November 13, 2002                                                                       PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE


The Committee met at 9:30 a.m. in room 5083.

CHAIR (Mr. Sullivan): Order, please!

Just for the benefit of the media who are here - I know some came in yesterday after the hearing started too - if there are any photographs or footage, it should be done prior to, during or after a break in the session.

I would like to do introductions first of all. Just prior to that, make sure prior to speaking that you press on the top button here and press it again when you are finished, because it creates a bit of a problem, especially for Hansard and recording purposes, when we do not know who is speaking. Make sure you give your name, first of all, when you are answering a particular question or making a comment, so we can properly attribute the comment to a specific person.

My name is Loyola Sullivan. I am the Member for Ferryland District and Chair for Public Accounts. I will turn then to the Vice-Chair who can introduce himself and then we will do our committee members first.

MR. JOYCE: Eddie Joyce, MHA for the Bay of Islands.

MR. OSBORNE: Tom Osborne, MHA for St. John's South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Roger Fitzgerald, MHA for Bonavista South.

MR. ANDERSEN: Wally Andersen, MHA for Torngat Mountains and an old friend of my buddy, Mr. Fitzgerald.

MS HODDER: Mary Hodder, MHA for Burin-Placentia West.

MR. BUTLER: Roland butler, MHA for Port de Grave.

CHAIR: Auditor General, Mr. Noseworthy, if you would.

MR. NOSEWORTHY: John Noseworthy, Auditor General.

MS RUSSELL: Sandra Russell, Audit Manager.

CHAIR: Deputy Chief Browne, if you would.

MR. BROWNE: Mr. Chair, I will introduce when I am ready. I have some opening remarks, Sir.

MR. SULLIVAN: On the nature of the report here?

MR. G. BROWNE: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: If it is on the report, I will give you an opportunity for that too.

MR. G. BROWNE: Okay, Sir.

I would like to introduce myself. I am Gary Browne, Deputy Chief of Police Support Services, Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, a thirty-one year veteran of the force.

MR. W. BROWN: Inspector Bill Brown, with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary.

MR. CARROLL: Acting Inspector, Jim Carroll, and I apologize for my voice.

MR. NOSEWORTHY: Inspector Phil Noseworthy, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary.

MR. PIKE: Staff Sergeant Derek Pike, Internal Audits, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary.

CHAIR: Also, I will introduce to my left, Elizabeth Murphy, who is the Clerk of our Committee, Mark Noseworthy, an Executive Officer with our Committee and Kevin Collins who is doing the recording, a member of the House of Assembly staff.

I would ask Ms Murphy if she could swear in the witnesses, anybody who is giving testimony here.

Swearing in of Witnesses

Sandra Russell, Audit Manager

Staff Sergeant Derek Pike

Inspector William Brown

Deputy Chief Gary Browne

Staff Sergeant James Carroll

Inspector Philip Noseworthy

[Due to technical difficulties a portion of the committee meeting was not recorded]

CHAIR: (Inaudible) to ensure that proper accountability and compliance and so on is carried out. It was the role of our committee. We are here today to ask questions or to gather information. If information is not readily available we are certainly open to getting submissions in writing afterwards, to any particular questions that you may not have just at your fingertips.

Today, as I mentioned, it is 3.24 and we will give the opportunity for any particular opening statement.

Deputy Chief Browne, if you want to make an opening statement on this.

MR. G. BROWNE: Is it okay to go ahead now?

CHAIR: Yes, you certainly can.

MR. G. BROWNE: Good morning Mr. Sullivan and other hon. members of the House of Assembly Public Accounts Committee. My name is Gary Browne, Deputy Chief of Police Support Services. I am in my thirty-first year with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary.

Firstly, I would like to advise the committee that I will be representing the Chief of Police, Richard Deering, who is presently out of the Province. I will introduce to you four other managers of the Force who will be assisting me today as it relates to appearing before the Public Accounts Committee in relation to the Report of the Auditor General 2001, paragraph 3.24 (Firearms Review). You have heard the people names but I will give you a little idea of their jobs. Inspector Bill Brown is the Officer in charge of the Quality Review and Audit section; Staff Sergeant Derek Pike, Quality Review and Audit section; Inspector Phil Noseworthy, Officer in charge of Facilities and Assets section; and Acting Inspector Jim Carroll, who is a senior Firearms and Use of Force Instructor for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary.

Mr. Chair and hon. members, this is the first time in the illustrious history of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary that we have come before the PAC, so I would ask that all members probably give us some leniency, or if we are a bit rough at times it is because we have never had this in the occasion of the force and it is also a learning curve for us, Sir.

Hon. members of the PAC, the Constabulary has a long and illustrious history of services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, with our policing roots going back to 1729, the first appointment of constables in the then British Colony. In 1871, the withdrawal of the then British Garrison saw the reorganization of the Constabulary, which was modeled of our mother force, the Royal Irish Constabulary.

Hon. Committee members, firearms have been a part of the force going back to our roots and their utilization is not a modern day phenomena. The term Constabulary itself means a police organization which enforced the law on a territorial basis and was deployed in small groups and issued weapons. In the latter years our members were issued firearms on a needs basis.

In the 1970s, I myself was a part of the RNC Emergency Tactical Unit which saw members driving a special weapons vehicle which had shotguns, handguns, and teargas capabilities. In 1983, the RNC introduced a Tactical Response Unit whose members were highly trained in dealing with violent crimes and tactical weapons response. In 1991, the Picher Arbitration ruling mandated that fire arms be securely placed in the trunks of police vehicles for quick access. In February of 1998, the RNC Executive recommended that firearms be part of the police uniform. On June 14, 1998, after recommendations by the Select Committee of the House of Assembly, the RNC began carrying personal firearms.

Mr. Chair and committee members, please be assure that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary is very committed to providing the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador in our jurisdiction with a high quality of safe service and we can continue to strive for same even though, as you will hear, this is a challenging issue that requires much resourcing, auditing and vigilance. We do not always attain the high objectives that we set for ourselves but we continue to work hard all the same.

In the year 2000 there were two police related shootings by the RNC, one in St. John's and one in Corner Brook. Both of these shootings caused the OPP to critically review our firearms policy. It was found that we had a good policy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I believe that your committee will see today that through our forthright answers that our goals are high, but with over 300 police officers we do not always end up with total compliance.

CHAIR: Thank you, Deputy Chief Browne.

If anybody would like to ask some questions, we will throw it open.

MR. FITZGERALD: I just have a couple of questions. One of them, I guess, was the identification of firearms where some firearms are found in other people's lockers, not necessarily the particular firearm that has been assigned to that member. Is this a problem because of the grips on the guns? Is it a problem that can be easily corrected or easily identified so that does not happen anymore? A very serious problem, actually.

MR. G. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Fitzgerald.

Indeed it is a serious problem and I would like, Mr. Chair, for first maybe Inspector Brown of Audits and then I will go to Acting Inspector Carroll as our Senior Firearms Officer to answer the question of the hon. member.

MR. B. BROWNE: What happened in those instances, Mr. Fitzgerald, was some of these firearms got switched in a training session - we do regular training - or during a cleaning period. It could also happen when we go into court. There are lockers provided in cars. There are two members on a unit and their guns could be placed into the gun box.

What we have done to correct that problem is during our inspections now - before the gun grips were not taken off. If you are familiar with the gun, the serial number is on the back of the butt. The grip closes in the serial number. So what we have done now, through the help of Sandra and all that, every inspection the grip is taken off to ensure that the member has the proper firearm. So that confusion happened, but we have corrected that problem greatly since we started removing the grips to ensure members have their proper firearms.

MR. FITZGERALD: So now it is more easily identified because these grips are taken off. .

MR. W. BROWN: Yes, the grips are removed and we ensure that gun is registered to that member.

MR. FITZGERALD: There was another issue raised as well with regard to inventory in Corner Brook with ammunition. The inventory, I think, was recorded in St. John's. There was no recorded inventory in the Corner Brook detachment. Is that acceptable, not to have that inventory listed in (inaudible)?

