I can't speak for the government here and I wouldn't attempt to. In theory, the idea is that access to investor-state dispute settlement and the provisions thereof attract higher levels of investment. That's the theory.
The empirical facts indicate that it doesn't do that. There is no relationship between investment treaties or the investor-state dispute settlement process and attracting new high levels of investment. Unfortunately, for my colleagues here, the investment chapter isn't going to do anything to help them receive the kinds of investments they're talking about. That's the empirical evidence.
My understanding is that it was the Canadian government that pushed for the inclusion in this. The original EU-Canada sustainability impact assessment report, funded through the European Commission, actually recommended not including the investor-state dispute settlement system, and it was the Canadian government that continued to push for it.
My own view is that it doesn't attract new levels of investment—that's the empirical fact. Our courts are perfectly capable of handling the disputes here. European governments have concluded agreements that include investor-state dispute-settlement mechanisms with countries around the world. I think there are about 1,500 European-based bilateral treaties with other governments, but they were not originally supportive. I don't see the value of this; I see the risks. I know for sure the only groups that will certainly benefit from this are the lawyers who do the arbitration and sit on the tribunals as arbitrators.