Below is my response to the Open Government Consultations. I look forward to the government follow-up.
*******************
1. What could be done to make it easier for you to find and use government data provided online?

Each government department, crown corporation and agency should have a chief data officer (CDO) responsible for implementing opendata and opengovernment policies.  CDOs would be the institution’s data subject matter specialist, answer to the public and government.  CDOs would conduct an inventory of their data and information assets and these would be catalogued in a portal linked from their home pages but structured to also be federated into an opendata portal (ODESI).

Data catalogs would provide multiple ways to find data (Discovery Portal) and point to existing non-government initiatives (WEHUB, Community Data Program) as these are established communities of practice.  Building on best practices and existing models is efficient and interoperability should be the focus instead of homogenous data dissemination models.

Policies and practices should be developed in consultation with the nation’s experts (librarians, archivists, scientists, geomaticians), knowledgeable citizens and opendata advocates. Users should also be consulted and different data dissemination models may be needed for different levels of users.  Also, it is a good idea to build on already completed government consultations: Research Data Canada Consultation , Library and Archives Canada and Industry Canada.  There is also benefit in enlisting multiple sectors and not just the opendata consitutuents such as: Canadian Council on Social Development & community groups, Federation of Canadian Municipalities & cities, Publich Health Agency of Canada & health agencies, HRSDC & social sector, Open Data Cities, etc.

Government funding should mandate that the results of all publicly funded research be deposited into a trusted digital repository (TDR), in a data archive or portals (International Polar Year project & CIHR Open Access Policy).  Other areas of research focus could be data visualization products, building data use capacity, and understanding evidence based public participation.  Developing best practices for government to incorporate volunteered geographic information, citizen science and indigenous knowledge should be also be encouraged.

All agencies should be implementing TBS record’s management policies and its directives while also depositing their data and publications in the Depository Service Program (DSP) and Library and Archives Canada (LAC).  LAC & the DSP should be funded to develop a data archive as Canadians currently rely on the US funded and based Internet Archive.  Research libraries should continue to develop distributed publicly accessible TDRs, cloud computing and broadband infrastructure to carry out their work.

Data should be aggregated into geographic units of utility to a variety communities, framework geography files (Geobase) and should be made available and data conversion services provided (GeoConnections):

• StatCan DA, CT, CD, CSD, CMA
• Health Districts & Sub Districts
• City wards and neighbouhoods
• Rural & Postal geos
• Provinces, Territories & districts

Government should be engaged in creating ways to visualize data and provide some analysis. The Atlas of Canada could be the map window for data, each department could have a section devoted to their respective areas providing educators and the public with a trusted and authoritative reference in addition it would be a window into the geography of government policy.  Each agency could be assisted with the creation of infographics and apps to communicate programs and services by involving the public, private sector and universities and funding this would help grow a cadre of Canadian experts.  Research funds and CFPs would help produce tools (Many Eyes), apps (Budget Plateau), visual communication system (cybercartography) and social media processes. Transdisciplinary research can help develop the theory and practice of data communication while open tender can resolve specific data dissemination issues, develop relevant products and services.

Cost recovery should also be abolished and data procurement processes would also have to be evaluated ensure that government purchased data can be made available to the public.

2. What types of open data sets would be of interest to you? Please pick up to three categories below and specify what data would be of interest to you.

Other: See response to 1. & include all government deparment, crown corporations and agency program, administrative, research data including their related information products.

3. How would you use or manipulate this data?

I will provide a list of examples of government, communicy and citizen science data put to work:

– Atlas of the Risk of Homelessness
– WEHUB (Water and Environmental Hub)
– Revealing Economic Networks
– Portrait des communautés de l’outaouais
– BC Hydraulic Registry
– Evidence Based Decision-Making
– Funding –
– Open Data for the Oil and Gas
– Social Justice Reporting
– Inuit Sea Ice Use and Occupancy Project (ISIUOP)
– Atlases
– Espace Montréalais d”information sur la Santé
– Community View Collaboration
– Community Information and Mapping System (CIMS)
– Social Planning Council of Ottawa Data and Information Reporting
– Social Planning Council of Winnipeg Poverty Profiles
– Report Cards on Children’s Well Being
– Social Planning Council of Hamilton Reports
– Community Development Halton – Community Lens
– Sault Ste. Marie Innovation Centre information products
– Electoral accountability – How’d They Vote? – , for youth  and many others
– Citizen Science –  Birders and Water
– Environmental Conservation – Waterly
– Participatory Planning
– Environmental Accountability
– Ecological Footprint
– Participatory Budgets
– APPS
– Citizen engagement –
– Lovely visualizations

4. What could be done to make it easier for you to find government information online?

See response to question 1. and 3.

The data and information discussed in this question, including FOI request results can also be disseminated in portals and be catalogued as was done with CAIRS.

The creation of suitable ways to communicate and visualize those data would greatly enhance information usability and information uptake.

Supporting Canadian entrepreneurs and researchers to develop tools (aka apps) to interact with and visualize these data and making those tools, apps and dbases available to the public would be beneficial (e.g. How’d they Vote or BudgetPlateau).

Fund data visualization in Canada and research into the use of data and public engagement.

5. Of the items below, which are the priority areas of information that you would like to see released on government websites:

Other, All of the above, essentially, all public sector information and data that are not private, that inform programs or that are collected as part of the governing process

6. In the past five years, have you participated in any Government of Canada consultations with Canadians?

Yes

Overall, how easy or difficult was it to: (very easy to very difficult or n/a)

• Find out about Government of Canada consultations?
• easy
• Participate in Government of Canada consultations?
• Somewhat easy but too constrained by format and pre-prescribed questions.
• Use social media/Web 2.0 tools to participate and provide your input?
• Easy, however, well facilitated round tables and face to face consultations with specialist communities are also important.
• Obtain information about the outcome of the consultation you participated in?
• Very difficult, there is rarely follow through.

7. Do you have suggestions on how the Government of Canada could improve how it consults with Canadians?

National round tables and outreach to specialist communities would be a start (e.g., health, social policy, science, industry, etc.), not just via social media but the actual organizing of face to face meetings that are well facilitated.  The National Research Council in the US does this (e.g. Cyberinfrastructure, Policy and Science or Transportation) and makes available the results in the National Academies Press.  The US NRC gathers experts to define problem areas or forecast needs (e.g., Cyberinfrastructure), collaborate to develop solutions and then the Council actually develops CFPs to implement proposed solutions.  We could actually mobilize the nation’s experts in Canada, not just the nation’s consulting firms to help develop creative solutions.

GeoConnections, StatCan, Library Archives Canada and The National Research Council of Canada have had experience conducting public consultations, round tables and summits with data users, producers, managers and specialist communities.

Those engaged with public participation researcher have expertise here, as do those engaged in action research or public participation GIS.  Organizations that have developed ChangeCamps, GovCamps, hackfests and citizen city open data communities are another groups that have experience and proven expertise in carrying out creative consultations.

Some tables already exists such as Community Data Canada  and the Community Data Program on the social sector side, the FCM for Cities, Open North  for open data advocates and entrepreneurs, city Open Data Groups, CODATA in Science and numerous academic and professional associations such as IASSIST, ACMLA, CAPDU, CARL, as well as subject matter specialists in demographics, public health, community informatics, etc. There are also a number of important lists such as civicaccess.ca where various communities of interest are engaged and intersect.

It is important to work with data specialists, engineers, scientists, apps developers and it is equally important to outreach with heavy data and information users such as journalists, researchers, consulting firms, utilities, community organizations and cities to understand their needs.  Conducting user needs analyses is another useful way to engage with people.

8. Are there approaches used by other governments that you believe the Government of Canada could/should model?

See response to 7, and 1.

9. Are there any other comments or suggestions you would like to make pertaining to the Government of Canada’s Open Government initiative?

