FIREARMS FACTS UPDATE

FIREARMS CENTRE ADMITS MANY GUN REGISTRY ADDRESSES MAY BE UP TO 5 YEARS OUT-OF-DATE

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER CONFIRMS THE FIREARMS CENTRE HAS NO REPORTS ADDRESSING KNOWN GUN REGISTRY PROBLEMS

JANUARY 29, 2004 - BREITKREUZ'S ATI REQUEST TO THE CANADA FIREARMS CENTRE

For the period, December 1, 1998 to present, please provide copies of reports showing:

(1) All the efforts that have been made to update and correct the records in the Restricted Weapon Registration System (RWRS);

(2) The results achieved so far;

(3) The extent that these same problems are occurring in the new Canadian Firearms Registry; and, if these problems are not occurring, and

(4) How these problems have been prevented from happening in the new Canadian Firearms Registry.

MARCH 3, 2004 - CANADA FIREARMS CENTRE'S REPLY - ATIP FILE: A-2003-0040

I am pleased to enclose all documents (1 page) relevant to your request.  It is released in its entirety.

(1) Addresses and firearms descriptions in the RWRS database were actively maintained until December 31, 2002.  These changes were made as a matter of course and a report is not available.

(2) Re-registration into CFRS was the main effort used to validate information during transition from the RWRS.

(3) Address updates are client generated through either the internet or by call centre when notified by the client.

(4) With the licence renewal process in place client information is being kept current (within 5 years), continuous eligibility ensures a clients continued eligibility to hold a licence and verification of firearms is keeping the firearm information accurate.  Use of specialized address software to validate client addresses before mail out and quality assurance are ongoing.

MARCH 15, 2004 - BREITKREUZ'S COMPLAINT TO THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Please find attached copies of our original request dated January 29, 2004 and a copy of the CFC’s nonsensical reply dated March 3, 2004. We specifically asked for “copies of reports” relevant to four specific problems that we know for a fact exist in the old Restricted Weapon Registration System (RWRS) and the new Canadian Firearms Registry (CFR).  The CFC failed to provide copies of any reports, choosing instead to write unsubstantiated responses to each of our questions.  This is not the “openness and transparency” promised by the Ministers in charge of the firearms program!

Please find enclosed documentation showing what we knew about the four points we raised in our Access to Information Act request: (1) Review of Firearms Registration (TR1994-9e) by Terence Wade – July 1994; (2) 718,414 firearms registered without serial numbers; 15,381 Possession and Acquisition Licences issued without a safety course; (3) 26,800 duplicate firearms registration certificates issued; (4) 3,235,647 blank and unknown entries on 4,114,624 firearm registration certificates; (5) The old Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) system had a better refusal and revocation rate than the new licencing system; (6) RCMP lost track of 11,801 owners of registered handguns; (7) Only 1,081,589 firearms had been verified as of January 23, 2003; (8) CFC lost track of another 24,600 licenced gun owners; (9) The “Verifiers Network” has ceased to function effectively; and finally, (10) A list of information the RWRS was unable to tell the government.

Did the CFC brain trust not realize that this documentation is in the public domain and they would be confronted with real facts if they failed to provide the records requested?  The sad fact is that even with the complete cooperation of all two million licenced firearms owners in Canada it would be impossible to prevent all the problems that occurred in the RWRS from reoccurring in the CFR.

SEPTEMBER 3, 2004 - RESULTS OF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER'S INVESTIGATION

On March 3, 2004, CFC provided you with a one-page document.  On March 15, you complained that the CFC responded to your questions instead of providing existing responsive records.  As a result of this investigation, I am satisfied that CFC conducted an extensive and professional search to find existing records.  IN fact, all the proper offices of primary interest were targeted to locate pertinent records.  Therefore, I can confirm that no records falling within the scope of your request were located.  As you know, federal institutions subject to the Act are under no legal obligation to create records to respond to an access request.  What they must do is to provide responsive records under their control, subject to any exemptions/exclusions that might apply.  In this case, CFC went the extra mile and tried to respond to your questions since no reports exist.  In view of the foregoing, I am unable to find any denial of your legal rights under the Act or any unfair treatment.  Consequently, I will record your complaint as unsubstantiated.