Thank you very much.
Interestingly, I find a similar question, although perhaps with a different emotional tone, from both sides of this table.
As we've been discussing, what had happened was that CETA was stalled, and it was stalled around European concerns about ISDS. When we looked at the agreement, we found that we shared those concerns, and we were happy to work with the Europeans to develop the most progressive ISDS system that exists in a trade agreement.
We made changes in two particular areas. One was on the substance. We strengthened the right of the state to regulate, particularly in the interests of the environment and when it comes to labour standards. We clarified that it was the job of democratically elected states, and not of a trade agreement, to choose which parts of the economy should be in the private sector and which should be in the public sector, and that this agreement should not restrict, for example, the right of a government to choose to renationalize some area.
That's very important, and I think that speaks to concerns people have. People want to be able to elect a government and through that election to choose what will be public, what will be private, what will be environmental standards, and what will be labour standards. They don't want a trade agreement to decide that, and that is one of the things we were very pleased to change.
The other element we were pleased to change was the process and how the ISDS system worked. We have created a system in which the arbiters, the judges, have a much clearer ethical line. They cannot be lawyers in private practice one day and arbiters the next. That's really important. We've also created a system in which the choice of who sits on the panel is not dictated by the company that is choosing to bring a case, so both the process and the substance have been improved.
Something else that's worth explaining is that when it comes to the dispute settlement system, this is the one element of CETA that the Europeans determined was of national competency. That means that it is the element of the agreement that will not be provisionally applied, if and when the agreement is ratified by the European Parliament and by us.
In the way we structured the work we're doing on improving ISDS, there are some areas that are open to discussion. This is really a very important landmark development in how dispute settlement is done in international trade, and we have embarked on a very important conversation with Europeans on how to create the next-generation, more progressive dispute settlement process. I think it's something Canadians can be very proud of.