An open government initiative needs policy and directives to ensure, guide and involve the governors and bureaucrats.  Open government also requires cultural change and it also means that the government will need to welcome citizen participation and govern based on evidence from within government and based on the work done by citizens.  It is not suitable to open government and share data and then cut funding in research, libraries, archives, think tanks or the census.  Open government means nurturing and growing a multifaceted knowledge industry and volunteer sector on topics ranging from spending, women, poverty to infrastructure and government administration.  It also means welcoming informed results irrespective of their alignment with the ideologies of the government of the day.

The culture of secrecy regarding submissions to cabinet, MOUs, and so on should also be reconsidered as the public has a right to know upon what government is basing its decisions.  The Government of Canada already has excellent regulation, directives and policies regarding access to information, records management and archiving, and these need to be funded and actually implemented.  These should not be circumvented as seen in the case of the gun registry bill where there was a clause precluding archiving and preservation of the data it contained.  That makes for inconsistent policy.  Government should also be at arm’s length from its data gathering agencies such as Statistics Canada, the cancellation of the Census has garnered much public distrust and also puts in question the impartiality of the data, the recommendations of the National Statistical Council on this matter should be implemented.  Organizational and cultural change is also required, and we should allow our expert public servants to speak freely and authoritatively and not quash their views even if not in accordance to a minister’s preferences, (e.g., scientists).  Communication’s departments should be facilitating communication and not controlling it nor be the source of wisdom and knowledge about government work.  Also, consultation needs follow through, otherwise it is wasted effort and we should be building upon the results of previous consultations and not continuously reinventing the wheel.  Consultations should also include some sort of benchmark system to assess whether or not government is actually following through on its policies.  A brief examination of departments and their data preservation practices will demonstrate that in fact most departments are not, cannot and will not meet directive requirements on records management and preservation policies.  What is the point of policy and directives if not implemented!

Open government is more than a portal, as the Information Commissioner’s Resolutions have clearly stated, it is also about changing the way work is done and being more responsive to citizen input, more welcoming of divergent and conflicting views and includes greater, deeper, real and more meaningful public engagement.

10. How would you like to stay connected to Canada’s Open Government initiative?

• Web updates (email alerts)
• Public Consultation

Thanks to James for helping me find lost responses!

I met Terence Gannon at the Cybera Summit 2011 in Banff of this year and was most impressed with his open data business model and invited him to prepare a guest post. Here is the link to the video of that presentation.
*****************************

Many efforts to open up public data stores are oriented to the noble but somewhat non-specific goal of more open and transparent public governance.  Intellog Inc., founded in  2008, has a different objective; to use public data as a substrate for building a profit-oriented, job-creating, taxpaying business.  With over three years of experience under our belt, we now wonder if it would have been easier to choose a more conventional path.  Here’s the cautionary tale.

Intellog’s primary business objective is to bring the current generation of Internet technologies to the oil and gas business.  Our first project was to address a surprising lack of a robust, open and systematic way of identifying petroleum wells in the Western Sedimentary Basin.  The solution seemed obvious, so we were surprised when we discovered putting together such a list had not been undertaken to that point.  Our subsequent experience with provincial regulatory agencies — the current stewards of this data — eventually provided us with the reason why.  Saskatchewan is superbly well organized, helpful and knowledgeable staff.  Alberta is at the opposite end of the spectrum, cursed with a toxic combination of creaking, antiquated systems and intransigent leadership. The other jurisdictions fall somewhere in between but are generally pretty good.

In short, nearly four years later, we still don’t have standardized, open well identification to support the development of innovative, revenue-generating applications. We continue to pursue access to the requisite data through the Freedom of Information process which is now due to conclude in March, 2012 — nearly four-and-a-half years since we started down this path. In the interim, the closest we have come is three, competing proprietary datasets owned by private companies, one of which is US-based.  These companies are at liberty to pick and choose their partners and have therefore become the unaccountable, de-facto regulators of innovation.  Want to build the next great application for the oil & gas industry?  Be prepared to make some sort of deal with one of the three incumbent data vendors, and have your cheque book ready. In reality, this first obstacle proves fatal for virtually all start-ups.

