As Bill C-9 was passed before the final stage in this dispute, which has been going on for some 20 years, I frankly admit I don't believe so.
Lastly, under Chapter 11 of NAFTA, there are already claims against the Canadian government in the softwood lumber affair, but I believe they have been settled in the agreement that the Government of Canada reached with the United States.
For the reasons I explained at the outset, this is a matter of procedure opposing a matter of substance. Certain rights may have helped us in those claims. That was very interesting because the Canadian softwood lumber companies had investments in the United States, but the main investment was made here in Canada. So there remains a legal issue that has not yet been decided. The issue has been raised once again in the disputes over beef, where Canadian claimants, in this case as in the softwood lumber case, also have investments in Canada for the purpose of trade with the U.S. market. They would not make those investments in Canada if the U.S. border closed.
So we wonder if investment treaties enable investors to file a claim over the impact that a foreign country has on investment in a second country, in their country of origin. That issue has not been decided.
That said, the procedural question would have no impact on this question. In fact, it's the way in which the claim was [Inaudible - Editor] rather than individual rights that were referred to in the claim.
Unfortunately, I would have preferred you to give another answer, but that's the necessary one.