The Committee met at 10:00 a.m. in the House of Assembly Chamber.

CHAIR (Bennett): Good morning.

This is a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am the Chair of the Committee, my name is Jim Bennett. I welcome individuals here today from the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, as well as from the Auditor General's office, committee members, our staff individuals, and a new Page we have with us today. The individuals who are here will introduce themselves. Everybody will introduce themselves.

The people who have come from the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary today are here of their own volition. Nobody has been subpoenaed. They have been asked to come and provide some explanations, and they have done so. All of these proceedings are recorded. Anything that is said at these proceedings, nothing can be used against any individual, no evidence, the same as would pertain to any privileged communications within any Legislature.

Generally with the questions, we start with an Opposition member, who goes for ten minutes, then we will go to a government member, then we will go to an Opposition member, and then we go to a government member. The ten minutes is a rough time estimate and the individuals from the committee will ask questions. When they have concluded, I generally ask questions if there are any areas that seem not to have been completely covered. Then committee members are invited to ask additional questions.

The Auditor General's staff are here. They assist us and take part in the proceeding. The witnesses are either sworn or affirmed, as is their choice. I am going to ask individuals who are here to introduce themselves, initially starting with the Vice Chair, Mr. Brazil. When we conclude that we will swear the witnesses.

Mr. Brazil.

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

David Brazil, I am the Vice Chair of the Committee, and I represent the District of Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. S. COLLINS: Sandy Collins, I represent the District of Terra Nova.

MR. K. PARSONS: Kevin Parsons, District of Cape St. Francis.

MR. CROSS: I am Eli Cross. I am the MHA for Bonavista North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Christopher Mitchelmore for the District of The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. PADDON: My name is Terry Paddon. I am the Auditor General for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MS MARTIN: My name is Jayme Martin. I am an Audit Senior with the Office of the Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MS RUSSELL: Sandra Russell, Deputy Auditor General.

MR. HICKEY: Dave Hickey, Executive Director of Support Services, RNC.

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: Alban Singleton, Deputy Chief of Patrol Operations, Royal Newfoundland Constabulary.

MR. MACPHEE: Michael MacPhee, Audit Manager, RNC.

MS MURPHY: Elizabeth Murphy, Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees.

MR. DROVER: Craig Drover, Researcher of the Committees.

CHAIR: We have a new Page starting with us today, Shelby Marshall. Thank you for joining us.

Ms Murphy will administer the oath. First, one of our committee members, Mr. Joyce, is unable to be here today. He will have a replacement from the Opposition this afternoon. We have a quorum, so we are going to proceed in any event.

Ms Martin

Mr. Hickey

Deputy Chief Singleton

Mr. MacPhee

CHAIR: Thank you.

Mr. Paddon and Ms Russell were previously sworn and their oath carries over until today. Unless anybody has any questions, I will start the questioning with Mr. Mitchelmore.

MR. MITCHELMORE: I would like to thank you so much for being here today for the Public Accounts Committee hearing on the RNC firearms.

I have some questions starting with the RNC response on page 150 of the Auditor General's report which carries over into 151, which in the response stated: "During operational and training exercises, the OC canisters are often accidentally switched as one member simply picks a canister." I am just wondering, why is this the protocol to allow such switching of OC canisters instead of having a direct canister to a member so that they can be properly tracked?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: On that point, with regard to ongoing training. During training sessions members wear duty belts. Duty belts carry, of course, all their applicable use of force equipment.

At times during training, there are times when members inadvertently – whether it is at the firearms cleaning station, they may have their pepper spray laid down and another member may take it inadvertently. All of the OC canisters are serial numbered, are tracked from our inventory system and are considered part of the equipment that goes into their firearms storage locker to ensure that it is safely controlled and inventoried.

During the firearms locker inspections, all serial numbers are checked to ensure that any breaches or any issues of switching can be identified; but it does occasionally happen, that during training exercise members may inadvertently pick up the wrong canister.

MR. MITCHELMORE: With the serial number, is it a long-digit number or are they just unique to the canister? Does each member with the RNC, are they given a specific number that they can match to equipment?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: Yes, there is a unique identifier on each canister, along with an expiration date. It is just that at times they are inadvertently switched. As part of their use of force equipment, each officer would have OC spray. It is just that in some cases they inadvertently take the wrong canister or they are accidentally switched.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Right, okay.

If I picked up a canister would I be able to easily identify, based on the serial number, that it is my canister or would it be something that would have to be looked at? Would the digit be, say 134, and I am member 134? So I know this is my canister, or is it just –

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: No, it would not be identified by the officer's regimental number. It would be – I think it is a seven or eight-digit number on it. Depending on the age of the can, the use of the can, sometimes the numbers are a bit difficult to read, but this is usually found during the quarterly firearms locker inspections.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Okay.

I have some concerns about expired OC spray. Are these logged into a system when they are purchased, who is using them and when the expiry is, or is the onus on the member or the person who is responsible for locker inspections to determine when cans are expired?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: They are logged into a system and part of our inventory. At times, the expiration dates could be checked during the quarterly. The member may notice it. It could be checked during the quarterly locker inspections. When a member re-qualifies on the range, their use of force equipment is again checked against our inventory counts and the dates etc, but there are occasions when, I guess, the date will lapse.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Okay.

I want to ask you about, in 3A Use of Force Training Database, on page 151. It says, "The key here is, of course, that the training was completed for these members. However, it was actually recorded twice – in a database and again on an Excel spreadsheet. The database is old software (access 97) and that is why we are now using a spreadsheet system as well."

I have some concerns that there is such duplication of staff resource to enter information into an Excel spreadsheet. Access 97, what is the barrier to not upgrade to a more present version of Access to meet your needs?

MR. MACPHEE: After the report was released, we looked at the database that was used. After discussions with the Use of Force Training Unit we made the determination that the database was used primarily to track the annual training activity by member. Therefore, we decided to stop using the database. We would go to a simpler approach for the use of Force Training Unit whereby we use training logs that are signed by the members obtaining the training on a daily basis, or on the daily course offerings. They sign it and then we enter it into a password and field protected spreadsheet. That achieves the same objectives as what the database uses provided.

CHAIR: If I could interject.

Each time we change a speaker, if the speaker could introduce yourself, because we will have a transcript and it is important to know who is giving which evidence.

MR. MACPHEE: Sure. That was Michael MacPhee.

CHAIR: Thank you.

MR. MITCHELMORE: The concern I have with using an Excel spreadsheet – and I saw in the response that you are using more enhanced security features such as password protection and protected cells. Who has access to the spreadsheet? Do they require all of this information for doing search ability to see who has training? Would there be some privacy implications by using an Excel spreadsheet? Also, the fact that an Excel spreadsheet can easily have data deleted or adjusted without proper tracking as to who is doing the deleting and things like that.

MR. MACPHEE: The Use of Force Training Unit sergeant is the individual who is in charge of populating the data into the spreadsheet.

With respect to completeness of training and accuracy of the database; we will be, on an ongoing basis, monitoring the completeness of the training by taking it back to the source documents, which will be the training logs. We will easily be able to detect any missing data that may have inadvertently been taken out of a cell. It is the sergeant in charge of the Use of Force Training Unit who will be the individual using it. There should not be any privacy concerns either. He is the only one with access to it.

