Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses.
I appreciate that you have to work within the legislative framework that's currently in front of you, but from the point of view of elected people, it seems to me that it's a Catch-22. If we would recommend changes to the legislation, we're only dealing with half a deck, because we don't know, really, exactly what happened and what needs to be changed to fix a problem, if indeed there is a systemic problem in the legislation.
This is going to be dumb question; perhaps I should know the answer to this. All the witnesses we've had to date from various jurisdictions talking about witness protection programs talk very clearly about the fact that if a witness who's under a protection commits a crime, they come out of the witness protection program. They lose their protection.
Now, you've mentioned that former protected people are also protected. I know you're not legislators, but why would it be in the public interest to protect a former protected person, someone who has committed...? I think Mr. Young has been convicted of murder, has he not, if I'm not mistaken? So why would it be in Canada's national interest to protect a person like that?