MR. W. BROWN: That has been corrected, Sir.

MR. FITZGERALD: That has been corrected.

MR. W. BROWN: Yes, it will come into our main inventory control and it is registered now at St. John's. I am looking at my partner to make sure what I am saying - but it is corrected, yes.

MR. G. BROWNE: Maybe, Mr. Chair, any time, as I said, if any member of the Constabulary wishes to interject, with your permission, because this is a very complex issue. As you can tell from the amount of material that was forwarded to you for reading, it is a very complex issue. So I want the panel to get the full view. So if any of the members would please speak up. Jim, I do not know if you wanted to touch that.

MR. CARROLL: No. Just in relation to the grips themselves, the question may beg, why do different officers have different type grips, and it has strictly to do with officer safety. The standard mahogany grip that comes with the 357 revolver, individuals who have very large hands, the firearm now becomes somewhat cumbersome and inaccurate in an instinctive role when you are doing your training. So there are different types of rubber grips that you can actually buy and install, which enlarge the grip and give it more comfort for the officer and allows that person to be able to become a better shot and more confident in his or her ability to shoot. So that is why these are approved grips from across the country. That is why there are some different types of grips within the RNC.

MR. G. BROWNE: Mr. Chair, for the benefit of the Committee, I would like to, here today, give the committee members an idea of acting Inspector Jim Carroll. We are very proud of Jim's expertise in training. He was part of a national standards firearms' group that worked with the Canadian Police College and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Jim was recognized for his expertise and the work he put into drawing up national standards for all police forces right across this country. He was given that commendation through a plaque by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association. There are questions I am sure, but we are very proud of his expertise and it is looked upon highly from a national point of view too, Sir.

CHAIR: Thank you, Deputy Chief Browne.

Mr. Osborne, do you have a question?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just have a couple of questions, one of them being: There were instances of firearms still registered to the manufacturer. I am just wondering if you can elaborate on that and perhaps give us some indication as to whether or not that is normal procedure within police detachments.

MR. W. BROWN: What happened in that incident, Mr. Osborne, was that firearms we had purchased were sent back to the manufacturer for repair. During the repair stages the manufacturer lent us some firearms and we did not enter those into our inventory because they were on loan to us. As a result now, any firearms that come from within that organization are automatically registered into our inventory so we know we have accountability. These firearms were kept in safe storage but they just were not registered in our inventory. That has now been corrected and any firearm we get comes into our inventory. It will be marked it is on loan, but we know we have it registered within our computer system.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

A final question: There were a number of officers who had not completed the required training within the required time frame. Is that an issue of limited manpower resources and the inability of officers to complete the training because of their requirement to be on patrol and so on? I am just wondering if you can elaborate on the reasons for that.

MR. W. BROWN: In that incident there was some difference of opinion on the translation of the policy. When we started our training we took the policy for our modules to be within a calender year. To give an example on that: I could do my training in January. In our training there are four modules in the use of force training. First every member does their basic one week training and then one year they do module one and two, one and three, one and four and it comes back. We took our policy to read that we could do this within a calender year. So, for all intents and purposes I could do mine in January, one and two, and then it could come right around to the next December. So I could be within twenty-three months of not doing my training.

The Auditor General detected this and there was some discussion on what the policy actually meant. Through the discussion with the Auditor General and the Chief it was now decided that we would do it on a twelve-month period, not a calender year. We have now started the program that we do it within a twelve-month period with a thirty-day grace on either side. So we have a sixty-day grace period. If I do it in January, I could do it in December or February, so there are sixty days.

With the issue of resources, there is always a concern for our resources but we are getting our training done. The training is being completed because it is one of the most serious things that we take. We believe that this use of force training is mandatory and it we are vigilant on it, continuously.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That is all the questions I have. I would like to make a comment, I think recognized by all members of the committee, that we recognize the valuable service by the RNC. I think it should also be noted that we understand there are limited resources and you are faced with those challenges as well.

CHAIR: I think Staff Sergeant Pike wanted to have a comment regarding that area.

MR. PIKE: I think it should be brought out here that everybody in the RNC who were medically fit were actually trained in the year 2001. That should be brought out, I think.

CHAIR: Now we understand that within the twelve-month period it would be done. That is, I guess, your interpretation of a calender year. It is now reconciled I understand with the Auditor General's Office.

MR. J. NOSEWORTHY: Yes, that is correct. We are okay with that now.

CHAIR: Ms Hodder.

MR. H. HODDER: One question. One member had been found with an illegal drug which had been taken from a suspect stored in his locker. After an internal review, the member was disciplined. What kind of disciplinary action would have been taken in this particular case?

MR. G. BROWNE: Mr. Chair, again, because, like I said, it is our first time before the board, I am just wondering if there may be other hon. members here, or staff, or the Auditor General - I guess, even though I suppose we are kind of cognizant in policing of always identifying someone, or the job action, or disciplinary action we had taken towards that individual, again I have it as a question mark above my head on that hon. member. With that said, I maybe can go to Inspector Noseworthy, the Inspections Officer.

CHAIR: Inspector Noseworthy.

MR. P. NOSEWORTHY: In that particular incident, once that came to my attention, a report was forwarded to our Professional Standards Unit. They will complete an investigation, and will follow through to the system a report by them to the Chief of Police. At that time, the officer will be notified.

As to what happened, I think there was probably a written reprimand or whatever through the system itself, so it is registered in the Internal Review section at that time also. That is documented on his file. Any further occurrences, as we follow through in inspections monthly, we will record the same.

MS M. HODDER: Thank you.

Again, I want to commend the RNC on the valuable service that you are providing in our Province.

MR. G. BROWNE: Thank you.

I remember, Mr. Chair, doing this up last night, and in the early hours of the morning, in my own mind, to let the Committee know, because, like I said, we are proud of the work we do in a sense of trying to be accountable.

With your direction, there are just a couple of things. I think it is a good time now, Mr. Chair, to talk about the authority of the police and actually how it works, especially as it relates to firearms.

CHAIR: Sure, we could use that. We can take this time. It is fine, because there may be a question arise from that.

MR. G. BROWNE: Yes, because it is on the hon. members -

CHAIR: Sure.

MR. G. BROWNE: It is a principle of common law that police officers are under a legal obligation and thereby possess the authority to preserve the peace, good order and tranquility of our community. This duty is reflected in the RNC Act, 1992, as well as the RNC Regulations and the RNC Public Complaints Regulations. The power and duties of the police are enumerated in this Act under said regulations.

This legislative duty entails the protection of life and property, the apprehension of offenders, and the investigation of alleged offences. Therefore, it is reasonable that members have the authority to use force in meeting their obligations to the community. All powers, the exercise of which may do harm to others, must be exercised in a reasonable manner, and if there is excess, the person guilty of that excess is criminally and civilly liable for it.

These principles are covered in sections 25 and 26 of the Criminal Code of Canada, so it is not only out of our own regulations, hon. members; criminally and civilly there is legislation that will have us investigated. From that point of view, hon. members, I will just give you an idea of the accountability at the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and I think it is important for you to know that, the accountability process.

There is the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992; the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Regulations; the Public Complaints Regulations; the Inspections Officer process dealing with our policy; our Professional Standards Bureau - which most people, if you watch television, they are the internal affairs crowd that cops do not like to see coming, but they are called Professional Standards - they do internal investigations; sections 25 and 26 of the Criminal Code; the Fatalities Investigation Act by our medical examiner; the judicial inquiries on sudden deaths, which we are going through right now; OPP investigations into serious offenses against the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, which we have a Memorandum of Understanding with the Ontario Provincial Police; and, of course, last but not least, the annual audit done by the Auditor General's report.

Mr. Chair, you can see that there are major processes that come into play as relates to the use of force by the RNC. They are comprehensive, and so they should be, in the protection of our public and our police officers.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Mr. Noseworthy.

