Presentation to the Committee on Public Safety and National Security Re: Taser Study

Check against Delivery

March 5, 2008

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to be here today with my counterpart from British Columbia, Mr. Dirk Ryneveld, and my Director of Strategic Policy and Research, Mr. Michael MacDonald.

I would like to first take a few minutes to talk about conducted energy weapons and our role in providing advice to the Minister of Public Safety on this issue.

Please note that while I am concerned with the issue of the conducted energy weapon as a use of force tool, I will refer to the device as the 'taser' during this opening address for ease of reference and based on the fact that the RCMP uses the taser model.

I would then like to turn to how the Commission has historically addressed complaints and appeals related to specific instances where RCMP members have used the taser; and some of the challenges we have experienced.

Finally, I would like to address systemic issues within the RCMP highlighted in our 2007 Interim Taser Report.

In November of last year, the Minister of Public Safety approached the Commission and requested a review of the RCMP's taser protocols, and their implementation and compliance.

This request was the first time, to my knowledge, in the Commission's recent history, that a Minister solicited our advice and assistance on a policing policy issue.

The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP was created by Parliament in October of 1988. Historically, the bulk of the Commission's work concerned the intake of public complaints and the examination of appeals.

The Government recently provided the Commission interim funding, which was used in part for the creation of a new Strategic Policy and Research Division. While still focusing on its core business activities, the Commission is now in a position to examine in greater depth systemic policing issues.

Tasers are one example.

The value-added of the Commission's involvement in such systemic police matters is that we ask the questions that the police typically do not.

This is not due to a singular unwillingness to address issues, but because the Commission, as a civilian oversight body, brings a different perspective to policing issues.

Looking at the issue of tasers, I want to be very clear: the taser is a pain inducing weapon, where application on the human body, unlike a service handgun or baton, leaves very little residual evidence of use.

This device causes intense pain.

Law enforcement, and Taser International, speak to the fact that the taser renders subjects incapacitated and unable to fight back. While this may be true, this is a thoroughly sanitized description of what happens to someone who is subjected to the taser.

What is missing from the debate, and, what concerns the Commission, is that a pain compliance technique is being wholeheartedly advocated without a full appreciation of the impact on the human body or a full understanding of the circumstance in which RCMP members are using the device.

Despite my concerns about the inducement of pain, the Commission recognizes that police work sometimes involves violent encounters with people in order to gain control of a situation.

But this reality must be situated within the broader context of public support, accountability and transparency.

The Commission is not, at this time, recommending a moratorium on taser use by the RCMP. Rather, it is our position that use be restricted to only those situations where the individual is combative or poses a significant risk of death or grievous bodily harm.

There are numerous reviews and inquiries occurring across the country at this time on law enforcement's use of tasers. Our count is approximately 10. This indicates a serious public concern with this weapon.

The Commission has been addressing the issue of taser use by the RCMP since its introduction in late 2001. We have received 144 complaints related to taser use with an additional 21 appeals relating to the deployment or threat of deployment of a taser.

In looking at the 21 ppeals processed, the Commission has made adverse findings when members failed to properly assess the behaviour being presented to them, and then inappropriately categorized the behaviour as more threatening than it actually was.

This inappropriate categorization had the result of elevating the level of intervention beyond what was acceptable according to the RCMP's use of force model. This is the Commission's main concern.

Since the introduction of the taser in 2001, the Commission has seen a policy shift that allows for the use of the weapon in circumstances far less constraining than what was originally proposed. In addition, we have seen situations where members have deployed the taser outside the permissible usage scenarios provided for in policy.

The Commission refers to this expanded and less restrictive use as "usage creep". This has resulted in cases where individuals, who have exhibited behaviours that were clearly non-combative, and which could not be classified as actively resistant, have been tasered.

I would like to point out that the Commission only receives about half of all complaints lodged against RCMP members annually, which makes it difficult for the Commission to fully appreciate the size and scope of any problem. Additionally, the Commission is aware that the public at large may not fully understand what their rights are with respect to filing a complaint or requesting an appeal.

To address this issue we are making community outreach a priority and have embarked on a quasi-internal audit of all RCMP completed complaint records to determine if complaints, especially use of force complaints, are being disposed of in an appropriate manner.

I can tell you this; I have seen situations where use of force complaints, including improper use of tasers, have been informally settled by the RCMP. This, in my view, is inappropriate, as use of force complaints are serious allegations and must be processed formally, including the right to seek review, by the Commission.

You will note in the materials before you the RCMP's use of force model and our interpretation of where the taser is currently positioned; examples of use; and where the Commission believes the taser should be situated.

You will notice the placement of the RCMP's new policy that was modified following our December Interim Report. I argue that there is little difference in the placement of the taser since my Interim Report.

In my opinion, the RCMP has not gone far enough in implementing my first and second recommendation. This is significant.

Central to the debate of RCMP taser use is that deployment should be based on the principle of proportionality: the amount of force used should bear some reasonable relationship to the amount of resistance the member is facing.

My Interim Taser Report made a number of recommendations that encompassed three broad conclusions:

• 1) the RCMP needs to coordinate and strengthen its efforts related to data collection and analysis of taser use;
• 2) the RCMP needs to empirically justify policy shifts with respect to taser use, especially when that shift loosens the restrictions of deployment; and
• 3) the RCMP needs to clarify to its members and to the public when it is permissible to deploy the weapon.

The Commission will release its Final Taser Report in early June 2008.

It is important to note that the Final Report will not address the medical concerns surrounding taser use. Although we are cognizant of the wider medical debate, the Commission's mandate and expertise prohibits this kind of specialized analysis.

Our Final Report will focus on best practices of law enforcement (both nationally and internationally), a comparative analysis across the country of other police forces and their placement of the taser in their use of force models, and finally, an in-depth analysis of RCMP taser usage reports. The testimony heard and expressions of concern voiced from this Committee will also help to inform the Final Report.

I would like to conclude by stating that during the production of my Interim and Final Reports, the level of cooperation and openness of the RCMP has been commendable. Our relationship is good and this has been key in helping us achieve our vision of increasing police excellence through accountability.

Thank you for this opportunity and I look forward to answering your questions.