Secondly, the inherent ‘goodness’ of open data and the positive light in which it is typically viewed doesn’t substitute for a marketing strategy and creating products your prospective customers want to buy.  There is no such thing as a principled purchase — buying happens when product capability meets excruciating business pain and sometimes not even then.  When we rolled out some initial portions of the open well data, you could have heard a pin drop — our prospects simply did not care, because it did not solve a problem they perceived they had.  Oil & gas companies, particularly publicly traded ones, think in fiscal quarters, so if open data and the applications that use it don’t return measurable value in the very short term, they’ll sit on the shelf unloved and ignored.

Finally, the same reasons which motivate us to use open data, tend also to motivate the use of open source software.  Our experience over the past few years indicates that open source alternatives to commercial products are, without exception, as good and in most cases better than their proprietary equivalents.  Support, albeit of the self-serve variety, is also better, with mainstream open source projects surrounded by enthusiastic and helpful communities.  But we weren’t prepared for the objection along the lines of “we are a .NET/Oracle/etc. (or whatever) shop” being a reason for passing on our product offerings. And yet sometimes that seems to be the case.

The main lesson hard won over the last three years is that a successful venture is built on “customers first, everything else tied for last”.  Building great products and providing outstanding customer support — using whatever set of tools — will eventually get you the  success you want and deserve.  Open source data and development tools can keep costs down and have other attendant benefits, but they are not an end unto themselves.

Bio: Terence Gannon, Founder and President at Intellog Inc. launched his first start-up in the early 1980’s, bringing two word processing programs to the nascent personal computer market. He has since served stints at North Canadian Oils, Norcen, Sceptre Resources, Canadian Fracmaster and Trican Well Services, where he pioneered the use of ultralight business process management tools to increase productivity, and reduce missed or duplicated work. In 2008, Gannon launched Intellog Inc. with the mandate of bringing current generation web-based applications and data integration tools to the oil and gas industry. He regularly campaigns for the petroleum industry to open up its public data stores to be free and widely available to all stakeholders.

If you can, please help the Canadian Council on Social Development (CCSD) with a donation to cover the legal fees. Champs & Associates did much pro-bono work on this file, however, $25 000 are required and any help would be most appreciated.

B E T W E E N:
CANADIAN COUNCIL ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT,
COMMUNITY SOCIAL PLANNING COUNCIL OF TORONTO,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HALTON,
CANADIAN ARAB FEDERATION,
ONTARIO COUNCIL OF AGENCIES SERVING IMMIGRANTS,
COUNCIL OF AGENCIES SERVING SOUTH ASIANS,
CANADIAN MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION – TORONTO,
AFRICAN CANADIAN LEGAL CLINIC,
NATIONAL ABORIGINAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION,
SOUTH ASIAN LEGAL CLINIC OF ONTARIO,
SOCIAL PLANNING COUNCIL OF WINNIPEG,
METRO TORONTO CHINESE & SOUTHEST ASIAN LEGAL CLINIC
Applicants

-and-
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
_____________________________________________________________________
APPLICANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW
(Vol. V of V)
Memorandum of Fact and Law
_____________________________________________________________________
Paul Champ/Anne Levesque
Champ and Associates
43 Florence Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K2P 0W6
T: (613) 237-4740
F: (613) 232-2680

Bravo.

The ACA had the following to say in their letter:

The ACA is concerned that Bill C-19 contains provisions that explicitly override existing legislated
information management processes. The current disposition of records in the Firearms Registry is for destruction ten years after last administrative action. Further, Sections 12 and 13 of the Library and Archives of Canada Act (LAC Act) require written permission from the Librarian and Archivist of Canada to destroy records. However, sections 29 (1) (2) and (3) of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act call for the destruction of records “as soon as possible” and that the LAC Act be ignored.