MR. J. NOSEWORTHY: I just want to make one point here. On page 7, it has come up now about the ten firearms assigned to different people, and the illegal drug in a locker. In both those instances there were inspections prior to ours. We identified this, but prior to that there were inspections that they were not identified, and we make that point in the report. Another document in this report, if you want to look, on page 167 in your package is a letter that would have been issued as a result of the firearms review of the RNC in June, 2001. On page 202 there is a letter that shows the incidents that were identified when we did our review. What we have been finding in the past is that we review all the inspections that are preformed and they do not seem to identify nearly as many issues as we do. They had one issue identified here in a letter, and our letter attached underneath here, on page 202, has a whole stream of things. There were two inspections at least, prior to our review, when we identified that cannister with the drugs.

I will just point that out for the Committee in the context of the monthly inspections and that sort of thing, so you may want to talk about that.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Ms Hodder did you have -

MS M. HODDER: That is all for me, thank you.

CHAIR: Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: I just have a comment. I will call it one question, a and b. Probably both sides can answer this one.

With reference to the RNC, like my fellow colleagues have said, I think we are all very appreciative of the work that is done through the Constabulary under very trying times. Like the Deputy Chief said, I guess, with so large a number everything is never 100 per cent.

In the Auditor General's Report there were several issues noted - and I have them here, and I know some other colleagues mentioned them - which identifies ten members who had each others guns, accountability for ammunition, pepper spray not stored properly, and the list goes on. Having said that, and I am not asking a question on that in particular, with all those issues that were raised by the Auditor General's Report prior to that or even after that until - I understand now a lot of things have been corrected, and you explained that very well. Was there ever an incident that happened because of the irregularities that the Auditor General reported? Was there ever an incident because of - I do not want to call it neglect because I do not think that, as you explained it very carefully. Was there ever an incident that happened because of the issues raised by the Auditor General's Report?

The other thing that really, I suppose, bothers me - maybe I am out of order here, and I am sure the Chairperson will tell me that.

CHAIR: Roland, what you mean by incident, that might have been any harm or anything developed to the public -

MR. BUTLER: Yes, that is number one.

CHAIR: - as a result of that.

MR. BUTLER: Of anything that was raised there.

CHAIR: If we could just deal with that one, if that is okay.

MR. G. BROWNE: Mr. Chair, not to my knowledge, but I will defer to Inspector Brown. We are also proud to say - just to make sure that I make this correct statement - that since the arming we have never had a complaint to the Public Complaints Commission about the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary in the handling of firearms. That in itself, in my mind, is a very, very positive thing because these are the citizens whom we police, and they know of the Public Complaints Commission, Mr. Chair, I can assure you, and rightly so. We have never had a public complaint about the RNC on firearms, but I will defer again to Inspector Brown because I may be wrong on some of the aspects.

MR. W. BROWN: Well Gary, our Deputy Chief, just mentioned what I was going to say, that in our public complaints system we have not received any complaints regarding the use or our firearms. So any major incidence that someone may have gotten hurt or misplaced something out into the public - no, not to my knowledge, we have not had any incidences like that.

MR. BUTLER: As a follow-up to that, and I am glad to hear that, but the other thing which bothers me - and it is not from your point of view and maybe it is collectively the way the system works. When the Auditor General did the inspection with the RNC and came up with those issues - I do not know who can answer this for me - do they ever sit down and ask for an explanation, like has been done so well here this morning, rather than putting it in print to the public who get all up in arms and worried about what is happening within their city or throughout the Province? Does that ever happen?

MR. W. BROWN: I can answer, yes, there is consultation with the Auditor General. One thing that we do appreciate - I know it comes to the public forum. As the deputy alluded to, they are one of our safeguards. We do appreciate the fact that they come out. When I was growing up as a boy you had someone always with the little whip to keep you straight. So we do appreciate - yes, Sandra is out.

We met with the former Auditor General on a number of occasions and went over the issues. In fact, as a result, during this process changes were made. Sometimes the Auditor General looked at us and got a view from where we were coming from and could appreciate it more. So there was consultation through the process.

Again, we are dealing with 300 or so human beings. It is a complicated issue because these weapons are moving on a continuous basis. I mean training is going on - ammunition. Every time they come off the road they store their ammunition. We even ran into a little problem with - you will find in the report - that someone else's ammunition was found in someone else's locker. Just to give you an example of what the lockers are, they are like - did you ever see the super mailboxes, the aluminum boxes? Well that is exactly what they look like. The door moved back and some of the ammunition - the bullets - rolled down into someone else's locker. That is what we felt might have happened. They might have been jolted or something.

So, yes, your answer is: there was consultation. It came out in the public forum, but we do not have anything to hide. We take great strides to make sure that this is safe. If we find noncompliance, or the Auditor General finds things, the supervisors are notified. The member is notified of his action. The inspector goes every month and does an inspection. We are out as the audit team. If you look in part sixteen of this book here you will see our audit report, and we became very picky on what we saw there. There were a lot of corrections. We spoke to Jim Carroll, so there was lots of consultation that went on back and forth.

MR. G. BROWNE: If I may, Mr. Chair, just on a similar issue.

CHAIR: Deputy Chief Browne.

MR. G. BROWNE: This policy that you see is a policy of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. We did that policy up and we raised the bar, Mr. Chair, on that policy, and there were times, I can tell you, when we sat down - one of the things that come under me are policy and procedures - with that bar being raised, and said: Wow, we are almost setting ourselves up for criticism and sometimes probably failure. We think, in sincerity, Mr. Chair, that you have that bar as high as you can get it. Oftentimes you may not be able to reach it and it will come out possibly - as the hon. member said, when the public look at it - as a criticism in what we are doing. This is our policy that was put together by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and we tried to raise that bar as high as we could.

I also want to allude to Inspector Browne and Staff Sergeant Pike. Both of these members are highly trained auditors who are trained at the Canadian Police College in Ottawa where the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary gets all its specialized training. There are an awful lot of people going around, as I alluded to earlier on, auditing us. I do not know, I guess I could say - I do not know if I could contradicted or not, but I feel personally that of probably nearly all of the police forces in Canada, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary has one, I think, of the more stringent processes and audits and policies that a lot of other forces do not have. That is my personal opinion, Mr. Chairman, but I think it could be backed up by our firearms instructor. That is our policy.

I will give you an idea, hon. member, when you mentioned ammunition. I will now ask Inspector Carroll if he can just tell you about the amount of ammunition the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary goes through in the run of one year, and I am not diminishing when we cannot find one or two rounds, or one round falls down into the locker of the one below them. Maybe, Jim, if you could tell the extend of the ammunition we are using, please?

MR. CARROLL: Mr. Chair, usually in the run of a year the RNC will probably go through 40,000 rounds of training ammunition just for the revolver alone. They will probably go through 3,000 rounds of doubt ought buck shotgun rounds, 7.5 shotgun rounds. We will go through probably 20,000 to 30,000 rounds of simunition, which is a paint training bullet which we put our officers through. That is on a yearly basis. As the Deputy alluded to, when the RNC became armed in 1998, the Chief of the day, Len Power, was very sensitive to the fact that it was going over in the general public with some degree of resistance and the policy that was developed was to make us as transparent as possible so that we could be accountable for our ammunition and everything else.

Just to give you an example of a comparison: right now in most other police agencies across the country, when you sign up you are given your x-number of rounds of ammunition, you are assigned a firearm with a serial number, and that is the last time you are expected to show that firearm unless you NCO comes up and says: Can I see that revolver, or can I see your pistol for cleanliness?

We had to put these safeguards in place, not only for ourselves but to show the public that we were due diligent in what we were trying to do. The ammunition counts, I think we are the only agency in the country that actually counts bullets. The RCMP - I know for a fact, I have been down there on training with them - as soon as they see their stock going down, they will order in new stock. They do not keep track of their ammunition like we do. I am not saying that what they do is wrong; I am just saying that we put extra safeguards in place so that we can be held more accountable and more transparent for the public in this environment.

