Thank you.
It's interesting that this was brought up, because we heard other testimony that said most of the meetings should be done in public, and only through certain criteria should they be allowed to be in camera. I think there are opinions on both sides.
I want to drill down to my fellow Surreyite, who is there in Surrey, I understand. Hello.
In the report here, in terms of having no definition of national security, which is very broad, I know that in Bill C-51 there were a lot of elements that tried to identify what that would look like. In terms of having no definition, do you think that it is more problematic to leave it that broad, or should we be attempting to define it?