I'd offer a couple of comments. One, obviously, is that the current statement and guidance that we have on critical minerals are, in fact, attempting to ensure that the overall approach to the overall development of the industry is cognizant of the national security considerations at play and that it is setting out the broad framework that should guide key decisions in terms of not only the establishment of foreign direct investment but also the overall establishment of the critical minerals value chain within the Canadian context.
That said, there are a number of other actors, and this speaks again to the capacity building that's required across the entirety of the community, because there are sector-specific regulators, including at the provincial level, who have very key tools within their tool kit to be able to establish the guidance that actually sets out the minimum requirements for their sector specifically.
You raised the telecommunications sector. Obviously, that's exactly what is proposed in Bill C‑26. It is to actually establish the specific guidance in a sector that we have federal jurisdiction over to say that these are the minimum requirements in this sector for how we're going to continue to ensure that security is contemplated and that we have very specific guidelines about high-risk vendors. Those same types of approaches can, and should, in many cases, be mimicked in other sectors to ensure that where we actually have jurisdiction, we are following through.
The goal of the ICA is to set the macro around foreign direct investment with the levers that it has, and then look at other mechanisms. As I said, where we actually have those levers, we've done that. In Bill C‑26, that is very much exactly what we've set out, and then, with the critical cyber systems protection act, we will extend that as well into other sectors to ensure that there are minimum requirements as it relates to the cyber-readiness and the posture of those sectors.