The ACA urges the government to trust the records management processes already enshrined in current legislation. The Firearms Registry records were scheduled according to business needs and to potential historical value by the creating department and professional archivists at Library and Archives Canada. These processes ensure accountability and transparency with regards to the destruction of government records. Destroying records for political expediency and disregarding the LAC Act sets a very dangerous precedent for future legislation and record keeping practices.

The ACA is an academic & professional association that has taken a stance on this important issue which is exactly in their mandate to do.  Excellent.

While it might seem obvious that they are records, yet this has been an ongoing debate among archivists and copyright advocates.  Here are some thoughts at least as it pertains to geospatial data:

The following definitions in the Library and Archives of Canada Act are relevant for geospatial information and databases (LAC Act, Definitions, pp. 1-2, and also p. 6 for recording):

• Documentary heritage: publications and records of interest to Canada.
• Government record: a record that is under the control of a government institution.
• Ministerial record: a record of a member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada who holds the office of a minister and that pertains to that office, other than a record that is of a personal or political nature or that is a government record.
• Publication: any library matter that is made available in multiple copies or at multiple locations, whether without charge or otherwise, to the public generally or to qualifying members of the public by subscription or otherwise. Publications may be made available through any medium and may be in any form, including printed material, on-line items or recordings.
  • Record: any documentary material other than a publication, regardless of medium or form.
• Recording: anything that requires a machine in order to use its content, whether sounds, images or other information.

The LAC Act makes no specific reference to form, format or media, which means that geospatial data, databases and maps are considered to be government records, that may have documentary heritage qualities.  Record creators are therefore responsible for managing this content in the event that these records are to be accessioned by LAC. LAC’s responsibility is to advise, provide leadership, technical expertise, professional expertise and financial support to assist record creators and other federal geospatial information producers with preserving their records.

When archiving geospatial data, databases and maps, the Copyright Act must also be taken into consideration, as would licenses and access rights.  Geospatial data, databases and maps may fall within the following definitions in the Copyright Act:

• Artistic work: includes paintings, drawings, maps, charts, plans, photographs, engravings, sculptures, works of artistic craftsmanship, architectural works, and compilations of artistic works;
• Book: which is a volume or a part or division of a volume, in printed form, but does not include (a) a pamphlet, (b) a newspaper, review, magazine or other periodical, (c) a map, chart, plan or sheet music where the map, chart, plan or sheet music is separately published, and (d) an instruction or repair manual that accompanies a product or that is supplied as an accessory to a service;
• Collective Work:  which is  (a) an encyclopedia, dictionary, year book or similar work, (b) a newspaper, review, magazine or similar periodical, and (c) any work written in distinct parts by different authors, or in which works or parts of works of different authors are incorporated;
• Compilation: (a) a work resulting from the selection or arrangement of literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works or of parts thereof, or (b) a work resulting from the selection or arrangement of data but not the geospatial data itself…;
• Computer Program: which is a set of instructions or statements, expressed, fixed, embodied or stored in any manner, that is to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a specific result;
• Every original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work: includes every original production in the literary, scientific or artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression, such as compilations, books, pamphlets and other writings, lectures, dramatic or dramatico-musical works, musical works, translations, illustrations, sketches and plastic works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science;
• Literary work: includes tables, computer programs, and compilations of literary works;

• Definition of “publication”: 2.2 (1) For the purposes of this Act, “publication” means (a) in relation to works, (i) making copies of a work available to the public

If any data, databases or maps are produced by an employee of the Federal Government, then copyright belongs to Her Majesty. Works created by the Federal Government of Canada can be licensed and  federal producers’ geospatial data, databases and maps are covered by many licenses.  However, there are no universal licenses for geospatial or any other data being used within the Government of Canada.

