Right. I think your question also raises an interesting thing. The TPP negotiation is unlike a negotiation with the Europeans, say, or with Korea, in that there are very different levels of economic development in the countries around the table in the TPP. Also, there are very different legal and economic systems in some of the countries around the TPP.
Remember that around the TPP table we have the Latin American countries—Mexico, Chile, Peru—but we also have Vietnam, Brunei, and Singapore, and we have Australia and New Zealand. These are very different countries in terms of level of development. They have very different organizations in terms of their economic organization. They have very different regulatory and legal cultures and systems.
One of the objectives, as I was saying the other day about trade agreements, is setting these standards that are predictable for Canadians who want to have the confidence to trade internationally. Investment rules and the investor-state dispute mechanism to enforce those rules by our investors abroad are designed to assist investors in having the confidence to invest in some markets where they might feel that their ability to pursue their interests in domestic court are not what they'd like them to be. I think that's probably the right way to put that.
So when you think about that for Canadian investors, they may have a different perspective on that, depending on the country they're going to. There may be some countries in which they're comfortable going in and investing without the protection of an investment agreement or an investment chapter in an FTA and investor-state dispute settlement. There are other countries where they may feel less confident in doing that.