Budget omnibus bill C-59

[Mighty AC]

I was interested to see how the partisans would defend Big Brother's retroactive get out of jail free card. I expected the usual 'but Chretien did bad stuff' type comments, but I never would have guessed that someone would have attempted to call the Information Commissioner a biased anti-conservative. Wow. The paranoid delusion is strong with this one.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Mighty AC

[TimG]

I was interested to see how the partisans would defend Big Brother's retroactive get out of jail free card.

I find is amazing that so many people are blinded by their desire to vilify the Conservatives that they think this is an issue.

I made this point earlier:

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 For example, if the laws regarding marijuana are repealed I would have no problems if everyone charged under the old law had the charges dropped and/or released from jail.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 25, 2015 by TimG

[cybercoma]

That's not the issue, Tim. The issue is the government using its majority position to change the laws so it, through the RCMP, doesn't face prosecution. We're talking about a majority government rewriting laws so it doesn't have to be accountable to them.

Edited May 25, 2015 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Furthermore, we're talking about a government that ran on accountability spitting in the face of the commissioner that they themselves appointed to ensure accountability! Instead of seeking charges like she recommended, the government changes the law so charges can't be laid.

I don't now how anyone in their right mind would be ok with the government just changing the laws to avoid prosecution.

Edited May 25, 2015 by cybercoma

[jacee]

Furthermore, we're talking about a government that ran on accountability spitting in the face of the commissioner that they themselves appointed to ensure accountability! Instead of seeking charges like she recommended, the government changes the law so charges can't be laid.

I don't now how anyone in their right mind would be ok with the government just changing the laws to avoid prosecution.

Kinda makes you wonder about the status of the 'minds' of those still slavishly supporting Harper, doesn't it?

.

[TimG]

That's not the issue, Tim. The issue is the government using its majority position to change the laws so it, through the RCMP, doesn't face prosecution. We're talking about a majority government rewriting laws so it doesn't have to be accountable to them.

Now you are getting ridiculous. The alleged crime was destroying documents that should have been never covered under the access to information act. Now if you had an argument that there was some compelling "public good" to gained by making these particular records public (which you don't) then you could argue that the government is wrong in its position but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with a government making reasonable decisions on what should and should not be covered under access to information and retroactively adjusting the rules if unexpected loopholes were discovered. Edited May 25, 2015 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Now you are getting ridiculous. The alleged crime was destroying documents that should have been never covered under the access to information act.

Were they covered?

[Mighty AC]

Now you are getting ridiculous. The alleged crime was destroying documents that should have been never covered under the access to information act.

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the Mounties were just obeying the will of his majority government.

“The government, the Parliament of Canada, has already decided to abolish the long-gun registry,” Harper said at an event in Windsor, Ont.

“The RCMP have acted fully within Parliament’s intention in destroying the data in the long-gun registry.”

Harper said the dispute is over contradictions between the Access to Information Act and his government’s legislation to end the long-gun registry. That is not the case.

In fact, the dispute revolves around the RCMP refusing to disclose gun registry data while the Conservative bill was still being debated and not yet law, then destroying records it knew were under an active investigation."

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/05/14/information-czar-warns-rewriting-law-sets-perilous-precedent.html

The mounties broke the law, as requested by the Conservative government, and now Harper will pass a law will retroactively to get them off the hook. This is a move we'd expect from Putin.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Mighty AC

[TimG]

Were they covered?

The access to information commissionaire says they were. The governments says the commissionaire's interpretation was wrong and the government is now changing the law and making it clear that commissionaire is not to proceed with prosecutions based on its wrong interpretation of the law. Why is this a problem?

Now you might have an argument to make if you could make the case that the government is unreasonable in its position that these particular records should not be covered. I have not heard anyone make this argument. All I have heard is faux outrage over a government using 'retroactive laws' to protect the RCMP.

[TimG]

The mounties broke the law, as requested by the Conservative government, and now Harper will pass a law will retroactively to get them off the hook.

I am still looking for any argument there was a demonstrable public good served by providing access to these particular records given the fact that they were going to be destroyed. That is why I say it is a phony issue created by partisans looking for any way to throw mud at a government they don't like. Edited May 25, 2015 by TimG

[cybercoma]

The access to information commissionaire says they were. The governments says the commissionaire's interpretation was wrong....

Was it covered or not? You said they "should never have been covered," so you're saying they were covered, right?

[Keepitsimple]

I'm still having trouble getting my head around an Access to Information request that asks for this - and why on earth it couldn't be dismissed outright. It smacks of outright mischief. The timeline in question and the nature of the request is what makes me side with the government in this case. Without a doubt, I would support any stripe of government in the same situation.

March 27, 2012: The RCMP receives a request for all records in the Canadian Firearms Registry related to the registration of non-restricted firearms.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[cybercoma]

It's the party in power that makes you side with the government, that much is clear.

[Derek 2.0]

I'm still having trouble getting my head around an Access to Information request that asks for this - and why on earth it couldn't be dismissed outright. It smacks of outright mischief. The timeline in question and the nature of the request is what makes me side with the government in this case. Without a doubt, I would support any stripe of government in the same situation.

For sure, C-19 (the bill to delete the LGR) was passed in Feb of 2012.........the Access to Information request, as you pointed out, was submitted at the end of March 2012...........a request, that even if C-19 was never passed, would never have been granted.......Does anyone really think the RCMP would have given out the detailed information of gun owners across Canada, information that included names, address and the lists of each owners registered firearms?

This faux outrage though is welcoming, as a clear demonstration that election season is on.....Just wait until they have to dispense even more faux outrage once the Harper Government announces its plans to cut the GST even further

[On Guard for Thee]

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.

Apparently somebody forgot to tell the OPP that.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/05/19/opp-to-investigate-allegations-of-rcmp-wrongdoing-on-gun-registry-data-destruction.html

[Argus]

I'm still having trouble getting my head around an Access to Information request that asks for this - and why on earth it couldn't be dismissed outright. It smacks of outright mischief. The timeline in question and the nature of the request is what makes me side with the government in this case. Without a doubt, I would support any stripe of government in the same situation.

It probably would be dismissed in a year or two. The stultifying inertia of bureacracy can keep such things alive for a long time.

This argument strikes me as a grand fight over whether an I was properly dotted or a T crossed. Its pointless and effects nothing and nobody. Anyone worrying over this has too much time on his hands and no real problems in his life