I will be quick; thank you.
In terms of the evidence, I was given CSIS reports and report summaries. The absurd part of all of this is that the Crown attorney admitted in court that part of the secret evidence had been destroyed. They kept me in detention for 21 months on the basis of secret evidence and ended up admitting that the secret evidence had been destroyed. The Supreme Court will hear my case again on January 31 with respect to the destruction of secret evidence. And this is not the first time they have done that.
This legislation gives even more power to CSIS. How could I be protected from CSIS if CSIS is the authority who will practically choose the special advocate? Who gives security clearances, accreditation and security classifications? CSIS does. It's a travesty of justice. You are giving them the power to choose among potential advocates; I won't even have the right to choose my own advocate. Indeed, the term “défenseur” is ridiculous, it's a sham; this person will not be a “defender”; the appropriate term is amicus curiae.
My final point relates to checks and balances and the lack thereof in this Bill. We have the Milgaard case here in Canada, and there are known miscarriages of justice that have occurred. With the security certificates, there is no right of appeal, and judicial review is meaningless, in my opinion. As a consequence…