This provision flows from the British experience with regard to special advocates. Indeed, the British observed that, in certain cases where there was a risk of disclosure, there was a phenomenon called tainting. Let us take the example of a special advocate who is called upon to intervene in a first case involving facts or issues related to a given organization or country. This same special advocate is then asked to play the same role in the context of a second case involving similar information, for example the same country or the same organization. The primary role of the advocate, within the confines of the second case, is to meet with the individual whose interests he is defending in order to gain knowledge of the facts as the individual understands them and wants to see them presented. It is during the course of this meeting that, not through dishonesty or through any lack of integrity but inadvertently, the advocate might make some disclosure.
I wish to underscore that all of the provisions we are discussing now aim to establish a balance between the desire to adopt the fairest process possible, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the protection of information the disclosure of which would impair national security. It is a matter of balance and judgment. It is our view that the British experience proves that it would be prudent, in this search for balance, to afford ourselves the possibility to rely on the provision in question.