MR. MITCHELMORE: It seems like there was a discrepancy in the Use of Force Training activity as to what the Auditor General found and what the response was in terms of the number adjustment on page 152 stating there was 380 who received training, not 376, twelve not sixteen, et cetera.

Can you further explain this discrepancy? Have these people who have not received the training, finally received their training which is required?

MR. MACPHEE: I am sorry, is this on 3B Use of Force Training?

MR. MITCHELMORE: Yes, 3B.

CHAIR: I would like to note that the Committee has been joined by Mr. Joyce, MHA for Bay of Islands.

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: In a subsequent response, of the 392 members requiring Module 1 training, 380, not 376, have now completed the training. While twelve, not sixteen, had not yet completed the training.

At times when you are doing module training and working with in excess of 400 members, there will be occasions when members for different reasons cannot attend or receive training. Some members may be on leave for various reasons. There will be occasions when some of the members will not receive their Module 1 as per our scheduled module training with the four modules. For different reasons there will be people, but I know our Use of Force Unit tracks the training requirements and operational officers requiring training will receive it.

MR. MITCHELMORE: My concern is where you are using an Excel spreadsheet. Is there a mechanism to track those who are not using – how elaborate is the spreadsheet for date, time, and also looking at your database for your management of weapons and inventory in the armoury?

Simple database management software should be able to track and enter all of your OC spray, when the expiry is, and prompt that this is expired and be able to get rid of it on that day. There should be no excuse as to why officers could be putting the public at risk or themselves using expired OC spray. I am just wondering about the usefulness of using the Excel spreadsheet itself as the best practice versus proper database management software.

MR. MACPHEE: There are two separate databases, if you will, being used. There is one to track the training and then there is the armoury inventory system which is the system which tracks OC spray and all other use of force issued items.

There is a function within the armoury inventory system which allows for expiration of dates to be inserted for OC spray. There are some issues with respect to that module, which we are working with OCIO to correct. It is important to note that on a quarterly basis we are looking and we are assessing for expiration of OC spray. We do have a process in place currently which will detect if a member is using an expired OC spray canister.

With respect to the training, the Excel spreadsheet does track the training dates of the members, when they obtained the training, what module was provided on that day to the members. Within the training documentation procedures which we have developed, the sergeant in charge of the Use of Force Training Unit is required as soon as practically possible to enter the training dates into the spreadsheet to track it, so we can very quickly assess who has not been trained before year-end.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Mr. Brazil, you have questions.

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to welcome the Auditor General and his staff, and Deputy Chief Singleton and his staff also. As deputy chief you may note that the Auditor General made this as a concern. When we reviewed it, it is a bit different than the norm of what we deal with because we normally deal with direct financial costs and issues around control and those types of areas.

Because of the perception here when you talk about inventory accountability and particularly around firearms and ammunition, these types of things, there is a different perception if we have to make sure that the accountability is there. The questions that we are going to put forth will be about particularly, from my perspective, the accountability. After reviewing the responses, I am satisfied that if everything here is implemented as outlined, then the accountability issue should be covered off fairly easily and very professionally.

What I do ask, if you could take me through the process, because I have gone through them in-depth, what the Auditor General had outlined and your responses. Just take me through the process of how you decided how you move forward on the armoury inventory procedure and the training documentation procedure. I know it is a new implementation, when you reassessed it. I would like to be clear on how you got to that point, who you engaged as part of that process to identify the issues about the inventory procedures.

MR. MACPHEE: I started with the RNC on January 3. One of the first tasks was to read the Auditor General's report and get acquainted with the system, the findings and the issues, and then go and basically determine the processes involved in inventory tracking of use of force equipment.

I was in charge of developing a description of the system and then assessing where there is improvement for internal controls to come in and rectify some of the issues. There were controls that were operating effectively beforehand, it is just the armoury inventory procedures, the objectives are specified in the response, but it is to provide a better property accountability of the use of force equipment that the RNC possess and track. So, it was really achieved by talking to the Use of Force Training Unit who are really knowledgeable in inventory management and know what is under their control.

Finding of the issues, it is a system and there were some quirks to it, so we developed the armoury inventory procedures to add that additional guidance in the event that if a member left, a new member could come in and pick it up and become an inventory management professional and easily account for the property. From that, detailed armoury inventory procedures have been developed. They are still in draft form because we are fixing some of the issues in the system to improve them, but they will be rolled out in the very, very near future.

The armoury inventory procedures cover different phases of inventory control from acquisition, how to record armoury at the front end, what you need to do when you transfer – because that was an issue, the timeliness of inventory transfers – so we have developed detailed procedures on inventory transfers which will rectify lots of the findings that were identified in the report.

We have also centralized the recording function to the inventory communications co-ordinator for the RNC. A centralized system of recording will allow us to definitely prevent some of the timeliness issues in terms of recording transfers.

Then we also developed procedures on quarterly armoury counts. Armoury counts have never been part of our formal policy, but we have been certainly conducting them for a number of years now, and so looking at best practices in other areas, specifically looking at GAO reports from the United States and looking at the procedures that other federal jurisdictions in the United States use to conduct armoury counts, we built those into our armoury inventory procedures as well.

MR. BRAZIL: Just so I am clear, who monitors this process? Is this at the constable level, is at the civilian employee level, is it at the officers' level, or is it all-inclusive for the training for everybody?

MR. MACPHEE: The Use of Force Training Unit and the inventory communications co-ordinator, they drive the recording function and the armoury count function within the system. The inspections officer, a newly appointed member since January 2012, is the individual who oversees the actual firearms locker inspection process.

MR. BRAZIL: Am I reading in some of the responses, part of it was not having the resources, as you put the process in place, to really identify and deal with some of the issues that the Auditor General had put in place. Was it a resource thing as you were moving forward as one of the concerns?

MR. HICKEY: I am just going to add, that we have added two additional positions. We filled Mike's position as the Audit Manager in January. That had been vacant for a while. Of course, he will be doing the next firearms audit as well.

Also, we added, as Deputy Chief Singleton said, the inspections position. We have assigned a full-time sergeant within the RNC to the inspections role. Those are two key additional resources that were not in place at the time of the audit.

MR. BRAZIL: Okay. So there are additional resources there to identify that?

CHAIR: Deputy Chief.

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: Also on that, as part of the response to the Auditor General's report we did certainly see a need for a manager in audits and compliance, and we identified at the executive level the need to have an inspections officer.

The inspections officer will carry out the quarterly inspections. In each region we have a person who assists him, the sergeant, in co-ordinating this. Of course, the sergeant has other roles besides the firearms. Those are issues around dress and deportment, and assisting with establishing policies and procedures in other areas. The inspection officer works very closely with our audit manager on such issues around our firearms policies and is involved in the drafting of the policies in this regard.

Also, we centralized, as Mr. MacPhee says, the data entry into one person working from the paper backup to ensure the data integrity is more effective.

MR. BRAZIL: Okay, perfect.

I know some of these things are already in place. Some are in the design process. Some are actually ready to be implemented. What is your time frame for being able to address all the issues outlined here?

MR. MACPHEE: The armoury inventory procedures will be rolled out in the very near future, within a month or so. We are working with OCIO now to fix some of the system issues. Once those are done we will have to go back and re-jig a little bit of the armoury inventory procedures for the system changes. Then we will be rolling them out. It is key to note, we currently possess internal controls that will detect discrepancies in our inventory right now as well.