MR. G. BROWNE: Mr. Chair, I just want to let you know, mentioning policy, that it was through Chief Power, God rest his soul, it was he who asked the Auditor General. It was his suggestion that the Auditor General do the audits on us. We could have - because we have trained auditors on staff, our own people who are trained, very well trained - said we will do the audit, but the Chief of Police of the day, Chief Power, wanted to make sure that we are kept on our toes and we do not look upon the Auditor General, or any audits, as a negative. Sometimes you can be inundated and: Oh, my God, where are we now? But, at the same time, we look upon it as those people being away from us, at arm's length, looking at us, and we believe helping us deal with the problems that we have in identifying it. We look at it that way and we do our best to address the concerns that they have, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Mr. Butler, did you have another one?

MR. BUTLER: No, that is fine, thank you.

CHAIR: I think Mr. Joyce has.

Oh, sorry, the Auditor General, Mr. Noseworthy.

MR. J. NOSEWORTHY: I guess to address Mr. Butler's question first about, do we have consultations and that sort of thing? I think it is important for the Committee to understand that there is not one report in this whole report that we issued last year, our annual report, or will there ever be a report that will be issued out of our office without consultation with all of the parties involved. At department levels we meet with the deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, and we make sure we have all the facts, information, and sometimes we agree to disagree, but we are fully aware of all the facts. In the case of the RNC review, I met last year also with the former Auditor General and Chief Deering, and some of the officials present here today, and we did go through this report. We had a lot of discussions about it and we agreed to disagree in certain issues and whatever, but all of the information was given to us before we finalized our report and sent it into the House of Assembly.

With regard to putting it into print, and does it have to go this way, we were asked by the RNC, and it was directed by the Select Committee of the House that an audit - and it says acceptable to the Minister of Justice - be performed annually and submitted to the House of Assembly. We conduct our audits in a fashion that we set our own scope, as the auditor for the House of Assembly, in reporting to the House, to cover all of the areas that are relevant to a particular engagement. In this case, looking at the firearms control, we assess the policies, the compliance with those, the control over the weapons, and that sort of thing, and any instances of non-compliance we would have to report, like we would in any department. This is just a review of guns. It could have been ferries or whatever. We report all our findings.

As far as the policies go, I will just make a comment on that. When this started first, we assessed all the policies and we looked at other jurisdictions in Canada to make sure that the policies developed by the RNC were reasonable. What we found when it started first is that the bar was high and what they did was, they changed some rules. For example, there was a time when training all four modules were required to be completed on an annual basis and then that just was not attainable and so we are having all this non-compliance with the policy and then the policy was changed whereby module one and the use of force is it, is the first one?

MS RUSSELL: Module one is firearms. That is done every year.

MR. J. NOSEWORTHY: Module one would have to be done, and use of force. That was modified so that it was cyclical, and one was done on (inaudible) calendar but we were looking at twelve months. You know, we report those issues but we validate them first.

CHAIR: This is not a question, but the point that there are responses published annually for information in the Auditor General's report, different agencies and departmental responses to the concerns, too, and they are a published part.

I think Mr. Butler had a question on this.

MR. BUTLER: Yes, just for clarification, I think you are taking my question out of context to a certain degree. I know you consult back and forth with each other, but my concern was - and with the Auditor General's report and all the other meetings that we have, they are financial and there are different circumstances around them. They do not raise the public ire like this one with regard to firearms. My comment, and why I made it that way, was like, for instance, on the issue: ammunition missing. What I am saying is, did the Auditor General meet and have the explanation that was given to us this morning that it would have rolled down from one locker to the other and it would still be made public and raised the ire of the people? Do you know what I am saying? That is all I am saying. I know you meet back and forth and you have to do that and I appreciate all that, you know.

MR. NOSEWORTHY: I guess the way we look at this is that they have systems established for control of guns and ammunition and that sort of thing. They think it is serious enough to have a system set up and to record it. We are making the point that it is not accurate. The arsenal is one area where you are doing training. The other thing is when bullets are missing or you have more bullets when they are out in the lockers. That is a different concept again. There is a training area and then there is your personal locker. So, you know, we differentiate those also but the system is in place and we are just saying that: Look, it is in place, yes, but it is not fully accurate, and the RNC have agreed with that. I think, you know, in all fairness, too, they are taking steps to address the issues as we raise them.

CHAIR: Just for clarification there - it is not a question - when the Auditor General does identify something and they go back and forth, it does not mean, I think, Mr. Butler, too, that it does not get published there as such. The response might be an acceptable response that the department gives but still when the Auditor General does an audit they audit on what they do and the response might be acceptable to them and they might agree or they might disagree. It still would not eliminate that from showing up in the audit, basically, because of agreement or disagreement. It is still an issue that was audited, basically. I think that seemed to where you were going.

MR. BUTLER: That ballpark. To my point of view, and I could be totally wrong, a lot of those issues probably could have been resolved between both parties before it was published in an Auditor General's report and out to the public on an issue as serious as this.

CHAIR: It is a good point, and a lot of things are resolved. They are satisfactory, but it would not prevent actual publication because it was a part of the audit and we do not want to affect the integrity of an audit. I think that is a main concern.

Mr. Joyce.

MR. JOYCE: I just have a generic question, I guess, for the RNC and the Auditor General.

First of all, I just want to echo the comments of my colleagues here about the services of the Constabulary. I think they are great, except when I get a ticket for speeding. Other than that they are great. The old saying about the police is: No one wants them around until there is a problem, then they are the first ones you call. A lot of our friends on the West Coast do a valuable service, over and above constabulary work, they do volunteer work in their communities. So I congratulate the Constabulary on that.

Just a generic question because this report - when we compile a report we will be presenting it to the House of Assembly. A generic question to the Constabulary: Do you feel that the safeguards that are in place with the RNC - mainly due to firearms, that is the big one; people look at it, it is the firearms - that the public is safe with the firearms from the RNC? Does the Auditor General feel, on the audit that was done and the recommendations that were made, that the safeguards are in place, that: yes, we can assure the general public that the firearms are safely stored, properly maintained, and people are properly trained so that we, the general public of Newfoundland and Labrador, can feel comfortable that things are in place, to the best of anybody's ability - because everybody is human, but the best that anybody can do at a certain time and certain place?

MR. G. BROWNE: Yes, hon. member. I guess it is a pretty difficult - it is a loaded question in the sense of - I can tell you how I feel personally, as a thirty-one year veteran of the force and an officer responsible for training, that this is a learning curve for all of us. I can honestly say - because I think I have enough seniority or the boys on my right and left may refer to me as archival, I do not know, it depends. I have been around. I have seen a lot of changes over the years and I have seen where the weapons were brought in. I am an ex-member of the Armed Forces, having served for three years. I was a marksmen for the Armed Forces, too. So I know weapons. In these days there are a lot of new things on the go, but hon. sir, it is a learning curve with all of this.

The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary takes this firearms and use of force so seriously that it is the top priority of the force because it is for the citizens we serve, and my mother and my family and children are out there as part of the community, as I am part of the community. We accentuate community-based policing today. We are constantly striving to improve our policies and sometimes - again, I alluded to (inaudible) - we think they are certainly positive for us.

Mr. Joyce, there is also the judicial inquiry that is going on now, sir; and we hope - and this is probably one of the most intense inquiries that Newfoundland and Labrador has seen in its long history. We are looking forward and hoping for these things that will come back to do with training, to do with mental health training, officer training, the use of lethal methods and stuff like this. We are looking forward to the judge's report. I can assure you, and the citizens whom we police, that we will take that report exceptionally serious. We are working on it now. Even long before that, we had members working on mental health issues and how we can better put our services and help the challenged people in our community. So, it is an ongoing thing.

