Sure.
As a clarification on the enforcement of different aspects of the agreement, the investor state arbitration mechanism is used to enforce the investment chapter of the agreement, and the procurement provisions are normally enforced through a domestic administrative tribunal. So in Canada at the federal level it would be the CITT.
These administrative tribunals still have quite draconian powers. They can tell a municipality or a provincial government, if they run afoul of the rules, to re-tender the contract. They can award compensation to a supplier who has been unfairly treated, or treated in a way that is not compatible with the rules.
A big issue I have with these rules, sort of the standard template of rules, is this prohibition of offsets. Offsets, as I've said, are defined simply as any local development condition. So the kinds of local training provisions that were described in the case of Madagascar, which I believe is standard practice around the world and a reasonable thing to expect when governments go out and procure with public money, would actually be illegal and inconsistent with these rules unless Canada were to take some kind of a reservation or protection or exemption, which, if we're going to commit ourselves to these rules, we should. It is certainly reasonable for governments to apply a different standard of best value from that of a private company when they go out and purchase.