CHAIR: That response was provided by Mr. MacPhee.

MR. BRAZIL: Okay, perfect.

One last comment here; it has been noted that Labrador and Corner Brook seem to have some other issues relevant to this. As I know, the RNC is expanding on a daily basis to meet the needs in various areas.

Is it the old cliché: outside of the main headquarters it is a lot harder to monitor or identify resources? I know you have outlined how you are going to draft those, but just for a part of the history process. Why was it that the reporting process is a little bit more delayed before it gets to the headquarters?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: No, it was certainly something that was identified in the Auditor General's report. We have been proactive in identifying a regional officer in each area who will be responsible for our firearms inventory.

There were issues around we do have a lot of transition in and out of these areas at times with transfers and members moving. We have been proactive in that. Even when members are being transferred, they are advised in personnel orders about the transfer of their firearm, to turn it in here and it would be shipped to the other region.

In addition to that, since coming on staff Mr. MacPhee has visited both Labrador and Corner Brook to look at our armoury inventory and the way we operate, so that it will be more congruent with what is happening on the Northeast Avalon. We will not have this outside of St. John's or the Northeast Avalon different ways of operating.

The Use of Force Unit is engaged on a daily or weekly basis with the officers in each region to co-ordinate training and other issues around inventories. Right now, I believe a lot of the issues that may have been there have been addressed in the last six, seven months.

MR. BRAZIL: Perfect.

Mr. Chair, with that being said, I am satisfied with the responses by the witnesses. At this point I have no other questions. I will turn it back to one of the Opposition members.

CHAIR: Mr. Joyce.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you.

First of all, I apologize for being a few minutes late. I caught a flight in this morning from Corner Brook. I apologize for being a few minutes late. Also, I thank the Auditor General and his staff for being here, and the people from the RNC.

When we are discussing the RNC, I think it is more for the public confidence to have it on record that things are being taken seriously of the Auditor General's report and the recommendations. That the Constabulary are responding to the recommendations to ensure the public there are no bullets out there or guns out there that no one could find or they are out on the street somewhere.

In the Auditor General's report he mentioned from 1999 to 2006. I was on the last hearings the Public Accounts had with the RNC and some of the same things are still arising. I will just speak for a minute. At that time everything was accounted for. It was more administration than actual guns missing or bullets missing, or anything of that nature. I just want to make that clear from back in the 2000s when we did the Public Account meetings, that everything was accounted for. It was more administration than anything.

They mentioned from 1999 to 2006, is there a big change in the procedures – before the new Auditor was hired – from back in 2000 to the present Auditor General's report when they went back, I think six years after? Were there any changes implemented internally?

MR. HICKEY: I will just mention that Mike is not the first occupant of our audit manager position.

MR. JOYCE: Yes.

MR. HICKEY: We had a previous Audit Manager, Pam Healey. We had a bit of a gap there between the time that she left and we hired Mike. She did introduce a lot of procedures and so on that we are still following today. We are just trying to make improvements based on what the Auditor General has identified in this latest report.

Mike has been working hard, particularly on these procedures. We do not have copies of them here today but they are very detailed audit implementation procedures. They will be implemented, as he said, in the next month or so.

MR. JOYCE: Yes. We can go through each one. For example, "Based on the results of inventory counts, we concluded that the officials at the Corner Brook and Labrador West armories could not account for all of the items under their control."

After the Auditor General's report was brought up – and, of course, I am assuming there was an internal review – was everything accounted for at a later date?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: No. Our subsequent follow-up on that, there is no indication there was anything missing from these locations. I think there were some errors, but there were no inventory items missing.

Mr. MacPhee just reminded me, there may have been one baton when a member retired that was not recovered or turned in. The thing is, Mr. Joyce, as alluded to in an earlier report or just from our follow-ups, there are no firearms missing. We take it very seriously, the inventory control of our equipment, plus our training with regard to firearms and other types of use of force.

MR. JOYCE: Yes, and I just want to get that on record for the public, there was never any guns missing or ammunition missing.

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: No.

MR. JOYCE: I am going on memory now. I see in the report where some of the guns were in people's individual lockers, not stored in the safe places where they were supposed to be.

From my recollection, and you can correct me, I just ask again: Some of the members may be out on long duties and need extra time or they had to work a lot of overtime, so tiredness or whatever, and they just put it in their locker instead of in the safe areas where they were supposed to be placed. Can you just explain that?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: There have been occasions, sir, where members have placed their use of force equipment in their personal lockers in the dressing room. The procedure is: When an officer comes off duty, they go to the firearm storage locker, take out their firearm, ammunition, pepper spray, and put it into a locked compartment and then they change in the change room.

Some members have, on occasion, as referenced, for some reason or another went and placed their duty belt in their locker with their use of force equipment in it, but the locker itself is locked. So it is still in a locked, secure location. It is just that it is not the one that we, the RNC, identify as being our designated storage compartment for their use of force equipment.

MR. JOYCE: Again, I just want it for the record. At no time was it in an unsafe area that was not under lock and key, and that the member himself placed it in his own locker under his own lock and key.

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: Yes, and at no time were other employees, staff, or the public at any type of risk.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you for that.

The other thing that was brought up again – I am going back in the 2000s – was the ammunition. I guess it is probably during training, a lot of the ammunition is not accounted for, do not mark it off the inventory sheet – can you explain that?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: There were occasions, sir, where through training at the time – and you are going back ten, twelve years ago – where we had firearm safety officers conducting Use of Force Training and we had several of them and there were times when ammunition was used for training and may not have been properly recorded.

I think a lot of that has been reconciled through the establishment in 2009 of the Use of Force Unit, because at that time we saw the need, one, to have centralized control over our training and policy development. I believe it was July 2009, it was recommended to the chief of the day to establish a Use of Force Unit, which is operating today. Some of these controls that were identified or issues around inventory counts identified by the Auditor General, I think they have been addressed through the work of Mr. MacPhee and working with the Use of Force Unit and by centralizing our training in one, but also educating our members over the importance of inventory control.

MR. JOYCE: Yes. In the report it was mentioned, "We also found that quarterly firearm storage locker inspections were not being conducted as required...". Has that been taken care of now?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: Yes, sir, that was a concern. It was whether or not they were conducted, or records that were conducted were an issue identified by the Auditor General's office. We have taken, I believe, a proactive approach in that. One of those duties was assigned to our inspections officer. To add support or some authority to the position, we made it a supervisory rank. The inspection officer reports to the Office of the Chief of Police. The person –he – currently serving in that position does not report to a section or a unit, they report to our office.

All the reports completed on a quarterly basis are sent to my office. They are reviewed and quite often any issues or, say, suggestions, I will convene a meeting between myself and Mr. MacPhee and our inspections officer to aid us in policy development.

MR. JOYCE: Okay.

Just a few more, I know my time is almost up, Mr. Chair. In the report it stated that while each locker has a key, there have never been controls in place that would have prevented the duplication of keys and/or ensured the returning of keys when a locker has changed. Has that been also looked at whereby you may change a locker and you may be able to duplicate the keys?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: It is not so much that keys can be duplicated but, at times, when you are buying several hundred lockers, one key may fit another locker.

MR. JOYCE: Okay.

