Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. I am in favour of ISDR when it makes sense to have an investor-state dispute mechanism.
When we looked at removing chapter 11, the history of it and the number of disputes, the amount paid out versus the amount of trade we actually did was very small. The percentage was so small it was unreal. When we looked at what was being paid out, the reality is that it was because of the nationalization of a pulp mill. If a pulp mill is nationalized by a provincial government, does one not think that company deserves some sort of settlement?
Let me reverse it. If a Canadian company is investing in another country and all of a sudden that country changes its constitution, changes its laws and comes back saying it is nationalizing that facility and the company has no recourse, is that fair? That is the idea behind ISDR, investor-state dispute resolution. It can be a small or medium-sized enterprise that is engaged in that type of situation. It does not have to be a big corporation, which everybody from the left seems to want to say is what is going on. The left has raised more money on investor-state dispute resolution than what the actual facts show. There are times we need those types of agreements in our trade agreements in order to make sure the investments we do abroad are protected. That is why they are there.