Well, there are so many differences--for example, the right to a speedy trial. If you're charged with a crime, you have a right to a speedy trial. In my case I went through a 900-day investigation and I didn't even get to a hearing. Marc Lemire went through a six-year hearing. Accused publishers don't have the same rights as accused murders.
Another difference is search and seizure without warrant. I'm speaking for the moment about the provincial act under which I was charged. The human rights officers have the right, without a warrant, to come into my office and take anything--my hard drive, my documents. Again, accused criminals have rights that I don't have.
In answer to Monsieur Ménard's point, I focused on some of these rules of law and procedural unfairnesses because I had hoped to appeal to people on this committee who might have some sympathy to censorship, that even they would be appalled by the practice of censorship. I would hope that everyone is against censorship, but even if there is a censor on the committee, I hope they would understand that the brutal enforcement of this law is another source that brings the administration of justice into disrepute.
I mentioned no legal aid. The disclosure practices would be laughed out of court. There is the entrapment. There are so many flaws that you don't have to be a lawyer to know something is wrong.
The tribunal members, very bravely, have said that enough is enough. They're throwing it out there for someone else to fix. I don't want to wait 10 years for this to go to the Supreme Court; I think this Parliament can fix it now.