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: These lockers are not out in a hallway; these lockers are behind a secure door that is coded. We have taken steps, sir, in that regard. I know in some detachments we are looking at the replacement of lockers. With our current setup, where our headquarters building is being redeveloped, we have members displaced at different offices. The lockers that we have purchased have the cam lock, which is a more secure locking system, and we are working with the consultants on the redevelopment of headquarters with regard to the acquisition of new lockers for our new headquarters building, which we hope to be in next year.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Joyce.

Mr. Collins.

MR. JOYCE: I will ask just one more – just very quick on this, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Okay, go ahead.

MR. JOYCE: I just want it for the record, also. Even with mention in the Auditor General's report –and I know it has been rectified, but there has never been an incident where the duplication of a key has caused any problems with anything missing or anything.

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: No, sir. A subsequent inspection would locate that officer A had the firearm for officer B or something like that, but there is no firearm or ammunition or pepper spray missing.

MR. JOYCE: Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Mr. Collins.

MR. S. COLLINS: Thank you.

Continuing on the same train of thought as my colleague with regard to locker inspections, can you explain the process? In amongst that I know we have been talking about quarterly checks, I am just wondering: Is there any randomness to the checks, and if you could just walk us through the process of what a locker check would look like and how it would be conducted?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: There is no announcement saying on October 17, the lockers are going to be inspected. Sergeant O'Reilly, on a quarterly basis, will conduct an inspection of the firearms locker. He will go to the locker room. He will have the inventory sheets with regard to, for example, what firearm and OC spray is assigned to each individual officer. Each individual officer would be assigned so many rounds of ammunition. You have your firearm clips, your magazines, and your ammunition to use in your firearm, and you have your OC spray.

So, the officer, say, on the Northeast Avalon will go to each detachment or each building in the districts which has a locker inspection. Locker one, for example, if it was mine, Deputy Chief Singleton should have this firearm, should have this amount of ammunition and this pepper spray. They will go through and you will hit lockers that have nothing in it, there are empty, so then he will check the daily duty rosters and say, okay, this particular constable is working, so there is a reason for.

Not only is he checking the lockers for the inventoried equipment, he is also checking the firearms for safe storage. These are semi-automatic weapons. So he takes it out and the magazine is still in the firearm then he will render the firearm safe, he will note in his report, and there is a subsequent follow-up identifying that it is a breach of our policy to store a firearm loaded.

He will identify those breaches or follow up on: The member is not working and their firearm is not there, why? Then we find out, as in earlier question I believe from Mr. Joyce, that the firearm may be stored in their locker, they got a call during work for some issue or something outside of work, and they inadvertently put it in their personal locker, locked. There is follow up to this.

In addition to firearm locker inspections, there are also actually personal inspections conducted, I believe, biannually. Each member has to appear in uniform with their use of force equipment so that you know they have their handcuffs, soft body armour. All use of force equipment is also checked when members attend at a firing range to complete firearms training. This is another opportunity. In addition, say, to a person's firearms locker being inspected four times a year, their equipment is also inspected during personnel inspections and when they attend for firearms training.

MR. S. COLLINS: Thank you.

In the rare event, I guess it would be, where you find non-compliance by officers not having things stored properly, whatever the case may be, or not having it stored on site, walk us through the process then. How is non-compliance issues addressed within the ranks?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: Any breaches or potential breaches of our policy are reported up the line to me. I know from my own experience, being assigned to professional standards, that we conduct internal investigations where members are disciplined internally for breaches. The discipline will correspond with the breach. If it is a minor breach, it may be a verbal reprimand or a written reprimand, up to where we have had members suspended, depending on the type of breach of our regulations.

MR. S. COLLINS: Okay, fair enough.

Not to belabour much of what has already been said, I just have another question. It is not really random, as such, but it kind of follows up on what one of my colleagues had asked earlier with regard to the spray and the expiry dates and those types of things.

How does it work with firearms, the life cycle of the firearm? How is it decommissioned? How is it safety checked, those types of things?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: If a member has a firearm issued, say they dropped their firearm or something happens to it, it gets wet, then they would report that to the Use of Force Unit. The Use of Force Unit, when annual qualifications are done, the members actually inspect the firearms to make sure that the firearms – in addition to being trainers, these people are also armourers. They can service the revolvers.

We had people from SIG Sauer down in the United States come here to St. John's and train our members to be armourers so that they can do most of the maintenance on all the firearms. The firearms do have a life cycle that after so many years – and depending on the usage. Some members are front-line operational, they are working the full year, whereas other members may not get the same amount of usage and wear and tear.

The firearms do go through a scheduled inspection to ensure it is working properly. You have sliding mechanisms and things that you need to ensure that the equipment is functioning. It is a major officer safety issue.

MR. S. COLLINS: Okay, thank you.

That is everything.

CHAIR: Mr. Mitchelmore.

MR. MITCHELMORE: It certainly seems, from the information that is already provided, that having the role of an audit manager is vital to ensuring proper inventory management and keeping the information up to date, because it was reported there were significant backlogs of being able to enter data into systems and things like that.

I am wondering, at this point, has the backlog of data been adjusted? Has everything been entered into the system? Are you still working through a backlog of data?

MR. MACPHEE: There is no backlog in the data. The armoury inventory system is updated. It is not a perpetual system. We are reliant on updating it with our source documents, that being stock sheets, but they are updated and any discrepancies identified quarterly and those issues are adjusted for.

With respect to the Use of Force Training Database, there is no backlog as well. The documentation procedures require the Use of Force Unit to, in a very timely fashion, enter that data.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Okay.

On page 129 of the Auditor General's report, stock slips not being used. Are you still using paper stock slips, and have you done an education process around members to ensure they are reporting and completing stock slips appropriately to match up inventory?

MR. MACPHEE: Yes, we still are using manual stock slips. The process is in a little bit of change whereby, again, the inventory communications co-ordinator in the Northeast Avalon region will enter all that. They will actually electronically scan these stock slips to her, and then we will marry it up with the paper copy when it comes into the headquarters.

The members, through the armoury inventory procedures, details the usage of stock slips for all movements of inventory. Inventory does not move unless there is a stock slip prepared for it. Again, it will get identified when we reconcile our armoury inventory on a quarterly basis, and we currently do that.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Okay, right.

That is what I was getting at, is to confirm. It seems very positive that you are centralizing the service, that you have dedicated staff to be able to make sure that it is up to date. I wanted to make sure there was compliance to do that check, to make sure that things are matching up because on page 129 it seemed like there needed to be adjustments.

How is the system of our inventories adjusted? Are there special notes to account for any errors or missing ammunitions or things that are disposed of, because ultimately, no system can be perfect? There would have to be some pieces that are going to get lost or missing or whatnot at some point.

MR. MACPHEE: The system is reconciled quarterly. We have quarterly armoury count sheets that will identify the system quantity. Compare that to the count quantity, and if there is a discrepancy there is an explanation field, and there has to be a reasonable explanation put in. A good explanation would be: we used additional rounds on the range and here is the stock sheet number to recognize the adjustment in the inventory balance.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Okay.