A digital map, a digital mapping dataset and a digital mapping database can be a record, a recording, a publication, part of a ministerial record and also be of documentary heritage as defined in the Act.  How these are classified is contingent on how it fits in a department or agency’s mandate and other digital mapping data producers’ business practices and how these are valued by the institution.  For instance the Atlas of Canada may be a publication, which is also a record that could also be considered to be of documentary heritage.  The host institutions, the record creator, would appraise^[1] it as such, as would Atlas Stakeholders (e.g., school teachers) or potentially the Librarian and Archivist of Canada might do so.  How and when to capture snapshots of the Atlas, whether or not that is the best method to adopt, and when to accession^[2] it in the Archive is not yet determined, and would have to be discussed between LAC and the Atlas.  A host institution and LAC would then collaborate in deciding how the Atlas or any other geospatial dataset is to be made available to future generations of Canadians and how those future generations will view the them. The processes of appraising, how to manage, and how to preserve would be repeated for other datasets, databases and maps.

The TBS Standard on Geospatial Data is the only TB document that relates specifically to the geospatial information domain. Coming into effect in June 2009, the objective of this standard is “to support stewardship and interoperability of information by ensuring that departments access, use and share geospatial data efficiently and effectively to support program and service delivery”. While this standard does not explicitly reference digital information archiving and preservation, there is a linkage between it and LAC’s File Format Guidelines for Preservation and Long-term Access.  These guidelines recommend the same format as included in the TB standard (ISO TC 211 ISO 19115 Geographic Information – Metadata (NAP – Metadata) (North American Profile)) for preservation of and long term access to digital geospatial information held by government organizations.

A digital map, dataset or database could be a ministerial record if it formed part of a particular decision in that office. These digital objects, irrespective of their form, would then be a part of that particular ministerial record set.

For Archivists, specifically InterPARES I stated that five characteristics are required for a digital entity to be a record:

1. stable content and fixed form;
2. embedded action;
3. archival bond;
4. three persons (i.e. author, addressee, writer);
5. and an identifiable administrative and documentary context.

For some case studies, conducted by InterPARES II, particularly Cybercartographic Atlas of Antarctica (CS06)^[3] and VanMap (CS24)^[4], which are explicitly designed to allow for data to change and information to be added, this means that they are not or do not contain records in archival terms.  To become records, they must be fixed in time and space.  InterPARES 2, VanMap and San Diego Centre for Supercomputing have collaboratively designed a research study to determine whether it might be feasible to introduce fixity into the system by changing the system’s architecture so that each time a layer is updated the layer is saved and set aside. This would allow composite views of VanMap to be assembled for any given date, consisting of layers that had been saved on that date or most recently prior to that date.^[5]  This is however a far from perfect solution and is both expensive and beyond the capacity of most institutions creating and using these dynamic products.

One of the most serious problems in this respect is that for most geospatial data creators the term “record” means data, databases, and related information.  For many archivists, these are not considered records except in very special and limited circumstances, where the concept of “bounded variability”^[6] may be applied.  This is not simply a matter of semantics.  It is a fundamental difference in perspective between creators and preservers, compounded by the emergence in all disciplines of ephemeral interactive information which exists only in cyberspace.  This is particularly the case for many of the InterPARES 2 Case Studies (like the Cybercartographic Atlas and VanMap) which are interactive, experiential and dynamic.  Duranti and Thibodeau argue that

interactions between humans and computer systems, experiences enabled or mediated by experiential systems, and processes which are carried out with at least some degree of spontaneity by dynamic systems are not the residue of action. They are not means of remembering either what was done or what is to be done. In short, they are not records.^[7]

This archival position is entirely defensible from the perspective of the theory of diplomatics[8] but is problematic in many scientific situations, such as for computational data where a model or a simulation is the primary result.  The nature of the “record” is changing dramatically and traditional archival science will have to adapt to these changes in both theoretical and practical terms if they are to preserve this new information environment in the archives of the twenty first century.

Who manages and preserves these then?

Although the problems and challenges of archiving these dynamic data sets and digital artifacts are being identified, the institutional environment is often not conducive to the systematic action required to address the problem.  For example Library and Archives Canada (LAC) is not ready to systematically archive born digital geospatial data, databases and maps let alone complex artifacts such as the Atlas of Canada.

