I'll speak in English as well, if that's okay.
With respect to my concern, it does work both ways. I'm concerned that the Canadian federal and provincial governments may find their ability to regulate freely, as they see fit, being impacted vis-à-vis issues of risk to workers and to the environment and to health and safety. That's true as well for our partner nations in any of these bilateral trade agreements. They could similarly be impacted by a Canadian investor making a claim that they don't have the right to regulate for the sake of their workers, that it's interfering with their economic integrity.
As to the agreement itself, there's rhetoric, as you say, about a high standard of environmental protection and improving environmental protection. But as was said with the labour agreements, that's not quantified in any way. So in terms of another nation and its level of protection for workers or for the environment, it may be a long distance from Canada's level of protection, and yet, as it moves to improve and bring those into a more protective and appropriate level of protection, it is open for our private investors investing in those countries--Peru, Colombia, and other countries--to argue against that with those local subnational or national governments. And it's not to say that this couldn't or wouldn't happen. We have that happening right within our own country by some of our national private investors.
My fundamental point is that governments have to be able to make decisions balancing everything they do in the normal rule-making process. They do already take into account the fact that something needs to be safer, healthier. They also already look at social and economic factors. Once they do that, they shouldn't have that undermined by this indirect expropriation claim.