I want to make it clear that I do understand what LIB-16 is. It's great for definitions and preambles but at the end of the day, it concerns ministerial directives and allows wiggle room for another government, or even this government, to change those ministerial directives that are still permitted. My support is on the fact that it's a good first step, but if it's only going to be one step, with no other follow-up and no other legal framework around it, then it's not good enough. When we support things on good faith, hoping that we're going to keep going in that direction, that's one thing. When we use these things to pat ourselves on the back and say the job is complete when clearly more needs to be done with this expanding national security apparatus, and the fact that many of these situations involve state actors who—not to inappropriately paraphrase them but as Mr. Motz was alluding—have less than stellar reputations on the international stage, I think it is absolutely appropriate.
Again, I would happily put my amendment side by side with LIB-16, in front of anyone in the Canadian public, and be very comfortable with the fact that these go even further and do more than LIB-16 to protect Canadians' rights, and quite frankly, human rights, more generally speaking.