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

Results 121-135 of 279
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Public Safety committee  My concern is that unless the definition of “operational” is anchored in the act, you may find your way to viewing anything that is ongoing as operational. If “ongoing”, as I think, implies “operational” by nature, whether you put it in or not will not, I think, have a great effe

November 29th, 2016Committee meeting

John Davies

Public Safety committee  Again, I think there are operational aspects to any kind of report that means something's ongoing and people are doing work in real time. The issue is, from a policy discussion standpoint, whether or not you want that kind of thing brought in front of the committee.

November 29th, 2016Committee meeting

John Davies

Public Safety committee  My first reaction is that it would be redundant, but I think you'd want to ideally define the word “operational” in the act, if you're going to put it in, because the effect of the narrowing is not clear either way.

November 29th, 2016Committee meeting

John Davies

Public Safety committee  It's anchored in the SOI Act.

November 29th, 2016Committee meeting

John Davies

Public Safety committee  Yes, that's a copy.

November 29th, 2016Committee meeting

John Davies

November 29th, 2016Committee meeting

John Davies

November 29th, 2016Committee meeting

John Davies

Information & Ethics committee  That would take a bit of time. That's policy work that we're doing in the context of the national security consultations—

November 17th, 2016Committee meeting

John Davies

Information & Ethics committee  It's a viable question to ask in the context of the consultations that we're doing, but it's not as easy as a one-week or a two-week reply. It will take a few months.

November 17th, 2016Committee meeting

John Davies

Information & Ethics committee  Not necessarily the CSIS Act.

November 17th, 2016Committee meeting

John Davies

Information & Ethics committee  It doesn't matter whether you get a specific example or not. The point is that if you go up to the necessity standard, then there will more than likely be less information going to the national security agencies. Whether it's example A, B, or C, it doesn't really matter. There's

November 17th, 2016Committee meeting

John Davies

Information & Ethics committee  In my opening remarks, I talked about this a bit. The definition in the act is broader. The issue is whether all the other 16 departments and agencies would see themselves within the CSIS Act. As a national security agency, you have to look at whether they could see themselves wi

November 17th, 2016Committee meeting

John Davies

Information & Ethics committee  I can only talk to the policy work that was done prior. All of the 17 were requested...in fact, anyone who thought they had a national security responsibility was requested to look at their activities, argue, and get their deputy head and minister to agree that they have a nation

November 17th, 2016Committee meeting

John Davies

Information & Ethics committee  The governance structure linked in the act is that the deputy head is ultimately accountable, but the deputy head can create a delegated structure within his or her department that would include the necessary training and the other people who have authority, for example, to make

November 17th, 2016Committee meeting

John Davies

Information & Ethics committee  Just to add on that, SCISA has proved to be necessary but non-sufficient, in the sense that other than closing legal gaps and having a clear legal framework from which to encourage departments and agencies to share in the national security agencies, it allows more training, learn

November 17th, 2016Committee meeting

John Davies