There were a number of instances, or a few at least, noted in the report around the transfer. Members had transferred from the Northeast Avalon to Lab West, to Corner Brook, visa versa, where the firearms were not being updated accordingly. They were being listed elsewhere. You had noted that now it is centralized, that for the transfer they have to turn in their weapon and it would be shipped. Was the process different otherwise?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: The process may have been different, and also there may have been some issues around the recording of the actual transfer or the effective transfer. A member leaves St. John's on September 1 and arrives in Labrador City on September 5, they are reporting on a Saturday. They start their shift and the person at the time may not have recorded the fact that they even reported or recorded that the equipment was in St. John's.

What we do now is in announcements – we call them personnel orders – when transferring staff that it is written into them. They are told during transfer meetings, they are directed to turn in their use of force equipment at their local, regional, whether it is the Northeast Avalon, Corner Brook or Labrador West and then have it reassigned in the new location, to put tighter controls on it because it was a finding of the Auditor General and it was an issue for us. I think that some of the new policies and procedures put in place have addressed those.

MR. MITCHELMORE: I would like to know why firearms are transferred from sites. If there are similar firearms being used, is there an attachment based on the officer?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: They may very well transfer the firearm or they may very well issue a new firearm in that detachment. It is only a matter of having sufficient inventory in place in the receiving. Having the same firearm, you can track the usage of it and the ownership of the firearm during an officer – then if there is an issue with the firearm you know where it is.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Okay.

I am looking at the composition of firearms, the type, the handguns, shotguns, rifles and location. Is there anything specific as to why there are so many handguns, shotguns, for example, no rifles at the Corner Brook office? Is there a particular reason for this? That is on page 123 of the Auditor General's report.

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: With regard to the allotment of firearms, some of the firearms, handguns, would be assigned due to the size of each region – the Northeast Avalon being the larger, followed by Corner Brook and Labrador West. In Labrador West we have two detachments; one in Labrador City and the other one in Churchill Falls. There are shotguns in all locations, and these are usually used for operational reasons or are usually used when we are requested to dispose of an animal.

You mentioned about Corner Brook having no rifles. Rifles primarily, for the RNC – it is not primary, but rifles for the RNC are used by our tactical rescue unit. For operational reasons, there are none in Corner Brook right now – I am just looking at the numbers. In Labrador there may be a need to have those, as opposed to in Corner Brook.

From an operational perspective, in the event we had an incident where special services were required, such as our tactical rescue unit, we would send them from the Northeast Avalon.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Okay. Thank you for that clarification and information.

The locker piece, it seems that the RNC is moving forward in using technology, the swipe cards and using separate passwords, in your response, and that is moving forward. Is that moving forward on all locations, or just the Northeast Avalon here?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: We are looking at new technology, especially in the headquarters building, and we are working with the consultants on that. In the other locations we are looking at the acquisition of new firearms storage lockers and ways to enhance the security around the whole issue around firearms storage and our firearms storage lockers.

MR. MITCHELMORE: I guess it would be no different than a corporation when you are looking at the financial piece of somebody signing the cheque and somebody keeping the books (inaudible) –

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: It is a big financial burden or cost to completely replace. When a consultant comes back and says this is what it is going to cost you, then that will be a factor that we would have to consider and is there a happy medium that we can go to, to ensure, one, that everything is properly stored and, two, do we have control or ways of monitoring the firearm storage area.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Right.

If you did implement a pass code and a swipe card, you would not want one individual having access to the master swipe code and all the master passwords, in one sense; there would have to be that security piece as well.

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: Yes, in any password or electronic password swipe card, it is usually controlled. You have a person behind the scenes in your OCIO who designates the carding and recording of it so that not only does the system allow you to indicate that this card is for this door but some systems will also show you that there was a false attempt or an attempt by an unauthorized card to enter a certain door. With technology, the sky is the limit.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Yes.

I am wondering if the –

CHAIR: Is this the same subject?

MR. MITCHELMORE: Is it the same subject, just one quick question.

CHAIR: Okay (inaudible) –

MR. MITCHELMORE: If the RNC would be looking at using Radio-Frequency Identification technology, the RFID, where you basically scan what would be a barcode or a serial number and can track the equipment, whether it be a firearm or whether it be OC spray or whatnot, knowing where its inventory is at all places. There is a company, Cathexis, here in the Province that deals with that technology.

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: We have discussed barcodes in other areas, such as in our property control center. Adding a barcode to a firearm may be problematic in it is something that is handled daily, it is exposed to the elements, and you would have to be very careful about the placement of anything that may render it unsafe or inoperable.

With regard to barcodes for firearms, it is not something we have discussed to date.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR: Mr. Parsons.

MR. K. PARSONS: Thank you very much.

I just have a couple of questions that I would like to ask this morning. First of all, just to follow up there, when you talked about training the members, there were some members who were not trained because of activities that they were involved in, whether they were off on leave or whatever. What procedures are in place to ensure that all members do get trained? If there is somebody who is off, on special assignment or whatever, is there something in place to make sure that everybody – at the end of to year, do you have to have –

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: Yes, sir, when it comes to training, the training for me, or any other member to attend at the range to re-qualify, it is not left to the member to say: Oh, I have to go down this year and re-qualify. Our Use of Force Unit has the records and they are very proactive in getting members down to the range. You will receive an e-mail: On this date, you are required on the range to re-qualify.

Some members, when they are off for extended periods, maternity leave, long-term, sick or other reasons, quite often their use of force equipment is removed from their locker so that they cannot go operational unless the person attends training. We have had that in the past.

There is follow-up on it. The Use of Force Unit is proactive in identifying members who need to be trained.

MR. K. PARSONS: Is there a time frame, like, you have to be at a certain level each year?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: Annual.

MR. K. PARSONS: Annual?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: Yes.

MR. K. PARSONS: Okay.

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: There is an annual recertification and then there are different modules. There are four modules in our Use of Force, so every year it is Module 1, which is firearms, and then every other year is another module. It is like it is one and two, one and three, one and four, so there is a cycle that the Use of Force Unit works through in training, but the firearms is yearly.

MR. K. PARSONS: Okay.

I am very proud actually of the RNC. I think you are doing a great job. I look at our new recruits who are coming on stream on a regular basis. I am just wondering – because you see a lot of them around town, they are younger individuals – is there a certain procedure in place for the newer members of RNC, say, for training versus a gentleman who has been there for twenty years? What are the procedures in place?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: The RNC, in 2004, started the Police Studies Program, which is a partnership with Memorial University. At that time the RNC took on not only running a police service, but they also took on running a police academy. As part of the cadet training program under the Police Studies Program, there is a fairly extensive use of force training, which begins early in the program and runs all year because this is an eleven-and-a-half month program. It starts when the university opens and it runs till the end of August next year, so it is almost a complete year.

The training portion, the first two semesters, the fall and winter semester at Memorial University, is co-ordinated that there are no university classes on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Those days are used by the training section to give different training, but incorporated in that training is our use of force training, the different tactics, and firearms are part of the training.

So, they receive a comprehensive training program during their initial year, and they have to pass – in order to graduate, they have to meet all of their training requirements for use of force, and our other required training areas. Once they graduate, they enter then into our annual requalification process.

MR. K. PARSONS: Okay.

