I'm sorry to interrupt, but I don't have much time. Thank you.
I understand that the federal government has identified more than 1,600 critical assets. Of these, 275 are at significant risk, yet you say that only 3% of these assets have a resilience plan in place—one that would enable the government to achieve results in terms of risk reduction. Furthermore, it has pushed back its targets. Previously, resilience plans were required by 2022; now, it says this will be by 2035, with no interim targets.
Do you consider this responsible? Isn't there a risk associated with delaying the requirement that these assets be resilient?