Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
This deals with the same issues that we were just dealing with under Ms. May's amendment.
Who makes the decision about what is relevant? This amendment would say that all the evidence about the case in the minister's possession should be turned over to the special advocates. I understand quite clearly what the officials have told us about court decisions, but I think what the special advocates are arguing is that the parallel, even though it's not the same kind of law, would be the prosecutor deciding what the defence should see in a criminal case. In fact we have full disclosure in criminal cases where a prosecutor turns over all the information in their possession and they do not make a decision of what is relevant and what is not relevant.
I think that's the parallel that special advocates are asking for here in that the information in the possession of the minister about this case should be disclosed to the special advocates who can then make a separate decision about what is relevant and present that information to the judge even if it has not been presented by the minister. It seems, I would argue, to raise issues of fundamental justice if information is being withheld from the special advocates.