Just another little thing, your new headquarters, the renovations done on your new headquarters – can you tell us anything new that will happen to enhance training or with the inventory or security? What are the new renovations down there going to mean to –

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: On the headquarters redevelopment, one thing is that we hope to be in it by 2013 – early. There is a new firing range in it. Of course, that is one of the things right now we do not have, is access to our old range. There is a new range; we are working with the consultants with regard to the firearms storage. There are different camera systems going to be installed in the building, and the whole issue around access keys are an issue, and I know under Mr. Hickey's shop –

MR. HICKEY: Just to expand a little more, basically we have two buildings on Parade Street. We have the headquarters building and what we call the Annex Building, which is the former Fisheries College. So, the project is being done in several phases. The headquarters building should be ready to be moved into next spring, and that is going to triple the size of our offices there in the headquarters building, provide a lot more opportunities for improvement of service.

The Annex Building, which is the former Fisheries College, or former Memorial College, that building is going to undergo a total renovation as well, but the tender has not been called for that yet. So, by probably late 2014, that will become sort of a training institute. There will be training made available to not just the RNC, but to Fish and Wildlife, Corrections, and other parts of government as well. That facility will include other features. The training will be located over in the Annex Building. Right now we have it located at the School for the Deaf on Topsail Road.

MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. I just have one more question.

I am just looking at best practices in other jurisdictions. Do you follow up with other jurisdictions on best practices and how they do theirs? Can you explain what you do to ensure that you are getting best practices that are in other jurisdictions?

MR. HICKEY: There has been no formal reach out to other jurisdictions in Canada, but I have been doing a lot of investigation into best practices in other areas, and doing research on-line and reading up on inventory control procedures in other law enforcement jurisdictions and other areas, and making sure that is something that can be built into our processes.

MR. K. PARSONS: Thank you very much. That is good for me, Mr. Chair.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Joyce.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you again.

I will just ask the Auditor General: Do you feel that the recommendations that you made – and I am sure they are – that the Constabulary are following up on the recommendations and putting the safeguards and the audits in place?

MR. PADDON: The responses that the RNC provided to your questions from the summer, I have not had a chance to look at; they were just provided today, so I cannot really comment on that. So I will just flavour my comments based on what I have heard here this morning.

If I categorize the recommendations, perhaps, they fall into a number of categories. One would be around documentation, record keeping, and those sorts of things. Then there would be issues around physical control of use of force equipment, and then compliance with policy; so three distinct areas, shall I say.

The hiring of Mr. MacPhee into the position in January, I would suggest, is a fairly positive step in terms of ensuring that, one, the record keeping documentation side of it will be improved, and we will follow up on our recommendations after a two-year period. We give the RNC an opportunity to put new procedures that they feel are warranted in place. So, we will follow up in 2014 to see what has been done, and we will report on that in 2014.

In terms of physical control, those sorts of things, I think the procedures that have been talked about here in terms of the quarterly inspections, those sorts of things, are the things that you would expect to ensure that issues around physical control of equipment is working properly and in compliance with procedures.

In terms of compliance with policy, it is really difficult to say. You tend to have more human error, I suppose, when it comes to policy issues. It really will depend on what we see in 2014 as to how that is happening.

As a general comment, I would suggest that based on what I have heard today and the comments from the representatives from the RNC, I would expect that you would see some improvement along the areas that we have looked at.

MR. JOYCE: In your review with the RNC – and again, I just want it for the record, and I know Deputy Chief Singleton already said it – there were no findings that there was ever a gun that no one could ever find or locate or may be it is stored in someone's locker because they may have been working twenty-four hours straight because of some emergency, but there was never any incident that you found in your report.

MR. PADDON: Just to correct you, that it was not my report, because this was the report of my predecessor, Wayne Loveys. My understanding is that you are correct, and the deputy chief is correct. Subsequently, all items were either located or the record keeping was brought up-to-date. I will just ask my two colleagues if that was the case – so yes, they confirm that is the case.

MR. JOYCE: Just so we can have it on the record and in the public. There was never, at any time, or in any of these instances that it was more bookkeeping, that any of the general public was ever in any safety – or any concern for the general public. It was always a more procedural thing and not a major issue for any of the general public with the equipment for the RNC?

MR. PADDON: Yes, I think that would be a fair comment, Mr. Joyce.

MR. JOYCE: Okay.

My last question: Do you feel confident now that some of the recommendations that the Auditor General has put forth can be implemented by the RNC and steps – and we all know human error; sometimes someone who is tired may put something in their locker. I mean, that is human nature – the majority. Do you feel confident now that things are moving forward to ensure the compliance of the regulations?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: Yes, sir, I feel very confident with our follow-up from the Auditor General's report, and they did identify some issues and concerns, as the Auditor General has stated. I think that we have been proactive over the last several years, especially in the last year, with the replacing or filling our audit manager position, and with the creation of the inspections officer position, because that was part and parcel to address some of the issues in the Auditor General's report, and also to address some internal issues just around dress and deportment, but it is a position that I feel is very important.

I do believe that what we are doing will address the concerns that have been expressed in the past by the Auditor General. I feel comfortable that we will be able to prove that in the timing of their next visit.

MR. JOYCE: I will ask a personal question. Going back in early 2000, do you feel that it helps and is beneficial to have the Auditor General come in to review your own procedures and protocols just to see where you can make improvements?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: When people say they are having a visit from the Auditor General's office there are some stressors to it, but it does allow that transparency or the objectivity of having someone come in.

Since me taking on this position and working with our past audit manager and our current audit manager, they bring a different perspective to the organization. The skill sets that we have in our civilian staff to look at things from a non-policing role but from an accountability role, visits by the Auditor General certainly serves a great purpose.

MR. JOYCE: I will make a comment, Mr. Chair, and I will clue up for now.

I think you do a great job, by the way. You are like the fire department, no one ever wants to call you but when you do get a call we know you are there.

On a personal note, I would like for you to pass on to the Corner Brook detachment – because I know the work they do out in Corner Brook and on the West Coast, and I know they are heavily involved in the community on the West Coast also. I know they do a great job because I know some of the work they do and some of the people involved personally. Will you pass on my best regards and thank you to the West Coast detachment office?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: Thank you, sir.

I will certainly pass that on. I expect to be visiting our Corner Brook region in, hopefully, November or early December.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you.

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: Thank you.

CHAIR: Mr. Cross.

MR. CROSS: I guess none of us have really followed through the report. We have been bouncing all over the place. I have a couple of places where there are probably a couple of unanswered questions or comments that I want to make. Then, maybe it might generate a response.

I am looking on page 151. I am reading the underlined or the bold section there. It says, "…we feel the security is strong since they are in locked steel boxes only accessible by our officers and monitored by a security camera inside a locked room inside a secure building. Therefore, the public is not at risk."

I think that message has been portrayed through most of what we said this morning, that at no time has the public ever been at risk or any other things. Is it such that because it seems like such a safe environment – it is locked, they are inside, there are cameras, it is monitored – that sometimes you act differently because you feel safe and you feel like it is there?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: The firearms locker is behind a locked door. The area of the building is restricted in that the public do not have access to begin with, and anyone in that area of the building would have to be under escort.

The thing is we tried through policy and through inspections to have officers – what I take that you are looking at is complacency, and that officers not become complacent. This is a very important piece of equipment for our officers and it is also a very dangerous piece of equipment. There are procedures we follow in loading and unloading firearms.

That is why we do the inspections, to get away from, hopefully, that officers do not become complacent around this. I think that through our policies and inspections this is being addressed.

MR. CROSS: Okay.