Currently, there are a few LAC guidelines for cartographic material, but these are general in nature and primarily address paper maps.  The 2006 LAC  Managing Cartographic, Architectural and Engineering Records in the Government of Canada^[8] made only passing reference to digital maps such as “the National Archives acquires geomatic systems” and “geomatic records include geomatic systems, discs, CD-ROMs and other cartographic material in electronic formats” (LAC 2006a).  This has since been updated^[9]; however, the focus remains primarily on paper content and digitized paper content. The 2011 document still refers the reader to the 2001 Canadian Committee on Archival Description (CCAD) Rules for Archival Description Chapter 5^[10] for information pertaining to standards and practices for cartographic records.  The Rules primarily address paper maps while general issues pertaining to digital databases and programs are covered in the 2003 Chapter 9: Records in Electronic Form^[11].  While both of the CCAD documents are designed for archivists who manage these records, these documents could be useful references for government record managers.

The LAC Local Digital Format Registry (LDFR) File Format Guidelines for Preservation and Long-term Access Version 1.0^[12] includes Geospatial guidelines.  The Geospatial^[13] section recommends TC 211 ISO 19115 Geographic Information – Metadata (NAP– Metadata) (North American Profile). This is a dynamic document that will improve as knowledge grows and as digital geospatial data record creators and managers contribute to it. While these documents are lauded as a good start, they fall short of adequate guidelines for the kind of digital geospatial artifacts discussed in the InterPARES 2 Case Studies, the portals in the InterPARES 2 General Study on Data Portals.

My understanding is, that the Gun Registry, as it is familiarly known, or the Canadian Firearms Information System is an official government record that cannot arbitrarily be destroyed.  Below I provide references to Acts, Regulations, Directives and Policies that support that perspective.  However, at the bottom you will find reference to proposed Bill C-19, and you will discover that this Bill aims to override all of these.  Is it constitutional for a government to create an Act to go against its own Acts, Regulations and policies?

Normally, Library and Archives Canada (LAC) has the final say on whether or not a database or record can be destroyed (see slide #3) as LAC is:

accountable for the final decisions about what gets kept and what gets deleted

And that statement is legally grounded in the  Library and Archives Act:

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.

To implement the law and follow the regulations the Multi-Institutional Disposition Authorities (MIDA), were created to direct when and how records are destroyed, and it is not arbitrary:

Under the Library and Archives of Canada Act (2004), Library and Archives Canada (LAC) Canada is charged with various responsibilities regarding the disposal of this information, including the authorization of records destruction by government institutions (Section 12) and the preservation of records for their archival or historical importance (Section 13).

…

The Multi-Institutional Disposition Authorities (MIDA) in this collection are issued by the Librarian and Archivist to provide direction to government institutions subject to the Library and Archives of Canada Act regarding the disposal of records managed by all or a multiple number of government institutions. They are designed to eliminate the need for government institutions individually to prepare submissions for and negotiate agreements with the Librarian and Archivist for records which have similar administrative or operational status.

The Canadian Firearms Registry, which includes the Canadian Firearms Information System, is part of Canadian Firearms Program of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) which is a Schedule I government organization according to the Access Information Act which means it would fall under Disposition rules and LAC ACT which states that:

The disposal of records managed by government institutions occurs under the Library and Archives of Canada Act. A government institution is subject to the Library and Archives of Canada Act if it is listed in Schedule I of the Access to Information Act or in the Schedule to the Privacy Act. (see MIDA)

The Treasury Board Policy on Information Management states, keeping in mind this is a policy not a directive, a regulation nor an act, but does say some nice things, not necessarily accompanied with budgets on the management of records:

3.1 Information is an essential component of effective management across departments. The availability of high-quality, authoritative information to decision makers supports the delivery of programs and services, thus enabling departments to be more responsive and accountable to Canadians.

Managing information and records using a whole-of-government approach where legislation permits, supports managers’ ability to transform organizations, programs and services in response to the evolving needs of Canadians. While information management encompasses records, as well as documents, data, library services, information architecture, etc., records and their management are mentioned at key points in the policy for the purpose of emphasis. Integrating information management considerations into all aspects of government business enables information to be used and recognized as a valuable asset. All these activities are indicative of a culture that values information.

