The first thing I'll say is hi, and thank you for inviting me.
I'm going to talk today about chapter 9, entitled “Investment”.
Chapter 9 has some very interesting stuff in it coming from NAFTA, mostly the interpretive notes about what constitutes international minimum standards. It also talks about corporate social responsibility, which is good, but in the same sense, we're not getting rid of the whole structure of the ISDS, which is a problem.
What I'm going to say right now is that if we want an ISDS, it needs to be at the same level as the legal system of Canada. That means we need an appellate mechanism. We need a permanent court. We need independence of the arbiters, which we have in our system. If we want ISDS, it has to be as legitimate as Canada's legal system.
As an example, for another agreement that we did, CETA, Europe has a permanent court. It has an appellate mechanism, and it also ensures that arbiters' independence is respected. I think the way we should go is more toward the CETA model, toward a system that is as good as our national system in Canada, which we don't have right now.
I think Canada should take the same position as Australia and ask that we not be bound by chapter 9 of the TPP. It is the very matter of the systematic problem of frivolous claims in the system: 87% of the claims were for indirect expropriation. We're talking about regulation from the government. What is really at stake, what is in the legislation, is regulation. That needs to be judged by a public system of law that is as legitimate as any legal system in the western world.
Thank you.