Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Cutler, while you're still here I would like to clarify what might have been a misunderstanding, with Mr. Poilievre's comment about the burden of proof and your recommendation that the burden of proof should reverse and not be with the whistle-blower, if there is a short time period that raises suspicion of a reprisal. The burden of proof still means 51 to 49; the burden still sits as it does, with the whistle-blower. So your recommendation still stands: even though it's on a balance of probabilities, that still means the burden is with you. So your point still is valid.
I just wanted that on the record, so we didn't think it wasn't necessarily.