Budget omnibus bill C-59

[cybercoma]

What law was broken and to whom does it effect?

The OPP has been working on an investigation, so don't sit here and pretend like this is some meaningless gesture from the Conservatives. This is clearly rewriting laws and applying them retroactively to get out of wrongdoing, particularly with regards to access to information. This is fundamentally unethical and you can sit here and try to spin it all you like with others, but I will not get into pages and pages of pedantic rambling from you on the subject.

If you have honest questions about it and aren't just doing what you do to try and excuse the inexcusable, then here are some links. But I will not get into the usual pissing match with you about this.

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/05/21/legal-experts-decry-retroactive-conservative-law-but-say-it-cant-be-stopped/#.VWDN2WAbbs8

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/tories-set-perilous-precedent-by-retroactively-changing-law-to-absolve-rcmp-information-commissioner-says#__federated=1

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/omnibus-budget-bill-alters-history-to-clear-rcmp-of-potential-criminal-charges/article24417074/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun-registry-access-law-change-could-set-precedent-watchdog-warns-mps-1.3074304

So you go ahead and justify this however you want, but when the Information Commissioner of Canada submits a report that recommends charges be laid and the government then turns around and rewrites those laws so charges can't be laid.....that's a serious problem that sets a potentially disastrous precedent. I'm ashamed of this government and I find it even more shameful that anyone would be so partisan as to support what they're doing here.

[Derek 2.0]

The OPP has been working on an investigation, so don't sit here and pretend like this is some meaningless gesture from the Conservatives. This is clearly rewriting laws and applying them retroactively to get out of wrongdoing, particularly with regards to access to information. This is fundamentally unethical and you can sit here and try to spin it all you like with others, but I will not get into pages and pages of pedantic rambling from you on the subject.

What wrong doing? A ATIP was submitted in March 2012 to obtain LGR information, even though Bill C-19 (to abolish the LGR) was passed in February of 2012, receiving Royal Assent in April of 2012.........and the RCMP started destroying data in October of 2012........no spin, but a factual timeline.

[cybercoma]

The Information Commissioner of Canada recommended charges be filed. What wrongdoing? Really? That an honest question or more rhetorical garbage?

[Derek 2.0]

The Information Commissioner of Canada recommended charges be filed. What wrongdoing? Really? That an honest question or more rhetorical garbage?

It is rhetorical garbage (as you put it) because you either don't know all the facts of this case or choose not to include them in your spin? Here they are:

Or une enquête menée par la commissaire à l'information, sur laquelle elle prévoit faire rapport au Parlement ce matin, pourrait répondre à ces questions. Cette enquête donnait suite à une plainte de Bill Clennett, un militant de Gatineau, qui a demandé en mars 2012 en vertu de la Loi sur l'accès à l'information une copie de « tous les registres et fichiers relatifs à l'enregistrement » des armes d'épaule.

Insatisfait des documents reçus, M. Clennett a porté plainte au Commissariat à l'information au motif que la réponse était incomplète, que le refus n'était pas justifié par les exceptions permises par la loi et que la GRC a entravé son droit d'accès à l'information. Ce droit garanti par l'article 67.1 prévoit même des poursuites criminelles et des peines de prison.

A "social activist", Bill Clennett, wanted a non redacted copy of the LGR containing further personal information from the RCMP.....when the RCMP told him to pound sand, he complained to the Information Commissioner.........what isn't mentioned in this latest faux outrage, is that the Ottawa Citizen and Global News also ask for a redacted copy of the LGR and the RCMP gave it to them.......with personal information withheld (You can find this version online for download if you want it)....

The actual spinning is from the those making the noise of this becoming Harper's Banana Republic because the RCMP didn't give a "social justice warrior" a shopping list of firearms across Canada...........

[cybercoma]

Why did the Information Commissioner recommend charges in her report. Why don't you address that?

[TimG]

Why did the Information Commissioner recommend charges in her report. Why don't you address that?

