22. Calls on all EU Member States and in particular, with regard to its Resolution of 4 July 2013 and Inquiry Hearings, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and Poland to ensure that their current or future legislative frameworks and oversight mechanisms governing the activities of intelligence agencies are in line with the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights and European Union data protection legislation; calls on these Member States to clarify the allegations of mass surveillance activities, including mass surveillance of cross border telecommunications, untargeted surveillance on cable-bound c ...[+++]ommunications, potential agreements between intelligence services and telecommunication companies as regards access and exchange of personal data and access to transatlantic cables, US intelligence personnel and equipment on EU territory without oversight on surveillance operations, and their compatibility with EU legislation; invites the national parliaments of those countries to intensify cooperation of their intelligence oversight bodies at European level;

Question No. 848 Hon. Stéphane Dion: With regard the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, since the beginning of Canada’s participation: (a) what was the first evaluation of the acquisition cost-per-plane Canada would pay, (i) when was that evaluation made, (ii) based on what information was it made, (iii) who provided the government with that information, (iv) via what medium (e.g., conference, personal discussion,briefing note, etc.), (v) what is the name of the government document containing that evaluation, (vi) what is the topic of that document, (vii) which government members were provided with information; (b) for every subsequent ...[+++] re-evaluation of the acquisition cost-per-plane that Canada would pay and up to the government's current evaluation, (i) what was the new evaluation (ii) when was that evaluation made, (iii) based on what information was it made, (iv) who provided the government with that information, (v) via what medium (e.g., conference, personal discussion, briefing note, etc.), (vi) what is the name of the government document containing that evaluation, (vii) what is the topic of that document, (viii) which government members were provided with that information, (ix) as precisely as possible, what new information prompted the re-evaluation; (c) what was the first evaluation of the maintenance and repair cost-per-plane Canada would have to incur, (i) when was that evaluation made, (ii) based on what information was it made, (iii) who provided the government with that information, (iv) via what medium (e.g., conference, personal discussion, briefing note, etc.), (v) what is the name of the government document containing that evaluation, (vi) what is the topic of that document, (vii) which government members were provided with that information; (d) for every subsequent re-evaluation of the maintenance and repair cost-per-plane that Canada would have to incur and up to the government's current evaluation, (i) what was the new evaluation, (ii) when ...

They had a number of recommendations. Certainly one was that the entire science behind GM crop approvals be made open to peer review, that it be peer-reviewed, and that it be open to independent access.

34. Calls for a clear definition of the role and powers of the PIUs, in particular in terms of transparency and democratic accountability and in order to lay down appropriate data protection rules; requests that the role of PIUs be limited to the transfer of data to competent authorities, in order to ensure that risk assessments may only be carried out by competent authorities and in the context of an inquiry; asks for clarification of the law which will govern the risk assessment conducted by the PIUs, and the responsibility of data protection authorities in cases where Member States cooperate to set up a joint PIU;

For example, confidential test data in the Register could be inspected by a person who, after submitting the requisite application and an affidavit, was authorized to do so where the Minister was satisfied that the applicant would not use the data to register a product (or amend the registration) or supply the data to another person for such a purpose (clause 43(2)) Subject to the regulations, confidential test data and confidential business information could also be released to specified parties for specified purposes, such as to medical professionals who request the data to make a diagnosis or provide medical treatment, or to a federal or provincial govern ...[+++]ment that requests the information in order to respond to an emergency (clause 44)

For example, confidential test data in the Register could be inspected by a person who, after submitting the requisite application and an affidavit, was authorized to do so where the Minister was satisfied that the applicant would not use the data to register a product (or amend the registration) or supply the data to another person for such a purpose (clause 43(2)) Subject to the regulations, confidential test data and confidential business information could also be released to specified parties for specified purposes, such as to medical professionals who request the data to make a diagnosis or provide medical treatment, or to a federal or provincial govern ...[+++]ment that requests the information in order to respond to an emergency (clause 44)