Again, I know that right now this is a hot topic of debate. There are various models. I guess it would be state-to-state. Essentially what that means is that if a company feels that their investment rights have been violated, as opposed to being able to petition, to basically access the dispute resolution mechanism directly vis-à-vis the government that they feel has contravened their rights, they'd have to get the Canadian government to take up the cause on their behalf.
I think investor-state provides a greater level of certainty. Usually investor-state is pushed with developing nations because of the risk of decisions being made based on short-term political calculations. I would also argue that it's in the interests of the countries to make those levels of commitments, because it signifies to the investors that they're in it for the long haul.
If it were not to take that course, it would likely take state-to-state. I think that would be acceptable, but it certainly wouldn't set a gold standard.