Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague for her kind words about the work I did on investor-state dispute settlement. I would also like to ask her about that.
How does she explain the fact that the two pro-multinational parties in the House, which have been trading power back and forth in Canada since the beginning, are constantly signing agreements with these archaic provisions? These provisions basically elevate multinationals to the status of sovereign powers, as though no other state-to-state remedies involving diplomacy exist. There is the World Trade Organization's dispute resolution body, for example. States are going to be facing off against one another.
Indeed, some countries are going to react badly to investments and behave in unacceptable and unfair ways, but that is where diplomacy comes in. There are adjudicative bodies. The notion of giving multinationals the right to subvert the democratic will of countries is outrageous. Does Canada condone the lawsuits brought against countries for anti-tobacco measures, minimum wage, carbonated drinks, the cancellation of pollution-causing projects and all kinds of other things?