I personally feel, with our training, when we have instructors who have the ability and expertise they have, and the audit sections, and with the help of all those I listed to you in this very accountable process, that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary is proud of its policy and its training. To say we cannot do better would be stupid. I would not say that, but I will say that we are constantly striving to make this the best we can to have that bar as high as possible. As I said to you, with over 304 members working twenty-four, seven, there is a lot of stress in policing. In my mind, again without fear of contradiction, I think policing is one of the most complex careers that a person today can choose because a young police officer after six months' training can go to a scene of a homicide and have to make his or her mind up within seconds, where other people can take months and months of studying and this thing.

Policing is a very complex career. We are doing our best, with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, through research and development. We have a five-year strategic plan that we are very, very proud of. We have a strategic planning and policy section. We have all of these people, who are on my right and left, who are doing it.

I guess to shut this down, Sir, in the long-run I personally feel that the citizens of our community can be very proud and have a feeling of safety when they go home, but also know that we are human beings and we do make mistakes, and we have to learn by our mistakes. We are different personalities with different reactions. One of the things, if Jim Carroll wanted to explain to you, that the officer who is at the scene, everyone of us, because of our environment and how we grew up, would react differently. So, there is no one training thing we can put up on the wall and say: You will all follow that from A to Z; it is not.

Like I said, after all that, I do not mean to go on but I am, I guess, passionate about it because I am a proud police officer of this force. I think that we are doing our best and we will continue to do it.

Thank you.

MR. J. NOSEWORTHY: I can say that we have completed three firearm reviews: 1999, 2000, 2001, and we are currently finishing our 2002, which will be published to the House of Assembly before January. In 1999 we did not find any instances of members with each other's guns. In 2000, we found two instances. In 2001, we found ten instances. We indicated in the report that we thought this was very serious and that if these members were in the field, for whatever reason, and had to use their weapons, it could be that some sort of a shooting could be associated with an incorrect member. We thought that was very serious. I will just tell you that is how the samples went: from zero to two to ten. I will make that point and say that is a serious issue.

CHAIR: If I could just ask a question on this. Were the grips installed since 1999? Would this have been the reason why it increased? If it has - I think you have addressed the correction - what you are doing now to correct that? If you could probably comment on when the grips were installed and if that is the cause of the problem for the increase.

MR. CARROLL: The RNC does not provide these personalized handgrips. They are bought by the individual member at their own cost. As long as it is an approved grip within Canadian CSA standards and it meets the use force coordinators (inaudible) range measure specifications, then the officer is allowed to put that grip on their personal firearm.

Yes, in 1999 there were no personal grips. They were all wooden handles with the serial number right on the button, easily recognizable. The grips became fairly popular as each year went by. When the officers got an opportunity to get on the range and actually shoot one of their fellow officers firearms to see how it actually felt and stuff like this, they got more comfortable with it and wanted to try it, so they went out and purchased. There is an increase in the rubberized grips within the RNC since 1999, which can attribute to that.

CHAIR: Okay, you go ahead first. (Inaudible) do a follow-up on that.

MR. J. NOSEWORTHY: I would like to clarify; of the ten samples we found only one gun had a grip. So, it is not the grip.

CHAIR: That was my next question, so you have answered that.

Mr. Andersen.

MR. ANDERSEN: One of the main concerns was the amount of guns that were stored in their lockers. My question is - obviously, you have a different number of guns. The question I would raise is: Would there have been any guns end up - for example, my gun ending up being in his locker where he is not qualified or does not have the ability to use that gun?

MR. W. BROWN: No, that did not come up, that someone who did not do their training - no, that was not an issue. That did not come up.

MR. ANDERSEN: Everyone in the force then are fully qualified? Even though a twelve gauge shotgun, my partners, may end up in my locker, I am still fully qualified? Every member should qualify to use that gun?

MR. W. BROWN: I guess we should clarify. The only firearm that is stored in the personal locker is the 357. The shotguns are stored in the sergeant's vehicle. If the shotgun is required the sergeant would take it to the scene.

In the training - I guess Inspector Carroll can talk on training - this module 1 that you have heard, that is our shooting module. Jim can explain that shooting module if that is okay.

CHAIR: Yes, certainly.

MR. CARROLL: Module 1 is the annual firearms shooting module. Basically, what that entails is a shotgun course of fire. The officer gets re-exposed to the shotgun. Very rarely do they get to use a shotgun. It does not fall into a lot of scenarios where they would have to actually go to that type of power; probably to destroy an animal or something like that.

We do a re-familiarization with the shotgun. We have shotgun shell duds that we go through loading, unloading procedures, and jam procedures. Then we have a course of fire where they are given one round of double ought buck and four rounds of seven-and-a-half shell. Seven-and-a-half shell is just a training shell because it does not blow the shoulder off the individual when they are firing the double ought buck.

We put them through two courses of that. There are only four rounds; two standing rifle prone, two kneeling, shoulder. Then we give them four rounds. We put a new target down range and give them four rounds of double ought buck, which is 9 millimeter pellets which is in that round. The course requires that they have to fire two rounds standing, two rounds kneeling, and twenty-four of the thirty-six pellets have to hit that target. If it does not, then the officer has to go through the course of fire. That is the shotgun course.

The revolver course tests the officers ability to holster and draw their firearm while it is holstered. There is a certain time frame on the computer. The line is saying: are you ready? The line is ready. Then the target is on its edge. They have three seconds. The target will face - the officer will have to unsnap their holster, draw, fire two rounds and re-holster. It is just that (inaudible). Then the target will go further down range. Then they get into some form of instinctive shooting where they just draw very quickly without actually looking down the sights. They only have eight or ten seconds to get x-number of rounds off.

In the meantime, where we are using revolvers and not semi-automatics, there are reloading situations built in so that the officers - because as Deputy Gary Browne alluded to, during a gun fight or any type of critical incident your body goes through some hormonal phenomena called survival stress. The first thing that starts to go is your fine motor skills, your ability to write a report. If you got into a fight or something and you had to write a report afterwards your hands are shaking. The same thing happens with an officer. So, the ability for the officer to actually manipulate six rounds into this revolver, close it up, and then take shooting. We try to test that. That is what that does.

The last part of the course of fire is deliberate aim shooting, three kneeling positions using barricades. Once that is done there is a brand new instinctive shooting module that we created because most police shootings are from zero to five feet and they happen within zero to two seconds. We had to build in a component, which we had never done before. In 1999 we built in a component which addresses an officer with their firearm out in what we call low ready. They are turning, facing their target, and turning on the run. Their heart rate is up. It is a three shot burst; two centre mass and one to the head area. That is called a fail-safe shot because of the increased number of guys out there wearing soft body armor.

That is basically what the firearms course would consist of. It usually takes about three to three-and-a-half hours to go through. At the end of the day the officer, if he or she is a good shot, they will fire off 136 rounds of training ammunition during their course of fire that morning or that afternoon; as compared to before we built in the instinctive, which was only sixty rounds.

MR. ANDERSEN: Okay. You say that the firearm which is stored in the locker is just a revolver?

MR. CARROLL: Correct.

MR. ANDERSEN: Okay, and you only have one type of revolver in your force?

MR. CARROLL: (Inaudible).

MR. ANDERSEN: So basically -

MR. CARROLL: If I can just allude to that, too. There is one other firearm within the RNC that is carried over and above the 357 revolver, and that is the six-hour nine millimeter. That is only carried by members of our Tactics and Rescue Unit, and ex-members of our Tactics and Rescue Unit. There are probably thirteen, fourteen or fifteen in existence out on the street today. The reason for that is that - and that was under direct recommendation from me to Chief Len Power at the time - the Tactics and Rescue Unit train two days through a month consecutively. They are mandatory to re-qualify on the range every month.

