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.

Yours sincerely,

George Radwanski

Privacy Commissioner of Canada