Mr. Trew, since the last comment was more of an opinion than a question, I'd like you to elaborate on the investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, regime.
The member said that that is what trade negotiators will keep doing. However, the infamous chapter 11 of the former North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, was removed from the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA. You recommend not including such a provision in future agreements, and I completely agree. Admittedly, though, the definition set out in the latest agreements is more restrictive than the one that was in NAFTA, which opened the door to all kinds of abuse.
If the definition is more restrictive, why is it still too broad?