If we use NAFTA as the benchmark, we do see some improvement in language in some of the bilateral agreements negotiated since. That was, of course, some time ago. As I say, we'll see how far those go in terms of improving the conditions.
What I like about the U.S.-Australia agreement is the fact that it doesn't allow those claims by foreign investors against Australia at all. It's up to the U.S. and Australia to negotiate between themselves if they think they have any disputes, but neither country's investors can directly make a claim under the agreement for compensation for some regulation having been passed. That's what I like about that one. So as long as the rest of the agreements don't do something like that, I think they still have a very fundamental failing by continuing to allow these kinds of claims.
The Canada-Europe agreement, the CETA, which is progressing—we've seen various rounds of language—is going to depend on where the parties land, in the end, on those environmental provisions that they have been negotiating. When I attended before the committee some months ago, we pointed to some places where we preferred the European Union language and some other places where we preferred the Canadian language.
If the best environmental language out of that agreement is chosen, and if they do away with the investor-state provisions, I think we have a really strong agreement. There are some very promising suggestions between the parties in that agreement.
So it's a very iterative thing where we're seeing language start to improve, and then of course we'll see how that plays out on the ground.