I would say that the written agreements are a start. Again, I would want charter compliance built into them, because some of this information sharing can raise charter issues, and these need to be flagged early on.
The charter jurisprudence is clear in saying that just because one government institution has information that it has collected for one purpose doesn't mean it can use it for subsequent purposes; sometimes a charter issue is flagged, and there needs to be charter compliance. That can also happen with sharing it with foreign states.
Section 8 was triggered in the Wakeling decision, although there was a disagreement on whether the provisions in the Criminal Code were reasonable. In the end, they were found to be reasonable.
The written agreements are a start, then, but you need the charter review of the information sharing, because some of it will raise charter issues, but not all of it, hopefully. You thus need to build it in at the beginning.
I would also say that whenever some of this information is shared, particularly with foreign governments, the accuracy issue is enormous, so building in an obligation of accuracy is important.
I don't see how the current obligation of accuracy actually applies, because it's about use for administrative purposes. If you're sharing this information for national security purposes or for transnational law enforcement purposes, it seems to me it's not part of that, but it's crucial that accuracy be built in. You could, through regulations, specify perhaps what that might mean in particular circumstances, but I think it's an absolutely crucial amendment.