I just wanted to underscore that this is not a good report. I thank my colleague for raising that. The conclusion was that you did not provide all your officers with access to body armour, carbines and the recertification training required to respond to active shooters. We've been kind of quiet and subdued here, but that's because we aren't dealing with dead citizens. We're dealing with policies meant to prevent that, and the policies are not where they should be, so it is still serious.
I want to go to page 8 again. It's been raised a couple of times and I noted it in paragraph 5.37. I had it down as sort of the good, the bad and the ugly. We found that part of the good is that the RCMP had met its target for the initial training of front-line officers on carbines. Congrats for that. That was the good. But 13% of those officers had not completed the annual recertification. We talked about that a bit and that was the bad. We also found that 13% of all officers who were required to carry pistols had not completed their annual pistol recertification, and that's the ugly part.
Paragraph 5.42 underscores that every officer required to carry a pistol on duty must complete the pistol recertification every year. Now that's RCMP policy. Mr. Brennan, I heard you giving kind of a defence of the 13%. But that's your number. It's the RCMP that said this needs to be done once a year. It's not someone from outside saying you have to do this irresponsible and unmanageable thing. These are your own numbers. Now, back in 2005, you were at 23%, and 14 years later you're at 13%. You're going the right way, but you're still in double digits.
What's the deal? Are you going to meet the darn standard or change it? Please don't keep coming back here failing to meet a standard that you set. Could I have your thoughts, please?