Thank you.
I understand the thrust and the rationale for this particular clause. It is not an automatic disqualification if, in the judge's opinion, there could be tainting more than disclosure, because as Monsieur Ménard says, special advocates are trained to not disclose. They are all lawyers.
My concern is something different. It is to do with the exculpatory evidence. It is more likely that if you have a special advocate acting in the cases connected with the same country, that special advocate may have possession of exculpatory evidence with regard to the individual who's before the judge and for whom he or she is being appointed.
How do you deal with that? I think if there is exculpatory evidence in the knowledge of the special advocate, disclosure of which does not endanger the national security, that exculpatory evidence should be available and that special advocate should be appointed.
How do you deal with that? This clause, if left in, might deprive a particular detainee of this exculpatory knowledge that the special advocate may have. I don't know whether there's an easy way of separating these issues.