November 13,

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.