The notion of public safety, though, is a very broad one, I think you'd have to agree. Leaving that interpretation to the judgment of an individual officer, despite all the qualifications here, may not satisfy the public. We've seen—not in your force but in the OPP—a recent example where a taser was used on an inmate in custody, a 14-year-old girl, who may have been uncooperative or displaying behaviours that were contrary to the wishes of her custody holders, but we don't want a situation where the terminology and the usage is so open to interpretation that officers can make their individual judgment of what “public safety” involves.
Would you not agree that there ought to be more specific restrictions on whether it's impact weapon? I wasn't part of the committee that chose those particular words, but wouldn't you agree there must be something more specific than what you have now?