I think it's one of the most significant issues in the free trade agreements. So I gave you the Australia-U.S. example to say that we don't even need that kind of a clause; we could just do away with it entirely and not have this problem.
In the current draft that we saw, it was a little bit better than NAFTA because it had a better statement that indirect expropriation claims could not be made for environmental protection reasons.
We think that a better approach would be to just do away with those direct claims by private companies against governments for valid environmental and health regulation.
We often argue that those claims will not be successful and people shouldn't be so scared of them, and we do want them doing their environmental regulation. But at the same time, we don't like the fact that they can be waved around, and people can say they're going to bring such a claim, and then you wonder whether governments are taking a second look at the kind of environmental or health regulation they were considering.
We don't need that kind of a provision between Canada and Europe at all, in my opinion.