Thank you, Madam Chair.
Greetings to my colleagues and thanks to the witnesses for being here.
My questions are for Mr. Côté.
Mr. Côté, thank you for your presentation. I've never been a professor, but I was particularly interested in this issue in my former academic life. You provided an overview of the political and legal factors that led to the creation of the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism. However, it seems to me the ideological circumstances in which that mechanism was created can't be overlooked.
When the concept began to spread and the mechanism was introduced under NAFTA, it was a time of neoliberalism and globalization. People talked about the end of states and nations. The purpose of that mechanism was to protect investors and multinationals from certain political decisions. That seems to me a return to the old idea of the invisible hand, according to which the more private interests are freely pursued, the better off a community will be. You can't disregard that now and wonder whether the idea is still relevant.
Earlier you talked about the depoliticization of certain economic decisions and ways of doing things. I think instead that we should go back to politicization. Before NAFTA, we had the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, the FTA, under which a business seeking to sue a state had to go through its home state.
Some time ago, I heard you say in the media that the fact this mechanism is no longer included in the CUSMA was good for Canada. I'd like you to comment on that.
My second question is related to the first. You said you were prepared to speak at greater length about the mechanism's flaws during the period of questions. Here's an opportunity for you to do that.