Thank you very much.
My next question is for Ms. Bruce.
Thank you for your clarification of the active cyber-operations question. I think the Canadian public is really mindful of some issues that may not be apparent to them in the sense of how complex an environment this is and how identifiable in the minds of the Canadian public actions that ultimately would need to be taken to disrupt a threat are. Your testimony gave a couple of examples, such as disrupting or deactivating a cellphone that may be used in detonation. It's also quite clear that we would not engage actively to threaten lives or to destroy lives. What about the area of collateral damage, for example, having to take down a portion of an electricity grid that might then cause civilian infrastructure problems and potentially put people at risk, though not necessarily at risk of death? People might say, “Okay, what if we inadvertently deactivate power supplies to a hospital?” Are there rules of engagement that could be enunciated with greater granularity than what you've described at the moment which you could tell the committee about?