any reports, if there have been such incidents. The RCMP's policy does not prescribe an age of an individual against whom it is appropriate to use a taser. I would suggest that the age of an individual is a factor with respect to what threat they might pose. but it is only a factor. Unfortunately, I would say that there are some people out there who are minors who are very dangerous individuals. I repeat, and our policy requires, that the force used must be necessary, and it must be reasonable in the circumstances.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

I should have mentioned that this will be the last round for every questioner, because we agreed to end slightly early so we can discuss some in camera business.

We'll go to Monsieur Ménard.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Can you give me an idea of the number of RCMP officers currently authorized to use tasers?

[Commr William Elliott]

Twelve thousand officers.

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

Let's get back to recommendation 1. I fully understand your argument on the use of terms. I understand that you would want to use terms which are common to all Canadian police forces and that it would be preferable for us to use these same terms.

In fact, without breaching confidentiality, I can tell you that we had in-depth discussions on the translation of the word “aggressive” by “violent”. In fact, “aggressive” and “agressif” are false friends. In other words they do not have exactly the same meaning in English and in French. This is why, in French, we chose to use the word “violent”.

Moreover, as indicated in the rest of the first recommendation, the committee recommended that the taser only be used in situations where the subject is displaying assaultive behaviour or posing a threat of death or grievous bodily harm to the officer himself or the public.

Do you give officers the same instructions today?

[Commr William Elliott]

The short answer is no.

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

Tell us what you do and why.

[Commr William Elliott]

In situations of death or grievous bodily harm, we believe an appropriate response—I believe this response has been endorsed by the courts—is lethal force. We talked about the importance of officer safety. We do not train our officers to respond with like force with respect to the threat they are facing. We teach them, and we believe it is appropriate, to respond with greater force. So if, with respect to them or another individual, there is a threat of death or grievous bodily harm, we authorize and instruct our officers to use lethal force.

With regard to the taser, all of the evidence we have, incomplete and imperfect as it is, indicates that deploying a taser is far less likely to cause serious injury or death than the use of a firearm. As I have indicated, the only time we would suggest to our officers that they use a taser, if they're facing a threat of death or grievous bodily harm, is if there is someone else there with them providing lethal overwatch and using lethal force if the deployment of the taser does not resolve the situation.

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

I disagree, but let's move on, to issues of mental health among the people you are called to deal with.

Recommendation 5, and recommendation 6, which was in fact an extension of the fifth, provided for improved training of officers with respect to mental health and addiction issues, to make sure their training makes them aware of this reality. It is mainly recommendation 6 which is important. It stipulates that you should call upon psychiatric support services when dealing with an individual who has a mental health or addiction problem.

Are you applying this recommendation or do you not consider it wise to apply it?