A bureaucrat being ridiculously pedantic is hardly grounds for outrage. If there is a difference between how a bureaucrat thinks the law should be interpreted and how the government thinks it should be interpreted then the government should be free to clear up any disagreements with fixes to the laws. Edited May 23, 2015 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Right. Of course. It's just a pedantic bureaucrat. No problems here. This kind of blind partisanship is really pathetic, gentlemen. She was appointed by Harper even.

Edited May 23, 2015 by cybercoma

[TimG]

Right. Of course. It's just a pedantic bureaucrat.

The facts of this case deal with data which was due to be destroyed by legislation passed in Feb 2012. Any bureaucrat who was not being pedantic would have recognized this back story and adjusted the findings accordingly.

BTW - if a law is changed I see nothing wrong with retroactively shielding people from the law. For example, if the laws regarding marijuana are repealed I would have no problems if everyone charged under the old law had the charges dropped and/or released from jail. I find it bizarre that anyone would expect prosecutions to continue for things which are no longer a crime.

Edited May 23, 2015 by TimG

[Derek 2.0]

Why did the Information Commissioner recommend charges in her report. Why don't you address that?

A longstanding institutional (and personal?) bias against both the Government and RCMP?

[Derek 2.0]

The facts of this case deal with data which was due to be destroyed by legislation passed in Feb 2012. Any bureaucrat who was not being pedantic would have recognized this back story and adjusted the findings accordingly.

Exactly, and at the time (to present day) such information was available online........I don't see an issue with the RCMP refusing to release the personal information of several million gun owners as an issue........

[cybercoma]

I'm sure. A full report of nothing but personal bias. It's perfectly reasonable to assume the Harper-appointed Information Commissioner is the one with the bias and not card carrying conservatives (and a gun lobbyist) who are Harper apologists being the biased ones here.

Edited May 24, 2015 by cybercoma

[jacee]

Exactly, and at the time (to present day) such information was available online........I don't see an issue with the RCMP refusing to release the personal information of several million gun owners as an issue........

You don't see a problem with the precedent ... ?

The charter prohibits changing the law retroactively to make something illegal that was legal at the time.

"It doesn't prohibit the reverse, however: retroactive decriminalization of acts that were criminal when committed," said Walsh, the former Commons law clerk.

Governments legislating their buddies out of trouble ... might make sense sometimes but ... not a good precedent.

.

[Derek 2.0]

I'm sure. A full report of nothing but personal bias. It's perfectly reasonable to assume the Harper-appointed Information Commissioner is the one with the bias and not card carrying conservatives (and a gun lobbyist) who are Harper apologists being the biased ones here.

I fully admit my own bias, I've nothing to hide..........can you say the like?

-------

Of what purpose would it have served Canadian society to have a "social activist", that has gotten in the face of a past Prime Minister, to have a detailed list of every (then) registered firearm, and to whom owned them and where they lived, across Canada?

Anyone who thinks the RCMP would have made such info public has rocks in their head, and his appeal (to the Information Commissioner) a month after the law was passed was just as crazy.

Furthermore, the claim that retro active laws are unprecedented is just as laughable, fore the Canadian Firearms Act did exactly that with the 12.x class firearms in December of 1998, by only granting grandfathered licences to those that owned 12.x class firearms prior to 1995.....rendering thousands of thought to be lawful transaction between 1995 and 1998 unlawful, requiring Canadian gun owners to turn in upwards of 500k firearms, without compensation, to be destroyed.....

I trust your concern for Canadian gun owners is forthcoming?

[Derek 2.0]

You don't see a problem with the precedent ... ?

.

There is already precedent.........Your concern for Canadian gun owners that purchased 12.x class firearms after 1978/1992/1995 lawfully that had their applications rejected for a new licence after the 1995 Firearms Act was implemented in 1998 is noted....I fully expect your support for your fellow Canadians that were once lawful owners of machine guns, converted select fire rifles and short barrel handguns, disallowed said firearms due to the purchase dates defined by a retro-active law....

Grannies for Gatling guns or seniors for SPAS-12s works for me

[cybercoma]

I fully admit my own bias, I've nothing to hide..........can you say the like?