Secondly, we bought simunition barrels. You can actually take out the barrel of your firearm and insert a simunition one, so you are actually using your actual firearm but it is a different barrel. Then we trained with paint bullets, good-guy, bad-guy targets scenario training. The working mechanisms of the Sig-Saur are so different than a revolver. It becomes instinctive. For example, there is a de-cock mechanism on the revolver. We were only shooting the actual 357 back in the late eighties once a year, and that was sixty rounds. That was just to re-qualify. So here we were on the range - I was the first one to notice - I would be firing my 357 revolver and every time I would stop shooting I was here with my left thumb trying to de-cock a revolver. It was so instinctive to do it with the other firearm that I had been so familiar with, I said: This is crazy. This is going to get someone killed. This is an officer safety issue. So I wrote the Chief and explained to him that this was an officer safety issue. Based on my recommendation, he felt that it was warranted, so a policy came out that the TRU Team members could carry their issued Sig-Saur semi-auto during the course of their routine duties, even though they may not be on a tactical call. So that would be the only other firearm that would be out there, Sir.

MR. ANDERSEN: You say that some members now get their own personal grips on the gun. That is not mandatory?

MR. CARROLL: No, that is totally discretionary. As long as it is an approved grip, a Canadian standard grip, they are allowed to do that.

MR. ANDERSEN: The point I wanted clarified was that even though there may have been some guns that end up in other lockers, it is the same gun.

MR. CARROLL: Oh, it is an identical gun, yes; you are correct.

MR. ANDERSEN: It is not like a gun will end up where Officer B ends up with Officer C's gun and he never, ever, used that type of gun before.

MR. CARROLL: No, you are absolutely right, Sir.

MR. ANDERSEN: I guess the last thing, too, like my colleagues here, we do not have the Newfoundland Constabulary up on the Coast of Labrador. We have the RCMP. Certainly, I know all too well some of the circumstances that you come under as well. Firearms is probably the last thing that you, as a police officer, want to revert to, but I think far too often the public is not fully aware of the tremendous pressure and incidents that you have to go through. Like my colleagues say, I want to congratulate you because I think the police force, whether they are the RCMP or the Constabulary of this Province, are a credit to our people and our communities..

MR. G. BROWNE: If I may relate to something the Auditor General has said, I think it needs clarification. He mentioned about the possibility of a shooting happening with someone else's firearm and there being a mix-up. I would just like to refer to Part 1, Chapter I, Firearms Policy, Section 13. It says, "Shooting Incidents: a. In every instance where a member's use of a firearm results in injury or death to any person, the following procedure shall apply..." - and this is immediately - "(1) The involved member will immediately after the situation is diffused turn their discharged service firearm over to the senior non-involved member at the scene. (2) The senior member at the scene will take possession of the discharging member's firearm. They will maintain custody of the firearm until the arrival of the investigative team who will provide direction. (3) The Supervisor will notify the Duty Officer and will ensure the scene is secure and safeguarded."

That weapon, Mr. Chair and members of the Committee, will be the one that is fired; because as soon as that officer fires it, and if there is injury or death, that is immediately taken, probably by a supervisor, a Sergeant or a Staff Sergeant. They will say: Give me that gun; I have to take it from you right away, to do with continuity.

I just wanted to make sure in the eyes of the Committee that it is not because there is a mix-up. There may be a wrong serial number there, but as Mr. Anderson alluded to, it is a 357 RNC weapon but it will be taken from that member. There will no mix-up, only for the mix-up in the serial number, not at the scene. I just wanted to... Because I think there was a possibility of people taking that - or not in clarification.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The point you make, I guess, Deputy Chief Browne, is that the weapon that is fired would be identified to the person who fired it, basically, and if it happened that was one of the ones that was in a different locker, it still was in the custody of the person who fired it. I think that is the point you are making.

MR. G. BROWNE: Yes, Mr. Chair, it still is the weapon that was fired by the officer at the scene, that we took immediate continuity of at the scene, and it was passed over to the investigator who in turn would pass it over to the senior investigators of the Ontario Provincial Police who will come in. I think in the Corner Brook shooting they were in within twenty-four hours. It is not a weapon that people are wondering: Where did that weapon come from? It is the weapon that the member, he or she, fired and discharged at the scene, that was immediately taken from a continuity point of view, so it is the weapon that is dealing with - because it is an alleged offense until proven otherwise.

CHAIR: That would be done in every instance where there is a weapon discharged?

MR. G. BROWNE: Every instance.

CHAIR: Even if there is no injury?

MR. G. BROWNE: Yes, it is part of our policy and it is strictly adhered to.

CHAIR: Mr. Noseworthy

MR. J. NOSEWORTHY: Just one point on that. That is fine if you assume there is just one person shooting a gun. Our position when we wrote this, and in discussions that we had, was that there easily could be scenarios where more than one member is at a scene and using weapons. Yes, if it is one person, obviously, it would not be an issue, but there are scenarios where we suggest that could happen.

CHAIR: Mr. Andersen, were you finished on that topic?

One other with reference to that before we move on, I think, Mr. Fitzgerald. If there were two people who discharged guns, the gun that is taken would be identified, obviously, as the gun taken from Constable Mercer, or whoever the case may be, and this gun is identified from that person. Obviously that would have to be done.

MR. G. BROWNE: Yes, Mr. Chair, that is correct because that has to do with just the normal police procedures of evidence, the continuity of evidence, the evidence of where it came from. The senior officer, with taking that weapon, would immediately write in his notebook, or her notebook, as it is in policy, received this 357 Ruger Magnum from Constable Smith at the scene, received the next one from Constable Brown and Constable Jones. That is like any core part of evidence; because I can assure you, Mr. Chair and members of the Committee, that down in court, or when an investigation is on, you have to prove the continuity of your evidence no matter what it is.

MR. CARROLL: Further to that, the main reason for that is, the serial numbers would have to be - even if it was a multi-shooting, whatever firearms are at the scene, and if they were discharged, are taken and the serial numbers are recorded, and who it was taken from, for simple ballistics, to find out what round hit who. That is how that would be recorded, I guess, for clarification.

CHAIR: Thank you

Mr. Fitzgerald.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just a couple of comments and then I am going to ask a pretty broad question.

I think the process is a good one, and it is a process that has been agreed to, that the Auditor General go in and do inspections and, contrary to my colleague there, if the Auditor General finds infractions then they should certainly be reported. There is no point in doing the investigations. That is what the Auditor General's report is all about. I think it is very important or very concerning to me and other people when we see somebody else's gun in somebody else's locker, with the serial number that is all recorded in my name, then I do not want this gentleman here with my gun in his locker, and we should not belittle that or say that there are other ways of finding out when there is no need of it happening in the beginning.

It is also, I guess, not very comforting to know that when any new process is brought about that there are sure to be growing pains and things happening, because it is all new to find out the infractions went from zero the first year to ten in two years time. So, it looks like instead of getting upgrading and getting better at what we do, maybe it is a sign that we are getting a little bit complacent. Then, the same thing with the inspections, if I understood the Auditor General correctly, that the RNC did their inspection on those lockers just prior to the Auditor General doing their inspections and came up with the infractions as stated here in the report.

Those are serious things, but I am going to ask a broad question because I continually hear about the morale in the RNC: morale of members is low; a situation where members do not have the resources to carry out policing situations. In fact, it was only a couple of days ago I sat and had a coffee with an RNC officer and he started to tell me about the condition of the vehicles. He was very dismayed with the condition of some of the RNC vehicles, what they had to drive, what they were expected to do with the resources they had. Is this a major problem?

MR. G. BROWNE: Mr. Chair, I guess as the senior officer here at the table, we came this morning - and again I do not say this in deference to dealing with 3.24 - I think our Chief of Police, who is the Senior Executive Officer of this organization, is on record, hon. member, of talking about challenges that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary has, as any department of government, in tight fiscal times. I guess it is hard if there haven't been any major academic surveys done by people who are qualified to talk about anecdotal evidence from some of our members, and I do not want to criticize because I do not know who the member is who made the comments. Like I said, I have been around here for thirty-one years and yes, there are highs and lows in policing, hon. members, let me tell you. Yes, there are challenges the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary has, resourcing challenges, whether they be for vehicles or whether they be for want of more and better training, and there are a couple of challenges that are part of my presentation, Mr. Chair and hon. member, that I wanted to just bring up because I was told through the committee process that was passed on to Inspector Carroll by Mr. Noseworthy, this is a chance for it not only to be looked at, and introspection, but saying some of the challenges that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary have.

