Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to our new witnesses.
Thank you to Ms. Wong for sticking around a little longer. I really appreciate it.
First of all, my question is for you, Mr. Mitrovica, and I hope I got your name somewhat right.
I think that has been the challenge. I read your articles as well. Going through this process, I feel like we're looking for the bogeyman in the closet. It's like, “Here's what this means”, and I know that it may not be what it means. It's about trying to gather information in a more holistic way, take a common-sense approach and really address the key issue, which is how to make sure that Canadians have faith in their systems. What do we need to do better as a country to make sure that this is there?
I read through your article, and I was very interested. You used the word “hysteria” quite a lot. I guess my question for you is around whistle-blowers. I hear what you're saying: Because there's nothing attached to this person, we accept that as factual, and it becomes concerning what that information is.
Could you talk about that? Do we have enough rules in place to support whistle-blowers? In getting information, is part of the challenge that we don't have enough supports?