I think we have some clarification and some reassurance that – like page 133 here, the inspections that we could not find the records of, even though we assume the inspections were done through all levels, the Northeast Avalon, Corner Brook and Labrador, that this will not repeat itself obviously.

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: No.

MR. CROSS: The checks and balances are in place.

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: Yes, and that recommendation or that finding would have been one of the reasons why we created the inspections officer position and tasked them with the quarterly firearms inspections and also had the position report to the Office of the Chief of Police, which I deal directly with the inspections officer. There is a good line of communication there on any issues or policy development.

MR. CROSS: Okay.

I feel the types of questions we have been asking here this morning through all levels of government and the Opposition and Third Party have been in sync with each other, and I appreciate the frankness of your responses. Many of the questions asked covered things that I would have noted. I will not belabour the time by continuing with questions again.

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: Thank you.

MR. CROSS: Again, thank you for your frankness and openness.

CHAIR: Mr. Mitchelmore.

MR. MITCHELMORE: I would just like to say that we are certainly living in an information world and good control of data and reporting is essential. We are seeing that the RNC has made significant progress in looking at how it is reporting documentation. I see a lot of this probably came about during a period of time, during 2007 onward, when there were no internal firearm audits done, or that is what the Auditor General reported.

It says that these reports are supposed to be sent to the Department of Justice annually. Did the Department of Justice – there is not a representative here but is some onus of the responsibility on them to ask for the report if they did not receive it for consecutive years? Would that be typical policy? I would ask the Auditor General or somebody at the RNC. How would this process normally be?

MR. PADDON: It is difficult for me to answer that question. It is probably more appropriate perhaps for someone from the RNC or from the Department of Justice to answer it. Generally, if there was a requirement to do something, yes, somewhere along the way you would expect to see some element to follow-up for sure.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Does the RNC have a response to that?

CHAIR: I think that issue comes up on page 123 and it comes up again on 145. In the middle of page 123 it says, "In November 2007, the Department of Justice confirmed that the annual firearms audit, being conducted internally at that time by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, was acceptable to the Minister. As a result, the Office agreed to cease the annual review of firearms at the RNC."

MR. MITCHELMORE: Yes, and then it was to be done internally, but a report was still to be submitted to the Department of Justice.

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: This is something that we are aware of – I guess on an annual basis – that we need to identify any issues around the firearms itself to the department.

MR. MITCHELMORE: My concern is more so the communication. We have seen with staff changeovers and positions being unfilled, how it could relate to some problems with things not being communicated. I am not sure, I guess the question would be best asked to someone at the Department of Justice as to: Was the person responsible? Did they meet their requirements, or did they change positions or something along those lines? I will not belabour my questioning on that. We can actually ask the question to the Department of Justice, I am sure.

I wanted to ask a question around the firearms storage. It says, "The Firearms Policy also states that should a firearm or ammunition be unaccounted for, an immediate report will be made to the Chief of Police." Is that policy being complied with? That is page 134.

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: Any findings or breaches of the policy found during annual inspection would be reported to the Office of the Chief of Police and those reports do come to me. I have not had any instance yet where we had inaccurate accounts.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Okay great, thanks.

On page 137, under 2E Shotgun Policy, there was no evidence that policy was being followed. This was during the review, "…we were informed that the log book for the Northeast Avalon region is no longer maintained." Also, the inventory counts that all shotguns were assigned for at the headquarters armoury in St. John's were all present at the time. This would suggest that supervisors were not on patrol or they were out without a shotgun, which is a violation of policy. Was this matter investigated?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: This matter was investigated and we have taken steps, sir. We are in the process of drafting a new policy relating to the adoption of a utilization of a less lethal option.

Shotguns traditionally have been carried by police as a less lethal option where you can use different types of shot in them. We have purchased what we call less lethal kits, which gives the police the ability to use less lethal options. We are drafting policy in that regard.

We are currently looking at the installation of less lethal shotgun cases in the new fleet of supervisory vehicles on the Northeast Avalon. Kits will be also in Corner Brook and Labrador West region in designated vehicles. The purpose of this is to allow the availability of a less lethal kit to the officer.

If we get a call and wildlife is not available to dispose of an animal then we will make arrangements to have the animal disposed of, but the primary reason, what we are looking at is having a less lethal option available to us. There are shotguns in there for what we call beanbag rounds. There is JPX, which is another firearm that is used for shooting tear gas. There would be larger tear gas and things.

We are looking at implementing. We have the policy in draft. We have the equipment purchased. We have to look at the installation of less lethal kits in the cars and have the training conducted as opposed to having a shotgun. Right now, the shotguns are not in supervisory vehicles. We have opted to go with a less lethal option, which from an operational perspective, I guess, you look at the overall impact that this is the best option to follow.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you for that response. It is very positive to hear that this type of action is being taken for the public.

On page 143, I have a question around the use of force reports not always being reviewed. It says, "…that 17 of them were not signed as evidence of the required review by the District Inspector/Divisional Commander." Can this be further explained and clarified?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: Yes, sir.

The procedure on the Use of Force Reporting Policy being followed was identified. Working directly, myself, with our audit manager, the verification monthly use review process has been improved through the development option and the use of force monthly summary report.

Each time an officer uses force, in accordance with policy that needs to be reported, they complete a use of force report. The use of force report will be reviewed by their supervisor, their respective inspector, right up to the superintendent. The superintendent is the divisional commander. In the RNC there are four superintendents: one in charge of the CID, operational support, patrol services, and one for the Corner Brook, Labrador West region.

The process of a new policy, and this is in place now, there was an order put out on it that the use of force report, our form called 096, will be prepared by the officer and assigned through the appropriate levels. Then, while it is being reviewed, a determination will need to be made at the inspector's level whether or not there is a remedial training issue identified.

It is a form that has to be filled in electronically, and there are dropdown menus consistent with our policy about whether it is firearms, pepper spray, use of force. Each platoon, section, unit would have a monthly report accounting for all reports. This new form, RNC 324 form, completed by the inspector would be signed by the superintendent. Once signed by the superintendent, the forms would be ascended to my office or the other deputy chief in charge of the CID, but will go to me for the Use of Force Review Board.

The Use of Force Review Board now will review cases where a supervisor has identified a training issue or remedial training. What this allows me to do in my capacity is that I can send this to our Use of Force Unit: Please conduct a review of the use of force training by this officer. Then they can go back to prior reports and also identify: Look, there is a remedial issue here, or someone has flagged that this is remedial training.

In this case, the officer did use appropriate force. Their findings, the remedial training discussion can be discussed at a Use of Force Review Board or a Use of Force board meeting. At that level, then we can make an informed decision with regard to the use of force.

I think that our new policy with regard to the new monthly – which was not consistent from region or divisions, some would have a covering letter, some would have a table. We are now going with a standardized form for reporting all incidents of use of force that is required under policy. There is a requirement that the form be signed by the inspector, which is the first level of management, and by the superintendent, which is the rank between inspector and deputy chief, to verify they have reviewed the form and identified whether any training issues are required.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Great. It sounds like you have improved the process there significantly.

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: Yes.

