—be able to testify. It's not necessarily the defendant's lawyer, but it could be somebody appointed by the court.
One of the things that came up there as well is that in England, which had a similar process, it was struck down by the European Court of Human Rights. They have in place one of these systems.
My question is this. Given all the problems that we have had with the security certificates, given the history of what happened to Mr. Arar and others we don't know about, why have we not put in place somebody who could protect the integrity of the system by testing the evidence that's put before the judge and enabling the judge to make a decision in the manner that he was trained to? That's my question. Why haven't we done that? Why are we waiting for the Supreme Court to force the government to do it?