I appreciate your point about the history.
There's also a present that you're describing, though, which is that the government of the day, the Liberal government, made a choice, and you've confirmed that choice. It made that choice in 2016 and 2017, and that choice contributed to the continuing ability of these networks to operate.
I know there's an institutional history, but something changed significantly when the Prime Minister made a choice about not disrupting these networks so that the public image effects of what he hoped for from the trip to India would be there. Then, as part of that trip, he signed an intelligence-sharing agreement with India.
I think you'd agree that the Prime Minister, knowing about these interference networks in Canada, choosing to sign that intelligence agreement in spite of what he knew, changed the dynamic, because that meant a kind of sharing of information between Canadian intelligence and Indian intelligence that didn't exist before.
What was your advice to the government at the time about that intelligence-sharing system, and what have been the effects that you've seen since that decision by the government?