Thank you.
First off, I did not say it was by the Beijing regime. Our role, as political actors, working with our security establishment, is to provide information and for them to make conclusions on those sorts of things.
Information was provided as it arose during the election to a small degree, and the larger amount of information that was gathered and put together was after the election and before the government was sworn in.
In terms of the reaction, I would say that in my two recommendations for things for this committee to look at, I truly did not believe there was an actual appreciation of the chilling effect that a perception, let alone an actual fact, of a lack of adequate protection from our security establishment would have on public policy. I really felt that was not understood. I think a big lesson from this, and I hope something our security establishment takes from it, is actually a greater appreciation for that.
Not everybody is brave as Michael. There are many who would be a lot more hesitant or less amplified.
Secondly, particularly when we talked about whether there was something in our political party that we needed to be aware of, and by what standard they'd communicate with us, I felt they did not have the legislative tools to engage with us in a manner that was necessary, in my view, to ensure that the process was adequate.