Essentially, the TPP and the ISDS provisions mean that where Canadian laws or policies provide protection for first nations or the environment, they could be challenged. Again, the challenge would be in an ad hoc quasi-judicial tribunal, which is very difficult for first nations to participate in, and the scope of that participation may be limited. If the company wins, Canada certainly would be required to provide compensation, but might be required to amend its approach to land and resource management. Even if the company doesn't win or there are no lawsuits, Canadian governments may feel pressured by the ISDS clause to minimize or reduce regulation.
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, has raised this concern. She says that the TPP grants more rights to transnational firms, often at the expense of indigenous rights. She said the TPP will give more power to companies that want to deal with natural resources on indigenous lands.
We mentioned the concerns about impacts on the natural resource sectors. We know The Economist magazine, which is generally a supporter of free trade, has commented that implementation has been disastrous—and that's relating to the ISDS—and that providing special rights and special processes for international corporations to challenge regulations is unnecessary and counterproductive.
What's really key here is that—