Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses for their very informative testimony here today. There really does seem to be a lot of consensus that without ISDS it would politicize trade disputes, so that was really informative.
I have two questions, and I think maybe the easiest way of doing this is to say what both of them are, and then to call on some of the witnesses to answer. If you don't mind expediting your answers, we'll try to get through as many witnesses as we can, if that's all right.
First, we often hear criticism that ISDS measures have cost Canada and that they put our domestic agenda at risk, but we heard testimony on Monday that Canada wins ISDS cases by about a three-to-one margin, and when we lose, it usually relates to fair and equitable treatment or because of processes when municipal or provincial governments may have acted arbitrarily. What are your thoughts on that three-to-one margin?
Second, we know that Canada has started consultations on a potential free trade agreement with Indonesia, which has a significantly lower score on the rule of law index from the World Justice Project compared to Canada. Would you recommend that Canada seek to negotiate some form of ISDS provisions as they're negotiating this agreement?
Maybe we'll start with Professor Côté.