Thank you, Mr. Chair. With respect, I would suggest that a number of the premises advanced by the honourable member are not factually accurate.
First of all, in my opening comments I indicated that I wanted to refer to three studies. I did not indicate that they were the only three studies. I also indicated specifically with respect to one study that it was published in a medical journal and that it was peer reviewed.
I don't believe any of the studies I referred to were actually conducted by police forces. I indicated that we support independent research. We are very supportive of efforts undertaken by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and by the Canadian Police Research Centre.
With respect to the CBC reporting about not the subject matter that I referred to in my opening remarks--that is, the injuries associated with deployment of CEWs--but with respect to the actual performance or output of the device, we are certainly very aware of the CBC study. On learning of the issues raised by the CBC, even before the broadcast of the CBC story, we undertook research. We contracted for CEWs in the RCMP's inventory to be tested. Those tests are being conducted by an independent firm here in Ottawa. To date, we have tested 60 devices. They have been drawn from our inventory across the country. Testing continues.
We are working with many others, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and outside experts, to refine the protocols for testing. We are committed to introducing testing on an ongoing basis with respect to our CEWs.
Lastly, I would say in answer to the question that we have not ignored any of the recommendations in the report. We have not followed the recommendation with respect to impact weapons for reasons I referred to in my remarks.