Destroying Government Records is Illegal

[cybercoma]

By declaring that they want to destroy the Long Gun Registry records, the Conservative Government has announced their intentions to commit a criminal act under s(12)(1) of the Libraries and Archives of Canada Act. Although Warren Kinsella is obviously a self-declared "Liberal spin-doctor", there's really no other way to spin this. Maybe I'll petition my MP for mandatory minimum legislation on this.

[cybercoma]

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2011/10/31/destroying-gun-registry-records-could-be-harmful-to-tories-nanos/28633

“I think for the Conservatives, they really need to clearly articulate why they believe that the records need to be destroyed, because I think on the face of it, some people could have the impression that this is a bit of a scorched earth policy in terms of the gun registry, that the Conservatives not only don’t want to have a long-gun registry, they want to create an environment where it will be difficult to have another one, or very onerous and difficult to have another one in the future,” Mr. Nanos told The Hill Times

[Smallc]

An impression? That's what it is. Oh, and the responses kind of torpedo his theory.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Smallc

[cybercoma]

The important question that should be asked is this one: why do the records need to be destroyed?

[Smallc]

The important question that should be asked is this one: why do the records need to be destroyed?

So that the registry cannot easily be recreated. Many see it as an invasion of privacy, and a threat to propery. There's no reason for the government to have such information, especially in the absence of the registry.

[cybercoma]

You've even admitted that the registry, as far as privacy goes, is completely useless almost immediately after the legislation is drafted to get rid of it. I'm not buying that it's a privacy issue. If Quebec wants to recreate it, we've already spent billions on it, why shouldn't they have access to the data? Heck, why stop there? We can hit up all the provincial archives and start shredding away.

[dre]

So that the registry cannot easily be recreated. Many see it as an invasion of privacy, and a threat to propery. There's no reason for the government to have such information, especially in the absence of the registry.

Ya but theres a reason we dont let the government destroy documents. Those documents do not belong to them, and they do not have the authority to destroy them.

[Guest Derek L]

Whomever started barking up this tree needs further research (and a lawyer)

First:

An Act to establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to amend the Copyright Act and to amend certain Acts in consequence

For the purposes of this section, the Librarian and Archivist may have access to a record to which subsection 69(1) of the Access to Information Act applies, only with the consent of the Clerk of the Privy Council and to a government record that contains information the disclosure of which is restricted by or pursuant to any provision set out in Schedule II to that Act, only with the consent of the head of the government institution in question.

And what the Access to Information Act permits:

Access to Information Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. A-1)

19. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains personal information as defined in section 3 of the Privacy Act.

Where disclosure authorized

(2) The head of a government institution may disclose any record requested under this Act that contains personal information if

(a) the individual to whom it relates consents to the disclosure;

( the information is publicly available; or

© the disclosure is in accordance with section 8 of the Privacy Act.

Translation....Library and Archives of Canada could only receive information from the Long Gun Registry, if all those registered consent to the disclosure of their personal information…..In other words, they can get stuffed!

[cybercoma]

It still doesn't look very good when the Conservatives are shredding records for no good reason.

[Guest Derek L]

According to the link provided, Mr. Kinsella is a lawyer....And his link to the "news story" has this on the second page:

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2011/10/31/destroying-gun-registry-records-could-be-harmful-to-tories-nanos/28633?page_requested=2

Mr. Drapeau, though, said the concept of a government destroying its own records out of political motives is unsettling.

He objected to the government’s use of an override clause, in Bill C-19 terminating the registry, to prevent Library and Archives Canada from preserving the records for future historians and researchers.

Mr. Drapeau, who is a historian who recently co-wrote a tome on military law with Federal Court Justice Gilles Letourneau, said he’s “shocked.” The records are “part of our history. It’s part of our makeup, it’s part of our culture, it’s part of making us the way we come,” he said.

Wow, I wonder if Mr Kinsella even read the entire story he linked to in his blog…..Kind of embarrassing if you ask me…..I wonder if he still practices law or if he’s moved on from the profession?

[Guest Derek L]

It still doesn't look very good when the Conservatives are shredding records for no good reason.

Yes……like the cries of Harper proroguing parliament was an affront to democracy and would cost him the last election.....I suppose one should never let facts get in the way of a good (smear) story....

[cybercoma]

It should have cost him an election. Instead, people have become so fed up with the garbage in Ottawa that they just stay home on election day.

[CPCFTW]

It should have cost him an election. Instead, people have become so fed up with the garbage in Ottawa that they just stay home on election day.

Back to the old, everyone who didn't vote would have voted against the Conservatives argument. Around and round we go.

[cybercoma]

This might be difficult for you to understand, but the point I was actually making is that people are opting out of voting because they feel it has no real impact on the system. I know that's not black and white enough for your simple mind, so you go ahead and keep trying to pound square pegs into round holes.

[Guest Derek L]

It should have cost him an election. Instead, people have become so fed up with the garbage in Ottawa that they just stay home on election day.

Indeed…..and if the occupiers {insert city name} chose to exercise their right to vote, what with their support of 99% of the population, they wouldn’t be sleeping in tents, but enacting their “policies” in Ottawa with their uber mandate…..

