PUBLICATION:
The Ottawa Citizen
DATE: 2003.01.23
EDITION: Final
SECTION:
News
BYLINE:
Gary Dimmock
SOURCE:
The Ottawa Citizen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firearms
database 'flags' innocent people: Privacy commissioner wanted system fixed, but
it hasn't happened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Police
across the country, in many cases acting merely on a "whim" or
"bad feeling," have been flagging citizens and entering their personal
information into a firearms databank even though they are not under
investigation or charged with a crime.
In
other cases, people -- including some with a history of violence -- who should
have been flagged by police, were not. Two years ago, Privacy Commissioner
George Radwanski told the Justice Department to resolve the system's
"serious problem," but they still haven't bothered.
Mr.
Radwanski revealed this week that not only has the federal government not
adopted his recommendations, but it has also refused to show him progress
reports he requested.
And,
he says, there's nothing he can do about it.
"I
do not have the power under the Privacy Act to order (the Justice Department) to
implement these and my other recommendations concerning this," Mr.
Radwanski writes in a Jan. 17 letter to Alliance MP Garry Breitkreuz, a longtime
gun registry opponent.
The
Firearms Interest Police databank, part of the $1-billon federal gun registry,
contains some four million records and is used in gun-licence screening. But the
privacy commissioner says the system is flawed because there is no one
department or police force that keeps it in check.
"For
the (databank) to be an effective early warning flag for potential violence, it
is vital that police officers keep their incident reports accurate and
up-to-date," Mr. Radwanski said.
"The
problem, as I see it, is that the responsibility for data quality is dispersed
among the 900 law enforcement and firearms program contributors across the
country," he said.
The
databank is managed by the RCMP, but the Mounties claim responsibility for the
accuracy of only the records they enter into the system. The government's chief
firearms officer is in charge of reviewing the hits in the databank, but has no
control over what individual police agencies record.
"This
situation has left the control of data quality to each individual police agency
and has contributed to inconsistencies in entries among various agencies,"
the privacy commissioner said.
In
2001, the commissioner recommended an auditing program to keep the databank to
safeguard its accuracy, and suggest common police standards across the board.
Though
the federal government has yet to adopt his recommendations, the privacy
commissioner said he will "continue to express my concerns to the minister
of justice and urge him to quickly take appropriate measures.
In
December, when Auditor General Sheila Fraser revealed the gun registry has cost
Canadian taxpayers $1 billion, she was also questioned about the databank's
integrity. At a meeting of the standing committee on public accounts, Alliance
MP John Williams, the chairman of the committee, asked:
"You
say 'persons are known to be in the database who should not be, and thus could
be denied firearms licences or have their eligibility reviewed.'
"It
seems to me, if I understand what was said today, that if a member of the RCMP
or a police force just gets a bad feeling when they interview you or stop you in
the street or on the highway, your name could end up in this database. Is that
correct?"
Ms.
Fraser replied: "It is our understanding that your name can be put into the
database simply through contact with the policeman. You do not have to be
charged or convicted or anything. It's a database that contains information on
citizens."
The
chairman then asked:
"In
this day and age, when our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is so protective of
these kinds of freedoms, how on Earth is our police force collecting names and
putting them into a database with no justification other than a whim?" The
auditor general said that was an "excellent" question, one that should
be put to police.