MR. MITCHELMORE: I have a significant question around the board meeting not documented. I would like to know, it says it was reported that a meeting had taken place in June, or July of 2010. That is on page 144. Was there a meeting or was there not, because there were no documented minutes? It is standard, if there is a board meeting that minutes are documented. What is the explanation for this?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: There was an incident where that meeting in June of 2010 – there was an issue with regard to the person who had actually taken the minutes or had the minutes and their being off on extended sick leave. From reviewing, or in response to the Auditor General's concerns, we did see there was an issue around accurate or up to date, or minute taking in itself. We do have minutes taken and the minutes that are taken would be reviewed at the next meeting and approved. That was a concern. It was an issue and has been rectified.

MR. MITCHELMORE: The minutes – just for clarification – that were taken by the person who is on extended sick leave is available?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: I do believe that – Mr. Hickey just mentioned to me – that person, we did have an opportunity to have those meetings subsequently provided.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Okay, great.

I guess the only other questions that I would have would be around the Select Committee recommendations and the response was that the RNC was not going to be implementing some of the things that were never completed from the March 31, 2003, that five-year plan. Why is that? That is on page 145.

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: That is in regard to covering the five years up to March 31, 2003. I guess the appointment of the Select Committee is not within the control of the RNC or the RNC executive, and we have not received any indication that this will take place. We do not have the intentions to revisit this matter. That is outside of the RNC – the Select Committee.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Would this be something that the Department of Justice would have to move forward on with the Select Committee, if they wanted to push the recommendations I guess – you do not have to accept anything of a Select Committee and you are obviously choosing not to accept those recommendations.

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: Well, like I said, the appointment of the Select Committee is not within our control. Certainly from 2003 to 2012, I would not see us revisiting the arming of the RNC in no way, shape or form.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Okay, thank you.

I do not have any further questions, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Mr. Brazil.

MR. BRAZIL: I am going to conclude and say that I am satisfied that the RNC took a very professional and a very positive approach to addressing the Auditor General's concerns, and have implemented procedures that I am confident, as the Auditor General in the next two years will review, will address those types of issues.

I just want to thank the RNC and the representatives for coming forward and giving us the lead by putting the information together so we had a better idea of exactly how you were addressing those concerns.

Mr. Chair, that is it for me.

CHAIR: Mr. Joyce.

MR. JOYCE: I am fine. Again, thanks for everything, for keeping everything safe, and make sure you pass it on to the boys in Corner Brook – and the ladies in Corner Brook, because if I do not, some will get me on the basketball court or something and remind me I did not mention them.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Another government member.

MR. K. PARSONS: Again, I would like to say thank you for coming this morning. I know, as a Newfoundlander, I am very proud of the work that the RNC does. I have a lot of good RNC officers in my constituency and they are very well respected and very professional people. I am very proud of them.

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: Thank you, sir.

CHAIR: Mr. Mitchelmore.

MR. MITCHELMORE: I would just like to thank the RNC as well for their time in coming out and clarifying a lot of the issues that were raised in the Auditor General's report. I am very satisfied with the responses and I have all confidence in the work that you are doing to make changes to some of the recommendations, as well as the work that you do on the ground. So, keep up the great work.

Thank you.

CHAIR: I have a few questions, gentleman.

Customarily, the other members ask their questions first and if there are any questions that I feel should be asked, then I go back to those.

Right now, are you using any revolvers?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: No, sir.

CHAIR: Nothing used at all?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: No.

CHAIR: There is some reference to 5,000 rounds of ammunition.

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: Yes, I believe it is in our response to the Auditor General. The former Ruger revolvers, there was a plan in place or was put in place to have those removed from our inventory. The RNC now uses a semi-automatic Sig Sauer, 40-calibre firearm.

CHAIR: To go back to the use of force reports, right now is there a use of force report done every time force is used?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: Yes, sir. Policy identifies when a use of force form must be completed. The officer completes form 096, it is signed by their appropriate supervisors and signed by their inspector, then, all of the forms for a month, for that particular division, are tabulated into a dropdown spreadsheet. The form or forms are reviewed for remedial training issues. That form then is reviewed by the divisional commander, the superintendents, and then the forms are sent to my office for a further review. So if there are issues arising, I can have the appropriate persons review the forms to address any training issues.

CHAIR: On page 138 –and maybe this was asked already and I may have missed it – in the top paragraph it refers to no plan to correct firearm locker security issues. The last sentence in the first paragraph says, "The Executive Director of Operations informed us that there are no plans in place to address these shortcomings of the firearms storage lockers."

What is the status of that right now?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: Yes, sir.

It is the RNC's intent to address the issues around the storage lockers, one through cam locks, which we have implemented in some of our detachments.

As previously referenced, we are working with consultants on the redevelopment of headquarters, which would also be subsequently, as Mr. Hickey pointed out, the redevelopment of our Annex building with regard to more enhanced fire storage lockers.

CHAIR: By what date do you feel that would be complete?

DEPUTY CHIEF SINGLETON: The thing is, sir, we have not even moved to the acquisition. We are in the process of tendering for the furnishings for the new headquarters building which we hope to be in, Mr. Hickey gave the date of spring 2013. Following that, there is the whole development of the Annex. This is all part of the tendering process, and we certainly hope there are no unforeseen issues around budgeting, et cetera, that may prohibit this. It is our plan to have enhanced firearm security lockers for our firearms.

MR. HICKEY: Just to add to that, we are in the process of preparing a tender now with the architect Gibbons and Snow. The tender should go out this fall for the equipment that is needed in the headquarters building. The tender has not been issued yet; again, we are aiming towards spring. That might drag into April or May before we are actually into the building and have all the equipment in place, but anything to do with firearms is a priority.

CHAIR: On page 148, in the middle of the page, the third paragraph says, "…there are more 12 gauge slug rounds…" There was a difference of forty. Then with 12 gauge Buckshot there was an overage of forty.

Is it possible that someone mistook the two types of ammunition, it is the same number? Short forty slugs, and over forty Buckshot.

MR. MACPHEE: A possible explanation for that could be that the counter inadvertently counted the number of rounds as opposed to boxes, and not checked the number of rounds within the box and do a calculation that way. All ammunition – again, for the record – is reconciled quarterly from a physical count to a system count. Any variance is explained and adjusted for.

CHAIR: If we had an audit today, right now today Mr. MacPhee, you have been on the job since January 3, presumably you have had this report and obviously been working on it. What would an audit say today?

MR. MACPHEE: If we had the audit today, if field work commenced today on firearms audit many of the findings to the physical variances or the count variances would not be there. That is by virtue of instituting internal controls related to timely and verifiable and accurate quarterly inventory counting of both firearms lockers and the actual armouries themselves.

CHAIR: What items, if any, would not be in compliance today?

MR. MACPHEE: I am sorry?

CHAIR: What items, if any, would not be in compliance today?

MR. MACPHEE: As Deputy Chief Singleton made reference to, we are currently improving the shotgun policy. That is one area that still requires some improvement, and we are working towards achieving this through instituting less lethal options into the supervisory vehicles.

CHAIR: Thank you.

I have no more questions, but I am going to go back to the other members to see if they have questions.

Mr. Mitchelmore? Does any member have any questions?

I would like to go to the Auditor General and ask if there are any areas that you feel we should cover that we have not covered.

MR. PADDON: No, Mr. Chair.

I think the questioning has been fairly comprehensive. It covered all the relevant areas. The answers have been fairly forthcoming as well.

CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much.

In that case, we will conclude this hearing.

Thank you very much for coming and being so helpful.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.