Okay. I think I understand. Thank you for the question.
To me, the question is that the language is still not restrictive enough. It leaves way too much room for arbitrators to continue to decide on cases based on their own standards with respect to what have become the customary international law norms with respect to investment protections. We see this all the time in cases.
There's still no requirement in Canada's modernized FIPA from 2021 to take into account other obligations on states when it comes to indigenous peoples or the environment. It's still a one-sided process. Only companies can bring cases against governments; you can't have counterclaims against the companies. There are all kinds of reasons. It's still the standard ISDS model.
If you look at some of the more recent cases against Canada under the new USMCA, or CUSMA—like the $20-billion claim from Ruby River against Canada for the cancellation or the non-approval of an LNG plant in Quebec—they're using the new language. They're using the CETA language to make a case against Canada, so even under these new treaties, with this new language, the threat is clearly still there. Somebody still thinks there's a strong case. We're going to see the same kinds of cases popping up again and again.