I would suggest that many of our FIPAs don't raise the issue to the same degree as the FIPAs do—and I'll mention the FIPA with China—with major countries or the CETA with Europe, because they just really don't cover very much investment in Canada. So I would suggest perhaps that when a treaty is of such significance, exposing Canada to the risks and liabilities, that you allow for more elaborate processes of study and assessment from different perspectives, beyond the usual trade lawyers and negotiators, in order to really assess properly the consequences for the country based on the text that's available before it's finalized by the Government of Canada. That would just be a suggestion.
A more substantive suggestion, as I've always advocated, is that from a Canadian point of view, I think we'd benefit from a rules-based process, one based on the rule of law, but that depends on having a fair and independent process. Therefore, there are very strong reasons for shifting from investor-state arbitration to a proper judicial process that has the safeguards of independence and the requirements of openness, procedural fairness, and so on, that other international courts and tribunals have. I would hope that this would be something, almost regardless of political stripe—and maybe I'm being too hopeful—Canadians could get behind and support.