I think there are a couple of issues related to that.
The circumstances of our ending up with a result where we don't have an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism with the U.S. under the new agreement comes out of the history we've had under NAFTA. We didn't think that was a particularly good path to follow, going forward.
It doesn't mean that investors may not have concerns in the U.S. It's quite possible they will. Similarly, U.S. investors may have continuing concerns in Canada. I think there was a unique circumstance there.
Going back to discussions we've had in the past, ideally we do like to have investor-state dispute settlement so that we don't just have it in markets where we have concerns about domestic courts or about the ability to enforce investor rights, but also look at a model that could apply more broadly. That is what we tried to do in the CETA negotiations.