Communications Security
Establishment Commissioner

Commissaire du Centre de la
s?curit? des telecommunications

 

The Honourable Jean Pierre Ploufie, CD. L?honorable Jean - Pierre Plouffe, 0.0.

March 6, 2015

The Honourable Daryl Kramp

Chair

Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security
House of Commons

Sixth Floor, 131 Queen Street

Ottawa ON K1A 0A6

Dear Mr. Kramp:

I am writing with respect to Bill C-51, Part 1, Security of Canada Information Sharing
Act, which allows the sharing of information among Govemment of Canada institutions
for national security purposes. Following my reading of the Bill, I question why the
existing security and intelligence review bodies are not included in this proposed
legislation.

My office is responsible for reviewing the activities of the Communications Security
Establishment (CSE). The legislation that authorizes my activity is different from the
legislation that authorizes the two other review bodies, the Security Intelligence Review
Committee (SIRC), responsible for reviewing the activities of the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission
(CRCC) for the RCMP. CSE, C818 and the RCMP are also subject to different
legislation but are authorized by their respective laws to co-Operate, and share
information. However, there is no equivalent explicit authority for my office to co?
operate and share with SIRC and 

As I stated in my public annual report, tabled in Parliament last August, and as my
predecessor also stated, there is a limited amount of co?operation that can occur among
the review bodies within existing legislative mandates. However, an explicit authority to
co?operate and share information would strengthen review capacity and effectiveness.
This authority becomes that much more important in the evolving context of ever greater
co-operation between the intelligence and security agencies.

P.O. 1984, Station ?B?/Succursale 
Ottawa, Canada
K1 5R5
T: 613-992?3044 F: 613-992-4096

-2-

Sharing of information among the existing review bodies would allow one to alert
another as to what information was being shared, to follow the trail of that information
and to ensure that the sharing of information complied with the law and that the privacy
of Canadians was protected.

On a separate but nonetheless related issue, permit me to make an additional point.
I regret that an opportunity has not been seized to introduce amendments to the
National Defence Act to eliminate ambiguities that were long ago identified by my
predecessors. Eliminating these ambiguities seeks to clarify key terms in 
legislated authority and resolve legal'interpretation issues.

Sincere,

Jean?Pierre Plouffe