The Treasury Board Directive on Information Management Roles and Responsibilities. refers back to the LAC Act regarding disposition:

9.2.5 issues records disposition authorities, pursuant to section 12 of the Library and Archives of Canada Act, to enable departments to carry out their records retention and disposition plans;

It would seem that there are Acts, Regulation, Policies and Directives that lean toward not being able to destroy the Gun Registry.

There are however some items in the current  Firearms Act that allow for the registrars to destroy some data in the registry under some prescribed conditions:

84. The Registrar may destroy records kept in the Canadian Firearms Registry at such times and in such circumstances as may be prescribed.

Not to be a stickler, but it does not say all of the records.   And under Other Records of the Registrar the Firearms Act states under 85. that:

Destruction of records

(3) The Registrar may destroy any record referred to in subsection (1) at such times and in such circumstances as may be prescribed.

In addition, Chief Firearms Officers 87. (1) A chief firearms officer shall keep a record of

(a) every licence and authorization that is issued or revoked by the chief firearms officer;

(b) every application for a licence or authorization that is refused by the chief firearms officer;

(c) every prohibition order of which the chief firearms officer is informed under section 89; and

(d) such other matters as may be prescribed.

Destruction of records

(2) A chief firearms officer may destroy any record referred to in subsection (1) at such times and in such circumstances as may be prescribed.

However, According to the Firearms Records Regulations, there are some pretty explicit instructions as to when a record can be destroyed:

4. (1) Subject to subsection (2), for the purpose of section 84 of the Act, a record kept in the Canadian Firearms Registry shall not be destroyed until after the expiration of 10 years after the date of the last administrative action taken regarding the information in the record.

(2) A record, kept in the Canadian Firearms Registry under paragraph 83(1)(a) of the Act, of a registration certificate that is issued or revoked shall not be destroyed.

5. For the purpose of subsection 87(2) of the Act, a record kept by a chief firearms officer shall not be destroyed until after the expiration of 10 years after the date of the last administrative action taken regarding the information in the record.

6. (1) Despite section 5, the following records shall not be destroyed until after the death of the individual in respect of whom they are kept:

(a) the record attesting to the fact that the individual has met the requirements of section 7 of the Act, including the date and place of any course or test; and

(b) records of every certification issued under paragraph 7(4)(a) of the Act.

(2) Despite sections 4 and 5, records of prohibition orders kept under paragraph 87(1)(c) of the Act and records of information concerning prohibition orders made under section 147.1 of the National Defence Act shall not be destroyed until after the death of the individual in respect of whom the record is kept unless the individual meets the requirements of subsection 7(3) of the Act.

To summarize, the Firearms Act permits the destruction of some records in the Canadian Firearms Information System under certain circumstances and these are stipulated in the act.  Data can be destroyed but not arbitrarily, not the entire database,  and it should be deposited at Library and Archives Canada.

Bill C-19 An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act is however proposing to override all those good laws, regulations, directives, and policies with the following:

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.

(2) Each chief firearms officer shall ensure the destruction as soon as feasible of all records under their control related to the registration of firearms that are neither prohibited firearms nor restricted firearms and all copies of those records under their control.

(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).

It is in this fine print that we need to be watchful of this Government, as it is making rules to abolish a program and destroy records and it is trying to do so legally or at least using legal means to do so.  DATA seems to really be a FOUR LETTER word for this Government, they do not like the census, they do not use data to support their policies such as building jails, and they do not really like accountability, since in the end data help citizens assess and evaluate how their governments are doing.

No record, no way of evaluating!

Thanks to those who pointed to resources from CARTA, CivicAccess list, Twitter and CAPDU List.

The University of Toronto Map and Data Librarians put together a really fun panel for Open Access Week with the City of Toronto Open Data team and Jury Konga on the topic of Open Data. As promised here are my slides. There were some great questions from the audience and it was a very well attended session.

There is also an honourable mention to the Toronto Wellbeing initiative.