That very comfortably leads me into a couple of items you spoke about when you said it would be a good idea to set up protocols.
I would ask for your comment. It would be my submission that the best way to protect the sanctity of the program from the evils of budgetary constraints--I hate to use such words--would be to set up protocols for an organization that doesn't have the same budget as the police. That's why I thought it would be better to take it out of the realm of the police, even though they're an intrinsic part of it.
I was very interested when you were talking about “the softer approach”, meaning that maybe it's not the typical Hollywood person, where the whole family is taken to a different country or a different area of the country of residence.
A little bell went off as soon as you said “delayed disclosure”. It seems to me that when we talk about terrorism and the rush to make sure we protect the very people we want protection from, we set up a whole bunch of safeguards. But the Supreme Court has really chastised the police community and crown attorneys for delaying disclosure.
We, as a committee, deal with a specific problem and try to set up the best protocols and procedures. We walk away saying that we did a really good job and we feel good about it. I think of something like the Anti-terrorism Act, which the previous government brought in. We wanted to support that and we continue to support that. But you get together to solve a problem and it seems that a few minutes later some really smart person goes to the Supreme Court and makes all that you've done seem like you've wasted your time.
So when you talk about things like this delayed disclosure, could you explain what you mean?--because I get fearful.