I was just going to add what I think is an important conversation to have: Exactly what are the thresholds for that reporting?
As my colleague Mr. Stanton pointed out, you really do need an assessed understanding of what the threat is, as opposed to any kind of information that may be in the domain that comes to the attention of the intelligence services and names or addresses a specific member of Parliament.
The challenge if you do that, if you have this open-ended “any time anyone says anything about an MP”, you're opening yourself up to a whole new threat vector in terms of disinformation, misdirection and information campaigns.
I think there does need to be an exercise of judgment around when that happens. It has to be based on an assessment of the level of threat to that member of Parliament or any other Canadian, and whether some kind of engagement with that individual who is targeted would help them manage the risk, or if there is another course of action that would be more appropriate that mitigates the risk to them and, in the case of members of Parliament, to this institution.