Whether or not there would be a regulatory chill in Canada in relation to the existence of ISDS and TPP or NAFTA or CETA or any of our other agreements I think is really a question for the governments that are regulating. I personally doubt very much that governments will not regulate in the public interest in ways that they think are very important to Canadians because of ISDS. I don't think that is likely, but you are probably better to answer this question than I am.
I would say there has been evolution in the provisions that we have placed in investment chapters over the years since NAFTA. I think CETA, as people know, is really the high-water mark in ensuring that it's crystal clear that governments are retaining their ability to regulate in the public interest. It puts in mechanisms for the dispute settlement system that further safeguard that.
The TPP also has more assurances in that regard than previous agreements have had. It doesn't go quite as far as CETA does, but in the TPP there are reinforcements with respect to the right to regulate in the public interest. There are additional procedural rules. There is a code-of-conduct provision, so enhancements have been made there as well. I think it's important in every respect, not just for this chapter but in all areas of international rule-making, that we build on our experiences from the past. The TPP, I think, has done that.