Mr. Telegdi's question raises a number of important questions, the independence of the judiciary and the question of fairness and special advocates, but at the heart of it is why immigration law versus criminal law, criminal law having fuller safeguards.
So we have people who the government claims, and the court accepts, are security threats. Should we not prosecute them? Canada is not alone in facing the problem that we're facing with these individuals. No country, no liberal country, no democratic country has found a way to effectively prosecute people charged with terrorism when the nature of the case is that a part of the evidence is secret evidence that cannot be disclosed to the individual, so it is a dilemma that all western countries face and no country has solved that problem.
In Canada, in the context of the Air India file, Mr. Rae looked at this question and issued a report about a year ago, which led the current government to ask Mr. Justice Major, in the context of the Air India inquiry, to look at this question and try to give advice to the government on how best to use intelligence information as evidence in a criminal trial in a way that protects national security interests and provides as much fairness to the accused as possible. This is a very difficult issue, not solved by anyone, and I think the government will look forward very much to the recommendations of Mr. Justice Major.