Canada has been the brunt of many attacks against our public policy through the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism. We are the most sued party under NAFTA. We have paid out over $200 million so far in awards and settlements. We have also incurred over $100 million in unrecoverable legal costs, defending ourselves. The majority of these cases, as in the Bilcon case, have been challenges to public policy.
You mentioned the Federal Court ruling yesterday where they weren't looking at the merits of the case, but they were constrained to say, because of the way the tribunal is set up and because of the way the system works, that it did not exceed its jurisdiction, so Canada failed in setting aside that award. Now we will see what will happen in the damages phase.
I think the most insidious impact is the effect on policies—in this case, our environmental assessment process—and the notion that foreign companies can opt out of that process and then attack it.
I also want to say that Canadian companies, and I would say, particularly in the mining sector, have used investor-state dispute settlement abroad in a way that I think brings Canada into disrepute. We've seen three recent cases against Colombia that were to do with setting aside an important natural area that provides much of the country's water. We've seen three Canadian-registered companies bringing challenges under the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which is something we predicted would happen.
The availability of third party financing, hedge funds, and others in this area has increased the intensity, and there is a reaction in Colombia. I had a very interesting discussion with a Colombian investment official. They are not happy about this situation. This is not what they feel they signed on for.