The ISDS provisions follow the model in NAFTA and the model that Canada has followed in over 30 investor-state dispute settlements, or, to put it another way, the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement. It largely follows the model in NAFTA. There are some additional protections that are built in.
The TPP defines the elements that are subject to dispute settlement more clearly. This is to avoid wide-ranging or broader determinations that arbitrators can make. They're confined to specific rules of international law in their decision-making. The CETA is different. There are some changes in the CETA that are not in the TPP, but the TPP follows the NAFTA model. Some concern has been raised about the number of investor disputes brought against Canada by American investors. It is true that Canada has been a frequent respondent in these cases. If we abandoned the TPP, the provisions of NAFTA would still apply. I don't think it's an effective argument that somehow we will moderate investor claims by not being part of the TPP. Our FIPAs with other countries allow investors from those countries to claim against Canada. There haven't been any to date, but those provisions remain.
What we want to address are the advantages to Canadian investors in markets like Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam in having the ability to bring investor claims forward. Canadian investors have benefited from our bilateral FIPAs bringing action against countries like Venezuela, Argentina, Kazakhstan, Poland, and a range of other countries. Canadian investors do benefit from these ISDS provisions. That's an important factor.