On the first point, on the issue of professional responsibility, right now the bill says the individual is not in a solicitor-client relationship. So there's no solicitor-client relationship between the special advocate and the individual concerned, which begs the question, if it's not solicitor-client, what is it? In other words, is there a duty to confidentiality in relation to what the special advocate might hear from the interested party?
What we propose is that duty of confidentiality be expressly grafted onto the bill, if only because a lot of my colleagues in the practising bar will have the same question and might be deterred, frankly, from being a special advocate unless their special professional responsibility is clear.
You asked specifically about subsequent meetings between the special advocate and the individual after the special advocate has seen the secret evidence. What we suggest in the bill is if the security services have this concern about a special advocate perhaps involuntarily disclosing or not somehow being meritorious enough, then one of the lawyers from the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which is not the security service, be in the room. That's the arm's-length review body for CSIS. But we're also suggesting that that lawyer be subject to the same confidentiality requirement as the special advocate is under. So we're preserving the confidentiality requirement for both those individuals.
Frankly, the only reason we're proposing that SIRC be in the room is to anticipate government objections to the special advocate being there alone. In practice, in relation to SIRC proceedings, if they have outside counsel, my understanding is that outside counsel is typically accompanied by the SIRC lawyers themselves in terms of meetings with the complainant.