Thank you for the question—and for your thoughts, to be honest. There is a lot there. I will try to answer as quickly as I can, I promise.
First, protecting parliamentarians is extremely serious for parliamentarians and democracy. There are systems in place for that. There are places to go. I think review committees that review national security activities, the recommendations they make and the reports that come out from parliamentary committees all contribute to the body of changes or body of refinements or adjustments that are about raising confidence.
Canada has world-class national security agencies with some of the techniques and methodologies they use, and the dedication. That's comforting. Improvements can come daily. I don't deny that.
I also think that in the media the Prime Minister's directive and the Minister of Public Safety's ministerial directive about informing parliamentarians about threats was instrumental. I think the NSIA creating the deputy minister committee that assesses foreign intelligence and makes decisions therein was very instrumental. On the processes that I understand have been put in place—others can confirm—around tracking how intelligence moves, who accesses it, who reads it, what they do with it and so on, some of those changes were already in place even before I left my job.
I think those are all very reassuring.