That's correct, yes. It's to give more specificity to the guidelines, which may also include being more welcoming. Right now the statement, I believe, mentions food security and medical, and that's quite understandable, but it also leaves the door open to more scrutiny of pretty much anything under the national security guise.
I agree that national security is the right lens and we should define it and that should include strategic industries, but we should be more specific about what we mean by that. That is the gist of my comments.
Also, if I may, we shouldn't necessarily leave this to national security specialists. In other words, national security specialists, who really do often prevail in these kinds of arguments—and rightly so, they're the specialists—should explain what kinds of mitigation measures a foreign investor might propose to the government or might be willing to undertake to make sure that any national security risk is mitigated. That's what I meant: Can we be more specific and open while upgrading our ability to protect the Canadian economy?