I have some items here, and I do not know if it is the right time to bring this up, but the morale one - and I am not trying to dodge your question, hon. member. Like I said, I am sure there were times, if you could go back, if you had a time machine, when I had five years in, and asked me a question, I am sure I would have said to the fellas who are running the top of the organization: Well, I am out on the streets at 4:00 o'clock in the morning and they are home in bed; they do not know what is going on, or we do not have enough of this or we do not have enough of that.

I think it behooves us, as senior executive of the force, to make sure that we have the best handle we can on this as far as morale. Yes, I would be a liar to sit here before the Committee and tell you that there aren't issues that impact upon morale with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, as in any police organization worldwide. It behooves us to keep your finger on that pulse.

I can honestly say, too, that I acknowledge the support of the Minister of Justice and his senior officials in times of fiscal restraint, but from a relation of the firearms thing, just bringing forth some challenges, I would call them, would be some of things I have noted, Mr. Chair and hon. member: the need for civilian support staff to do data input in relation to required inventory control and for general clerical support in relation to the audits, the reports, because you heard of the complexity of this matter. Our research has indicated that we have, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, one of the lowest ratios in the country for civilian support staff per police officer. So that, to us, is a challenge. We need to get timely support from the provincial Department of Works, Services and Transportation re our structural changes when we need it for safe storage or for loading areas, in which they have been co-operative, but we always have that challenge; that we have sufficient monies allocated to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary for respect of firearms and use of force training, because I can assure you, Mr. Chair and hon. members, that police training today is such a complex issue and there are so many skill sets that you need out there, the men and women who especially do the front line duties, this kind of training, and especially firearms and use of force, is exceptionally expensive. So, it is a challenge that we have to prove to our Minister of Justice that we need these items, and the community and the people we serve, and I guess this goes all the way to Treasury Board and the people who have control of the public purse, that we make our statements and make sure we back it up factually. Training is exceptionally expensive and, coming out of the judicial inquiries, I think we will be really heavily challenged with that.

CHAIR: Deputy Chief Browne, in your closing, if there are comments, I will give you an opportunity to touch on areas that might impact on the operation there, but for the sake of questioning here, I think I would want to keep our members' questioning to the nature of 3.24, which is firearms review, if there are certain things.

As a matter of fact, I had a question pertaining to something similar, but it ties into this, which I was going to ask when we got around the table from other members there. We will give you an opportunity in your closing to address concerns. If some of these impact on this particular section here that we are doing and so on, we would certainly like to hear any comment on that. Members too, if you could, keep with this focus because that is the mandate really here today, to deal with that. There are other issues pressing, I know, out there but if they do not directly impact on this, I think that is either for another day or to be dealt with in another forum. We will give you an opportunity too - I know there are things that you might want to address pertinent, that we could do it in wrap up.

Mr. Fitzgerald.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just in closing, Mr. Chairman. I think when you talk about morale it affects not only this section that we are dealing with today but it affects all other sections of policing as well.

CHAIR: Mr. Osborne.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a couple of questions Deputy Chief. Is there any notice given of the Auditor General coming in to do an inspection, or what notice is given to the department?

MR. G. BROWNE: No, in my recollection - I will ask Inspector Brown to talk about it - they do unscheduled audits, which is very important. So we do not know when they are coming in a lot of times. I think there are times when they do scheduled audits. Maybe I will go to our auditor who will give you a better answer, Mr. Osborne.

WITNESS: When they do their inspections they are on schedule. Sandra will come into the office - sometimes they are on schedule. She will show up and do the inspections of the lockers and the firearms.

MR. T. OSBORNE: The inspections that have found infractions - ten last year - were they found through scheduled or unscheduled inspections?

WITNESS: That was an unscheduled audit.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Have the inspections been carried out this year to determine compliance?

MR. J. NOSEWORTHY: Yes, all our inspections are what we would call not scheduled, surprise visits. This year we included Labrador, we had not been there before. We go to Corner Brook, and this year we also went to Torbay and CBS -

WITNESS: And Mount Pearl.

MR. J. NOSEWORTHY: Yes, and they were all surprise.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Without disclosing information that should not be disclosed, I guess until the Auditor General's Report is released, are we able to, for the sake of the Committee, determine - has there been an increase or decrease or status quo this year with the number of infractions of firearms placed in other persons lockers?

MR. J. NOSEWORTHY: The work is not finished. Sandra has conducted the inspections and a file is being put together but we have not sat down and gone through a challenge review of the file. I have not meet with officials yet of the RNC, so I think it may be premature for me to talk about the results of our findings; but I guess if the RNC want to talk about the findings.

CHAIR: If you want to direct your question to the RNC, it is up to you, otherwise we will move to the next one.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay, I will direct that same question to Deputy Chief Browne.

MR. G. BROWNE: Mr. Osborne, I will direct that to our inspections officer, Inspector Noseworthy, because this is outside the 3.24. I am not -

MR. JOYCE: I think we should stay within 3.24, totally.

CHAIR: It is, they are not obligated. I think, in all fairness to the Auditor General, when something is ongoing it is not the report we are dealing with - that will be in next year's report. We do not want to put anyone in the situation there because it is not really an issue at stake. I take that point, and I think we will leave it at that. Do you have another question?

MR. T. OSBORNE: I do. What measures have been carried out, and how successful have those measures been to correct? I certainly understand the standpoint of the RNC that all of the side arms are identical, with the exception of perhaps personalized grips and so on, but what measures have been carried out and how successful have those measures been to ensure that proper firearms or the firearms are stored in the proper lockers?

MR. J. NOSEWORTHY: Every month I do inspections of the gun lockers, and through the Auditor General's report (inaudible) we do it with two persons. What I do right now is Acting Sergeant Feehan - who is the youth and force co-ordinator, he is well trained in the firearms issue - will come with me and we do individual lockers, one at a time, and take the grips off to ensure the serial number is there. Any infractions that occur, for our safety, for my purposes, that he will witness the event as to a loaded firearm or missing pepper spray, or whatever. If there is a firearm - Inspector Brown had a case where fellows might be down in court with two firearms. Within a thirty day period things can happen. I will pick it up the same day and within a couple of days the report is sent out through the system. If it is a serious infraction of a loaded firearm, that is handled immediately. I would unload the firearm myself, or Acting Sergeant Feehan. That is done right there and then. So a fellow will come back the next day - the same with my reports. The reports were forwarded, on a regular basis, through the system. As I said, every month, through dealings with Sandra Russell - we have been together on inspections and there are infractions that do occur. We are trying to correct it and improve as we go along.

MR. G. BROWNE: Just to clarify this. All non-compliance that is found through our inspection office goes to that person's supervisor. What we are doing now, any non-compliance is going to a professional standards bureau, which is internal, where a file will be generated. If we have someone who is in non-compliance, we will have a record of what goes on in non-compliance.

I could go down with my firearm and make a mistake. That might be my only mistake in my career. The force believes in progressive discipline, so I would be spoken to about it. It would be, first, a verbal counseling session that, you know; you have to store this firearm properly, you have to do this properly. If it continues, then it moves up into another form of discipline. So what we are doing with professional standards is, we are now moving it up to a higher level of accountability. To record if it is successful, that would be difficult, because moving to professional standards is a recent development. I guess next year when we are back, if that question is asked, we will probably have a better answer for you.

CHAIR: Staff Sergeant Pike.

