Information & Ethics committee  It is interesting to note that the present Privacy Act does not refer to activities, but rather to "journalistic, artistic or literary purposes". It uses the word "purposes", not "activities". It is slightly different in our act.

Information & Ethics committee  With respect to the specific amendment being proposed, do I understand that you're speaking about the source of the information that would be provided—i.e., it could be a whistle-blower or it could be any other journalistic source more generally?

Information & Ethics committee  As I think was mentioned earlier, the revelation of the name of the source would be protected, of course, as personal information that would not be disclosed under an access to information request. There is protection already provided for in the current regime, as it would be und

Justice committee  Thank you very much. The Spencer ruling, which is supposed to be handed down this Friday, will definitely clarify the parameters, interpretation and application to the private sector of paragraph 7(3)(c.1) of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or P

Justice committee  We are pleased to see that the provision that would have allowed warrantless access to personal information, and especially to subscriber data, has been removed and is no longer on the table. That is clearly an improvement. However, we did have reservations over some provisions

Justice committee  No, I don't think we have any personal knowledge of their position or who actually requested that the immunity clause be amended in this way.

Justice committee  Thank you for the question. Yes, there were many witnesses, as has been pointed out, who have testified before the committee. Quite a number of them as well have advocated in favour of the higher threshold. So in fairness, there are competing views here. One area that I think w

Justice committee  I will begin. I just want to say that the amendments that have been made to increase accountability and transparency, under the provisions you mentioned, are indeed good news. That's a nice example of amendments that have been made to increase transparency, while recognizing tha

Justice committee  The court's permission is clearly very important. What we are discussing today is the threshold, which has to be assessed and examined very thoroughly. However, the court's participation is already a major factor. The kind of report we talked about is also an important transpare

Justice committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question. There are two competing views on the impact of the immunity clause. One is that it is inserted for greater certainty and in fact doesn't change anything. On the other hand, a competing view is the question that is before the S

Justice committee  We argued that in fact it should not be interpreted or applied that way. In that case, it was actually interpreted and applied in a way to create a new source of lawful authority. Those are the two competing arguments before the court, and we will await their decision to see wh

Information & Ethics committee  As you know, we did participate in the study, so we were happy to see the report. There are a number of recommendations that we have paid attention to and continue to implement as we can. Are there some in particular you would like to ask about? I don't have the study in front

Information & Ethics committee  Certainly, social media in general is a very big priority for the organization. We have particular outreach activities aimed at youth in order to increase digital literacy. We do them in-house or a lot through our contribution program that funds research and public education prog

Industry committee  The last round of amendments to PIPEDA would have come into force with the CASL legislation that made consequential amendments to PIPEDA in light of the anti-spam legislation. I believe that may have been the last time, but certainly there was no full review as per the requiremen

Industry committee  Thank you for the question. Currently under PIPEDA there is a requirement to complete the investigation within a prescribed time period, and there are 45 days after which either the complainant or the commissioner can proceed to court for a de novo hearing in the event that we