The additional comment I would make is that intelligence sharing is based upon knowing what intelligence is actually meaningful to the domain. I think that one challenge we have in cyber is actually knowing what is meaningful and actionable intelligence that you can work on.
Indicators of compromise, which are now being shared among NATO countries, both at the commercial level and the classified level, are one thing, but how do you share information on, for example, traffic emerging on social media that may have a direct impact as part of a hybrid impact against a NATO member country? Is there a justification for surveillance of social media traffic as a joint national defence or joint defence strategy? These are policy questions where we have quite huge gaps.
In fact, maybe as a closing answer or statement on this, I think you have an issue here as parliamentarians. Cyberspace is having an impact across the board on our society, which is disproportionate to how we see the size of the problem right now. We have a mechanism in Canada known as a royal commission that generally allows us to deal with things that are of a larger scale than simply a departmental responsibility. I've given testimony to several different committees of parliamentarians and the Senate. I've done work with individual government departments. In each case the stovepiping in how decision-making is being done means that there isn't a holistic approach to our being able to understand, as Canadians, and you as parliamentarians, how we need to approach this in a more overall manner where the impact is on domestic policy, where the impact is on our state policy, where the impact may be more narrowly focused on national defence. My encouragement to you as parliamentarians is to understand that this is a whole-of-society issue that requires debate and, like Ms. Moon has said, that we have to be forthright in understanding where the issues are and forthright in being able to identify them.
Thank you.