MR. PIKE: Just to go a bit further with that. It was brought up about the times you can do an inspection and you can have a perfect inspection, and the Auditor General's Office comes out and they may find infractions. We have done inspections and they would be perfect. As we explained with the ten members having different serial numbers on their weapons, as was explained to the Auditor General's Office, they could be on training; five of them in training, they lay down their weapon and someone else takes up their weapon. That is two infractions there. It can easily happen. You can have one month perfect inspections and the next month not at all. One month you could be doing inspections and twenty of the officers could be in the field and you may not be able to inspect that particular weapon, but the next month you would and you could find that infraction. There is human error in this and it is going to happen. You could have perfect inspections for six months, and the next month you could have fifteen infractions. You do not like to see it, but it is human error and it could happen.

CHAIR: The inspection, then, would identify the serial number so the officer would get back to going with the right serial number. If the inspection was not done, he would have that serial number for another month or two or whenever the next inspection is done. That is possible, right?

MR. PIKE: It is possible, yes. I mean, he could be on patrol and his weapon could not be inspected until the next month, because he is on patrol and the weapon is not in the locker. We have a computerized system in place. Every officer is assigned a certain weapon. As you say, you could get on training and you could get two officers exchange their weapons. When they are finished training, after cleaning it and laying it down, when you pick it up you have someone else's weapon. You should check it for the serial number, yes, but we are all human. You could end up with four to six infractions because of two officers making a mistake. It will be picked up on the next inspection.

CHAIR: Inspector Noseworthy.

MR. P. NOSEWORTHY: Also, on any given day of an inspection we had the CID lockers upstairs on the second floor and patrol would be on the first floor. Now, since we made some renovations they are all contained in the same room. Staff Sergeant Pike, myself and Sandra do an inspection when she comes out. The whole CID could be armed today and probably thirty or forty patrol officers armed, but they might not get inspected until next month. Now, if myself and Staff Sergeant Pike are on patrol today and we have multiple partners it might not be picked up. So, in the system, we might check half our lockers today and half the equipment may be missing. That is how you get involved with missing equipment.

CHAIR: Mr. Osborne, were you finished?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, thank you.

CHAIR: Did anyone else have a particular question?

I just have one question. Is the monitoring, the inspection and compliance hindered in any way by available resources? Is that impacting on the ability to ensure compliance in any way or is that rated as a priority and some other area might have to suffer temporarily? Can you answer that? Could that be one of the reasons or is it kind of difficult to really single out and isolate?

MR. W. BROWN: First, the firearms inspections, the firearms themselves and the training is a priority. There is no question that that takes priority. When I was responsible for use of force, we had to ensure that every day we had some people down for training. Were the resources impacted by the training? Yes. But we felt it was a priority to do it. We put a lot of resources into our inspections. We have a manager, a Sergeant, to go around every month and make sure these inspections are done. We also put a lot of resources into the fact that when we find non-compliance this becomes a priority for the supervisor who is responsible for the person who is found in non-compliance. They have to generate work to ensure there is a trail to say that we did something about it. I would say that a lot of our non-compliance is human error. That is where it comes from. What is human error? I guess it is just human beings. As I said, our inspections and our training on this is a priority within our organization.

Does that answer -

CHAIR: Yes, sure. Thank you.

Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: I have to go back to my Colleague from Bonavista South even though, unfortunately, he is left. I want to make a clarification here. I am not against inspections or audits the way he led you to believe here a few minutes ago. I totally agree with that. Where I was coming from when I asked my questions, and whether you reference the guns or the ammunition or the pepper spray, all I was asking was: When the Auditor General's Office does its inspection, does it have to go out in print the way it is? I am not saying cover it up. I don't mean that. It can be noted that the pepper stray was in the wrong locker, but not leave the impression that every member of the RNC is running around the town with pepper spray. That is all I was trying to find out, that part of it.

After you find the infraction, should some of it be done that way? It is not as if you are over in Finance and wondering where the money was spent or anything. It is a ticklish issue with the general public. That was my concern, that is all, nothing more than that. I totally agree with the audits and the inspections.

CHAIR: Thank you.

That seemed to, I think, satisfy people here.

One last opportunity, if there is a question. There being none, I certainly give Deputy Chief Browne an opportunity if he wanted to have some closing comments.

MR. G. BROWNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, hon. members of the PAC.

I guess, as part of the process, we had earlier alluded to the challenges, Mr. Chair, that I spoke about, like: Ensuring that we have enough civilian support to do the related firearms items; that we have timely support from other government departments, which we have, but it is a challenge that we have to have it in the future because this gets complex as it goes; that we have sufficient monies allotted for training, that is use of force training and the normal RNC weapons training because it is very expensive; and that we have monies for the acquisition of new personal body armor. Mr. Chairman, that is an issue we of the RNC need now. We are working the process through to obtaining new body armor. Acting Inspector Carroll and other committees are working on that, and also for the acquisition of nine-millimeter weapons which I think - Acting Inspector Carroll, you may jump in here, but are we not probably the only force now in Canada without the nine-mil?

MR. CARROLL: That is correct. The RNC now is the only major police force in Canada that does not carry semi-automatic weapons. I think there may be one or two small town police departments in Quebec that carry revolvers, but the rest of the police agencies across Canada carry semi-automatics. It is strictly to do with an officer safety issue.

WITNESS: Thank you, Staff Sergeant Carroll.

MR. G. BROWNE: Just to note, Mr. Chairman: Are we dealing with the Auditor General's Report?

CHAIR: Yes. I think, Deputy Chief Browne, this is pertaining to 3.24 basically. If there are comments that are impacting on this, you know it certainly would be appropriate. Otherwise, you know, it is really outside the scope of why we are here today. While we certainly appreciate those, we are probably not the forum to deal with that, because we are more an accountability committee of the Legislature. While the issues are very important and we are all very interested in those issues, I think they are issues that need to be addressed, I guess, in another forum. So, we would like you to keep it to that, on the particular points that impact here.

MR. G. BROWNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Body armor is part of use of force and part of the training that we have to deal with, but I certainly take your guidance.

I think it is also - maybe I am wrong and I stand to be corrected again, but we talked about the judicial enquiry that is going on now as far as the use of force is concerned, and we are looking forward to the recommendations of that enquiry which will help us in our training and our use of force. I think that impacts upon what we do here.

I just want to close, I guess, and say there are many positive things, Mr. Chair and hon. members, that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary now has a fully new refurbished firing range in St. John's and it is second to none. We were a long time and it was costly, but we needed it and the Minister of Justice and senior officials and government people acknowledged that. So, that is a very positive thing. We have a dedicated full day of training now every Wednesday. We have a new collective agreement and that has to do, I think, with this training, Mr. Chair, that there is a full day of specific training every Wednesday for operational members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. So this will greatly help us in meeting the training standards and part of that will be policy training. So we are very, very pleased. That is a positive thing, as I said, with our modern five-year strategic plan also.

With that I would just like to thank yourself and the hon. members of the committee. We were ordered before you but, Sir, I can say in all sincerity that we have tried to be as open and forthright as we can. It has been an introspection and as human beings it is not often easy to look inward, but we are working very hard at that, through the assistance of the Auditor General and all of those people in that process, which is a pretty heavy process that we are put through, and rightly so because it is a very serious matter as other hon. members have alluded to today.

I thank you for your time and all I can say to you is that we are working very hard. We will make mistakes and we will continue. Other officers sitting at this table have talked about the human error, and we will never get away from it, but we have to be vigilant and do the best we can to ensure that we reduce those numbers and make this place a safer place for people to live and for our members to police in.

Again, I thank you. I hope we have done our best and have left the committee with the answers they wanted. As you know, next year there will be a total review after the five-year period. I do not know if I will still be here because I am looking forward to retirement after thirty-one years, but it has always been a pleasure. We thank you for having us here today.

CHAIR: We thank you too, and the other officers here, for your openness in answering questions. We certainly appreciate it and it gives the committee insight into basic procedure, what is happening and that. Of course, everybody is interested in that. I know the politicians here are certainly interested and our constituents out there across the Province are interested, and I thank you for that.

Auditor General, Mr. Noseworthy, any closing comments?

CHAIR: With that, we thank you all for your time.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.