Maybe I remember which article you're referring to. One thing that I did say was on the issue of a threshold. The current system indicates that above a certain threshold, a panel of deputy ministers and senior public service officials would then speak out on an issue of interference. There is a tension here, in the sense that for unelected public officials to make a public statement in the context of an electoral campaign about something as sensitive as this is uncomfortable. I think nobody should find that this is an ideal solution.
That being said, I do think that the system as a whole—of the protocol and the task force—is the right one. What I did say in that article was that there should be more transparency, not only about the nature of the system but about the criteria and the threshold above which there is a public intervention, and that overall, even below the threshold, even if it has to be after the election, there should be more transparency about it.