I would also like to make a comment to Mr. Legeais.
We will be proposing all of your recommendations in the form of amendments, with the exception of the last one, which was a little confusing.
Do you understand that the type of decision that has to be made with respect to terrorism these days is necessarily based on evidence that must remain secret because it comes from undercover double agents who would be in danger of being killed, if their identity were to be known, because unfortunately they are working with allies who don't believe in all the same principles that we do? Some of them apply the same principles as we do, or pretty much, and give us the intelligence on the condition that we keep it confidential.
Where terrorism is involved, we cannot afford to have investigative methods disclosed, as happens with organized crime, where counsel systematically plead not guilty on behalf of their clients in order to have access to the evidence. That way, they are able to gain a good understanding of police infiltration methods, which is a risk that we simply cannot afford to take when dealing with terrorism. So, we need to have independent people who can look at the evidence and form an opinion on whether a person is dangerous.
Do you believe that judges in Canada have the necessary independence to be able to analyze this secret evidence?