What does this have to do with me? I'm saying the Information Commissioner called for charges and you and TimG are dismissing that by claiming she's biased. It's a ridiculous argument that only a blind partisan would make. The Information Commissioner recommends charges against the RCMP and the government turns around and rewrites the laws to get them out of being charged. If you seriously don't see a problem with that then I'm sorry, but there's either something seriously wrong with you or you're so biased that you shouldn't be taken seriously.

[Derek 2.0]

What does this have to do with me? I'm saying the Information Commissioner called for charges and you and TimG are dismissing that by claiming she's biased. It's a ridiculous argument that only a blind partisan would make. The Information Commissioner recommends charges against the RCMP and the government turns around and rewrites the laws to get them out of being charged. If you seriously don't see a problem with that then I'm sorry, but there's either something seriously wrong with you or you're so biased that you shouldn't be taken seriously.

Inversely, a blind partisan would hold the opinion of the Information Commissioner as Holy Writ, despite documented cases of her previous clashes with the RCMP and the Government over funding for her own fiefdom.......furthermore, as already mentioned, when one actually examines the request, coupled with the actual timeline, a reasonable person can see the compliant has zero merit.........

My question, why would she even entertain a compliant over a rejected request from an anti-government activist seeking to have a detailed list of the then location of nearly 8 million firearms across Canada?

[cybercoma]

Inversely, a blind partisan would hold the opinion of the Information Commissioner as Holy Writ, despite documented cases of her previous clashes with the RCMP and the Government over funding for her own fiefdom.......furthermore, as already mentioned, when one actually examines the request, coupled with the actual timeline, a reasonable person can see the compliant has zero merit.........

My question, why would she even entertain a compliant over a rejected request from an anti-government activist seeking to have a detailed list of the then location of nearly 8 million firearms across Canada?

If the complaint had zero merit, then the OPP wouldn't be working on it. It's really sad that anyone would defend this kind of third world garbage.

[Derek 2.0]

If the complaint had zero merit, then the OPP wouldn't be working on it. It's really sad that anyone would defend this kind of third world garbage.

The OPP isn't "working on" the "social justice warrior's" complaint against the RCMP's refusal to grant him the detailed whereabouts of nearly 8 million firearms across Canada, as the man is a Quebec resident and the OPP has zero jurisdiction over the RCMP run CFC.........The Information Commissioner forwarded her findings (relating to her alleged RCMP obstruction) to the OPP....as of now, there is no active investigation being conducted by the OPP.

[cybercoma]

Yeah. You're not biased at all throwing around dismissive labels and all that. Give me a break. We're talking about the Information Commissioner's report that recommended charges be filed against the RCMP and your insistence that she's biased and any other dismissive thing you can come up with for why a Harper appointee would do this.

[Derek 2.0]

Yeah. You're not biased at all throwing around dismissive labels and all that. Give me a break. We're talking about the Information Commissioner's report that recommended charges be filed against the RCMP and your insistence that she's biased and any other dismissive thing you can come up with for why a Harper appointee would do this.

Of course I'm dismissive.......the entire thing is absurd, and not only for the reasons I outlined, namely the expectation that the RCMP would disregard the sections of the Canadian Firearms Act pertaining to the disclosure of personal information of licence holders to a non-governmental agency, but then the Information Commissioner would even entertain such a compliant.

Furthermore, the baseless suggestion by the Information Commissioner, repeated by those with their own bias, that the RCMP broke the law.......a law that has yet to be named.

To go even further, if the RCMP had of complied with the absurd demands of the information commissioner, they would have been in direct violation of the provisions enacted to both the Firearms Act and the Privacy Act by Bill C-19, that received Royal Assent in April 2012......If the RCMP didn't destroy the Long Gun Registry data they would have broken the law:

Canadian Firearms Act:

29. (1) The Commissioner of Firearms shall ensure the destruction as soon as feasible of all records in the Canadian Firearms Registry related to the registration of firearms that are neither prohibited firearms nor restricted firearms and all copies of those records under the Commissioner’s control.

