Mr. Chairman, I will respond to Mr. Ritz, if I may.
I agree with you that the services and investment sectors are sectors out of which Canada can profit the most. Indeed, the suspension of protection of investment and the investment court system that was set up create a certain level of—I wouldn't say uncertainty, but confusion. Why? It's because we're not sure how it's going to be applied.
That said, we have to have in mind that Europe had about $180 billion worth of investment in Canada before we ever signed this treaty, and reciprocally, so there are means, nevertheless, for the parties to decide on that in terms of investment decisions. Canada is a jurisdiction where you can use the domestic jurisdiction to face issues that might come up with investors and, reciprocally, in most European countries you can do the same.
It's not as if we're back to nothing. We're just with the status quo when it comes to investment, largely, and foreign direct investment will take place as it does now.
My colleague, Monsieur Valasek, also has brought about something fundamental. We've decided to depart—for essentially political reasons and the nature of the communications around the issue in Europe—and to land with a system that might be interesting, but really departs from the stability that we used to know. In that sense, it became inevitable at the end that the European Commission and some major countries, including Germany and France, wanted to depart from the traditional model.
I think it actually establishes a floor from which any negotiation from Europe will start. It doesn't mean that it establishes a floor for Canada, which might decide along the way to stay with the traditional system of arbiters, which are appointed by each party and who co-op a third arbiter. In that sense, I would say that it's preoccupying, but not dramatic.