Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Everybody will notice that we have a fair number of suggested amendments. I'm cognizant of our time; I'm not here to waste our time. I assume that colleagues on the government side have had a look at them. If any of the amendments are congenial, they'll know already. If they're not, then I really don't want to be spending too much time.
What I did want to say is that for this particular one, it may look at first glance like it's possibly beyond the scope, but we have to keep in mind that this bill has effectively three interacting principles or purposes. One is the kind of criminal law repressive purpose, which is to actually deal with crime. The second is the right-to-protection side that the government itself has been emphasizing, making sure that the crime fighting doesn't overly intrude into rights protection. The third is the transparency, accounting, and reporting piece.
I think all three of them stand sufficiently on their own such that they can be called co-purposes. It's for this reason that we're moving this amendment. We're hoping that it's viewed to be within the scope of the bill for the following reason. In the Senate, the director of CSIS drew particular attention to the fact that no protocols exist for the kind of cooperation that would be needed by relevant agencies in order to give effect to the leaving-the-country offences. He made it clear that it was going to have to happen.
Testimony before us also indicated this. So this is a suggestion to make sure that at least before the clauses go into effect, a protocol for collaboration is entered into by the relevant agencies, and SIRC—which is the only relevant review agency we can find for this kind of purpose—endorses it, in which case the making-the-offence provisions would enter into force. That's the purpose.