Office of the Privacy Commissioner Of Canada

Feb 16, 2001

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz, MP

Yorkton-Melville

Room 640-C, Centre Block

House of Commons

Ottawa ON K1A 0A6

Dear Mr. Breitkreuz:

Thank you for your correspondence of January 11, 2001, I appreciated your words of congratulation on my appointment as Privacy Commissioner of Canada and welcomed the opportunity to review the correspondence you have exchanged with this office regarding the privacy implications of the Firearms Interest Police (FIP) database.

As you are aware, my office has undertaken a review of the personal information handling practices of the Canadian Firearms Program. In our last correspondence to you in July 2000, we indicated that the review would be completed within a matter of weeks. However, at that time, we did not foresee the delay in obtaining comments from the Department of Justice (Justice) on our preliminary report. We are currently reviewing the comments provided by Justice on January 29, 2001.

Your correspondence of July 12 and October 12, 1999, brought to light many concerns about the information handling practices surrounding the administration of the FIP database. You note in particular difficulties encountered by your constituents in obtaining access to their personal information held in the FIP database and the cumbersome procedure for requesting corrections. You are also concerned about the integrity of the database information and that some of the entries are not relevant to the ineligibility criteria included in section 5 of the Firearms Act. You believe the FIP database flags individuals based on unsubstantiated, misleading and outdated information about incidents and includes the names of individuals only associated with an incident, for example witnesses and victims. You recommend that Justice create a central source for validating and correcting FIP data. You further suggest that Justice or the RCMP assume sole responsibility for administering access and correction requests and that the FIP database be listed in InfoSource.

As you know, the Government of Canada created the FIP database in 1998 as a subset of the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC), which is a nationally shared police information system. The FIP database was designed to meet the objective of section 5 of the Firearms Act concerning eligibility to hold a firearm licence. The RCMP is the custodian of the database, while the policy and management centre for the FIP database (collection, quality control, operation, cost and effectiveness) resides with the Canadian Firearms Centre under

Justice. Information is entered into the database by over 900 law enforcement agencies across Canada via the National Police Services Network. FIP entries alert Chief Firearms Officers about individuals who have been involved in incidents of domestic violence, threats of violence, harassment and violations of game laws. The database also identifies individuals with arrest warrants, those who have been refused a licence and who have attempted to bring firearms into Canada without proper authorization. A FIP entry does not result in an automatic refusal of a licence but will initiate a thorough review of a person's eligibility to hold a firearm licence.

The personal information included in a FIP database entry is limited to name, date of birth, CPIC Occurrence Reporting Index number (ORI) and the police agency incident number. No information is revealed about the role of the individual or the type of incident. A FIP entry simply highlights that there are new events about an applicant, and acts as an indicator referring Chief Firearms Officers to other databases such as the Police Information Retrieval System (PIRS) and to provincial and municipal police authorities.

We have several concerns about the FIP database, many of which are also of concern to you. First, we agree that the database contains the names of individuals that should not have been entered because the incidents are not relevant to section 5 of the Firearms Act. We are also concerned that the database contains the names of witnesses and victims.

Second, inconsistent information coding by contributing law enforcement agencies may lead Firearms Officers to initiate investigations based on information that is unsubstantiated, hearsay, or inaccurate. It may also lead Firearms Officers to conduct investigations regarding incidents that are older than 5 years, or in cases where charges have been dropped and individuals have been acquitted.

Third, there is no process in place that would ensure that improper or duplicate entries are removed or corrected.

Fourth, it is extraordinarily difficult for individuals to exercise their access and correction rights because the process is managed by three levels of government and because the FIP database is not described in InfoSource. For example, requests for access or correction addressed to Justice are redirected to the RCMP. The RCMP will only process requests for information that have been entered by its members. The RCMP will exempt information that has been entered by another law enforcement agency.

As you know, I have decided to re-assess whether the questions about personal history on the firearms licence application form meet Privacy Act collection requirements. Therefore, the review of the Canadian Firearms Program remains open. While some additional time will be required to review the application form, I will nonetheless urge Justice to implement our recommendations with respect to other aspects of the Canadian Firearms Program.

Finally, in response to Mr. Young's question concerning the fact that Justice may be considering privatizing the Canadian Firearms Program, I can confirm that Justice did not consult my office. However, I am deeply concerned that Justice may privatize or outsource the Canadian Firearms Program. In my view, any such initiative must not erode existing Privacy Act rights and I intend to pursue this matter with the department.

I appreciate your patience, and I look forward to communicating to you the results of our inquiries as soon as it is possible for me to do so.