[CPCFTW]

This might be difficult for you to understand, but the point I was actually making is that people are opting out of voting because they feel it has no real impact on the system. I know that's not black and white enough for your simple mind, so you go ahead and keep trying to pound square pegs into round holes.

It's not difficult for me to understand. It's simple to understand that liberals love to make excuses based on conjecture. Could it be because 40% of people didn't care enough to vote, or didn't think they understood which party would be the best for Canada, or didn't have the time to vote? No. It has to be because the system doesn't work and 40% of voters are disillusioned with democracy!

Voter apathy is a joke, it's not a requirement to be involved in politics. You can opt out if you want to go out partying and drinking rather than learning about economics, politics, and the various party platforms. It doesn't have to be 100% voter turnout to be a meaningful election. Once again, another useless lefty "issue". Making mountains out of every molehill they come upon.

Edited November 1, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Guest Derek L]

This might be difficult for you to understand, but the point I was actually making is that people are opting out of voting because they feel it has no real impact on the system. I know that's not black and white enough for your simple mind, so you go ahead and keep trying to pound square pegs into round holes.

I suppose I have a simple mind also……..If I had the sway of the occupy movement, and I indirectly represented 99% of the population, I’d choose to exercise my thoughts/policies/agenda/dogma in Ottawa with the benefit of a warm bed, and a hot shower…….As opposed to wearing the same underwear and living in a tent………I suppose I haven’t “expanded my mind enough”……

[Shwa]

I suppose I haven’t “expanded my mind enough"

Don't overstate the obvious.

[Shwa]

Whomever started barking up this tree needs further research (and a lawyer)

Especially you since the Access to Information and Privacy Acts refer to public access to government records, not access by the government institution charged with archival custody of all government records for the purposes of retention and disposal.

PURPOSE OF ACTPurpose

2. (1) The purpose of this Act is to extend the present laws of Canada to provide a right of access to information in records under the control of a government institution in accordance with the principles that government information should be available to the public, that necessary exceptions to the right of access should be limited and specific and that decisions on the disclosure of government information should be reviewed independently of government.

The governmental institution charged with that archival custody is the National Library and Archives as established by the Library and Archives of Canada Act.

GOVERNMENT AND MINISTERIAL RECORDS

Destruction and disposal

12. (1) No government or ministerial record, whether or not it is surplus property of a government institution, shall be disposed of, including by being destroyed, without the written consent of the Librarian and Archivist or of a person to whom the Librarian and Archivist has, in writing, delegated the power to give such consents.

That is pretty clear now isn't it?

If anyone were to destroy those records without the approval of the Librarian and Archivist of Canada, they are breaking the law and it would be considered a significant breach of trust.

[Topaz]

Here's an idea, ANY province that wants the registry should be able to get it and if they DON'T get it, then the Feds have to refund the money to the province so they can do one of their own. Since it was paid by the taxpayers, the list belongs to the taxpayers of that province.

[Guest Derek L]

Especially you since the Access to Information and Privacy Acts refer to public access to government records, not access by the government institution charged with archival custody of all government records for the purposes of retention and disposal.

The governmental institution charged with that archival custody is the National Library and Archives as established by the Library and Archives of Canada Act.

That is pretty clear now isn't it?

If anyone were to destroy those records without the approval of the Librarian and Archivist of Canada, they are breaking the law and it would be considered a significant breach of trust.

Right below your quoted text:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/L-7.7/page-4.html#h-7

Exception

(3) For the purposes of this section, the Librarian and Archivist may have access to a record to which subsection 69(1) of the Access to Information Act applies, only with the consent of the Clerk of the Privy Council and to a government record that contains information the disclosure of which is restricted by or pursuant to any provision set out in Schedule II to that Act, only with the consent of the head of the government institution in question.

As was stated in the article quoted, in which linked to another article……….no, nothing illegal.

[cybercoma]

I'm not really sure what Occupy has to do with voter disengagement. The blind partisan BS on this forum is stultifying.

[Tilter]

An impression? That's what it is. Oh, and the responses kind of torpedo his theory.

They don't want the next non-conservative government dumping another useless gun registry on Canada.

[Tilter]

This might be difficult for you to understand, but the point I was actually making is that people are opting out of voting because they feel it has no real impact on the system. I know that's not black and white enough for your simple mind, so you go ahead and keep trying to pound square pegs into round holes.

The stupid thing about the theory that "opting out of voting because they feel it has no real impact on the system" iis that if they DID vote the impact on government would be tremendous.

Somewhere or another in Canada there has to be a push for a more representative type of electoral system.

This "first past the post" thing has got to give way to a "rep by pop" system that reflects the proper ratio of reps to the number of people in the riding. PEI is so over-represented that all the other provinces would need 2 or 3 times the MPs that they have now to have the same person/MP ratio. The present system seems totally undemocratic to me.

[cybercoma]

You're missing the point. When you're choosing between the lesser of two evils, not voting is a way of not condoning either of those evils. They won't have an impact on the system by voting because they disagree with all of the options.