I guess I'm a little confused by what's being argued before the committee. It's pretty clear, to me at any rate, that the NAFTA agreement intends to protect investors against precisely the kind of action we saw by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
One of the complaints that has been brought forward before the committee is that sometimes tribunals don't do that. Well, what's the consequence that should flow from that?
My view is that the consequence should be that we get better at enforcing the agreement. If the complaint is that the agreement is properly enforced in Canada but not in the United States, then by all means let us throw our weight into the negotiations for improved institutions within Canada and the United States to ensure that the agreement is properly enforced in the United States.
I don't understand how the fact that it's properly enforced in Canada and not in the United States is somehow an argument for us to change the rules in Canada. I don't get that.