In addition:

(3) Sections 12 and 13 of the Library and Archives of Canada Act and subsections 6(1) and (3) of the Privacy Act do not apply with respect to the destruction of the records and copies referred to in subsections (1) and (2).

The Privacy Act:

• 6. (1) Personal information that has been used by a government institution for an administrative purpose shall be retained by the institution for such period of time after it is so used as may be prescribed by regulation in order to ensure that the individual to whom it relates has a reasonable opportunity to obtain access to the information.

Disposal of personal information

(3) A government institution shall dispose of personal information under the control of the institution in accordance with the regulations and in accordance with any directives or guidelines issued by the designated minister in relation to the disposal of that information.

So if the RCMP had of complied with the information commissioner's request, giving the personal information of ~2 millions Canadians, containing the location of nearly 8 million firearms across Canada, to an anti-government activist, they actually would have broken several real laws..........

And I'm the biased one?

[cybercoma]

Yes. You're the biased one if you think retroactively changing the laws so charges can't be brought against the RCMP is a good idea. But I'm sure you'll be all for it when another government does the same thing to retroactively bring charges against gun owners. Why not, right? Changing the laws for retroactive reasons is completely fair game according to you.

[Derek 2.0]

Yes. You're the biased one if you think retroactively changing the laws so charges can't be brought against the RCMP is a good idea. But I'm sure you'll be all for it when another government does the same thing to retroactively bring charges against gun owners. Why not, right? Changing the laws for retroactive reasons is completely fair game according to you.

I've asked this before, what law do you think was broken, and in turn, what law did the Tories change to protect the RCMP?

Furthermore, how does said yet to be named law contravene/override both the Firearms Act and the Privacy Act, laws both followed by the RCMP in this instance?

Until then, for your further reading:

Access to Information 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;

• (b ) the information is publicly available; or

• (c) the disclosure is in accordance with section 8 of the Privacy Act.

And more importantly:

Access to records

(2 ) Notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament or any privilege under the law of evidence, the Information Commissioner may, during the investigation of any complaint under this Act, examine any record to which this Act applies that is under the control of a government institution, and no such record may be withheld from the Commissioner on any grounds.

That doesn't read like the Information Commissioner can require a Government institution to both break the law and contravene an Act of Parliament, an Act that requires the destruction of personal information, personal information that the Information Commissioner is not authorized by the Access to Information Act to release to an anti-Government activist......

As to why both no Court (or the OPP) will give the Information Commissioner's concerns much thought or further action:

Access to records

46. Notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament or any privilege under the law of evidence, the Court may, in the course of any proceedings before the Court arising from an application under section 41, 42 or 44, examine any record to which this Act applies that is under the control of a government institution, and no such record may be withheld from the Court on any grounds.

An Act of Parliament again........like the passage of Bill C-19, which required the RCMP to destroy the LGR data.

[cybercoma]

And I've told you before, I'm not responding to your silly rhetorical questions and circular reasoning. If you want to justify the government changing laws to get itself out of trouble go right ahead. I wouldn't expect anything less from a card carrying Conservative and a gun lobbyist here. If you don't see a problem, then move along. I have no interest in explaining the obvious to you.

[Derek 2.0]

And I've told you before, I'm not responding to your silly rhetorical questions and circular reasoning. If you want to justify the government changing laws to get itself out of trouble go right ahead. I wouldn't expect anything less from a card carrying Conservative and a gun lobbyist here. If you don't see a problem, then move along. I have no interest in explaining the obvious to you.

I'm still awaiting you to explain the obvious.......and refute factual law as opposed to parroting biased talking points.

[cybercoma]

I can't take someone serious who says the Information Commissioner is just making biased talking points. That's not her job. She isn't a politician scoring partisan points. She doesn't get elected and has no need to play politics. Like I said, you've obviously set your mind that it's ok for the government to change the laws after the Information Commissioner recommends charges so that those charges can't be laid. That's your prerogative, but it sets a dangerous precedent and is especially appalling coming from a government that runs its campaigns on openness and accountability. Just move along. It's no use trying to convince you because you've clearly got an agenda.

Edited May 25, 2015 by cybercoma