Thank you, Mr. Stockton, for your presentation.
I understand the thrust of what you're saying, but are you suggesting that the military budget or the military itself have some responsibility for making the pipelines or the Hydro-Québec facilities more resilient? Really, that is something that in your country Homeland Security takes extremely seriously, has a budget for, works on, etc., and Public Safety in Canada has responsibility for cyber-security. They presumably work hand in glove with the keepers and operators of critical infrastructure to assist them in achieving some cyber defence security.
What I don't understand is how...other than the planning role, which is pretty clear on both sides. Both the military and the civil society sides would be very important, and yes, it would be great to know exactly how many generators might be available so those pumps that are pumping gas can actually pump at the critical points to make sure the police cars are able to run, etc.
But I'm not sure...and I'm looking here too at an agreement between Canada and the U.S. on civil assistance, which you're probably familiar with. It's the Canada-U.S. civil assistance plan, the 2013 version of it. Is there some inadequacy in that plan that needs to be fixed or expanded on?
I hear you saying that, yes, we can find opportunities to cooperate, but I gather we've found them, and at least we put them down on paper, and we have agreements about them, and who's going to do what, and all of that.
Could you tell us what the inadequacies of that plan might be, or are you looking at some expanded role for interjurisdictional cooperation?