I'm going to come back to impact weapons. I'm sorry, I only have two minutes. I do want to go to impact weapons.
I just have a concern. All three examples you raised were American examples. The one you cited was a peer review. It was a retrospective study of people who had already been hit by the weapon; it was not a study of the weapon itself. So you're not giving me anything about the weapon itself being tested. The example you gave was a peer review of post-mortems of incidents that have already occurred.
So it is my feeling, sir, that the recommendation has been ignored. The committee was explicit in wanting a Canadian third party study, and it shouldn't take a media organization to force the RCMP to begin testing some of these weapons, in my respectful opinion.
The second point I want to come to is the reclassification of the weapons, which you began getting into, maybe in anticipation of the concern I was going to raise. That recommendation wasn't followed. Obviously Canadians are deeply concerned about this issue. There have been a number of grave injuries and deaths that have involved tasers. And the committee, after studying the issue for a great length of time, made a recommendation for reclassification. This is the first we've heard in response to that. All previous responses were that tasers are here to stay.
Now, I have a question. The use of force continuum is maybe an improvement over what's there, but it certainly isn't going nearly as far as the committee's recommendation for reclassification of the weapon. So can I ask why you have ignored that recommendation and haven't, in fact, moved forward with the reclassification?