Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 121-135 of 176
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Information & Ethics committee  I would say so.

December 8th, 2016Committee meeting

Jean-Pierre Plouffe

Information & Ethics committee  You're talking about the review bodies?

December 8th, 2016Committee meeting

Jean-Pierre Plouffe

Information & Ethics committee  The law will apply. If the threshold is relevance, fine. If it's not relevant, it should be deleted. If the threshold is necessity, then it's a higher threshold. If it's not necessary, then it should be deleted.

December 8th, 2016Committee meeting

Jean-Pierre Plouffe

Information & Ethics committee  I don't think so. This is not within the mandate in my view of a review body.

December 8th, 2016Committee meeting

Jean-Pierre Plouffe

Information & Ethics committee  The review body normally will ensure that the agency in question does not violate the law and respects the privacy of Canadians. This is the objective of a review body. It's not an oversight body. It's not a refined review. It's a post facto review.

December 8th, 2016Committee meeting

Jean-Pierre Plouffe

Information & Ethics committee  I would like to provide some additional information. Paragraph 2(a) of SCISA deals with activities that undermine the security of Canada. The passage reads as follows: (a) interference with the capability of the Government of Canada in relation to intelligence, defence, border operations, public safety, the administration of justice, diplomatic or consular relations, or the economic or financial stability of Canada; I guess that's the reason for the 17 institutions.

December 8th, 2016Committee meeting

Jean-Pierre Plouffe

Information & Ethics committee  In theory, we could argue that a super-agency would solve all the problems. In practice, and in the meantime, there are ways to improve the system, if I may use the expression. The way to do it is very simple. It's to give the review bodies an explicit authority to co-operate.

December 8th, 2016Committee meeting

Jean-Pierre Plouffe

Information & Ethics committee  Not to my knowledge.

December 8th, 2016Committee meeting

Jean-Pierre Plouffe

Information & Ethics committee  I cannot answer for the agencies. I suspect that, for example, that the CSE chief might appear before you, and this is the type of question I would suggest you ask her at the time. In the meantime, with regard to review bodies, I come back to the comments I made a few seconds ago.

December 8th, 2016Committee meeting

Jean-Pierre Plouffe

Information & Ethics committee  Since CSE has neither received nor shared information under that law, I don't have any additional comments to make, unfortunately.

December 8th, 2016Committee meeting

Jean-Pierre Plouffe

Information & Ethics committee  Even if we are buddies.

December 8th, 2016Committee meeting

Jean-Pierre Plouffe

Information & Ethics committee  I have just one comment on this point. It is true that right now there is no explicit authority to co-operate, but there's no explicit prohibition either. Therefore, practically speaking, over the past five years my predecessors and I have provided 10 or more letters to SIRC referring to specific issues that have arisen in my review of CSE that have implicated CSIS.

December 8th, 2016Committee meeting

Jean-Pierre Plouffe

Information & Ethics committee  If I could comment on this very point, you mentioned that if there's a breach of privacy, in essence it would be for the Privacy Commissioner to investigate, but I want to stress that with regard to CSE, under the law in my mandate, I have also a mandate to protect the privacy of Canadians.

December 8th, 2016Committee meeting

Jean-Pierre Plouffe

Information & Ethics committee  It's called the PIF.

December 8th, 2016Committee meeting

Jean-Pierre Plouffe

Information & Ethics committee  Are you quoting from Mr. Therrien?

December 8th, 2016Committee meeting

Jean-Pierre Plouffe