Thank you very much for the question.
A couple of years ago, we at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives put out a report. The Canadian experience is that two-thirds of cases, investor-state dispute cases, brought mainly, almost entirely, by U.S. companies were against environmental or resource management policies, whether those involved a decision to phase out cosmetic pesticide use in Quebec, for example, or the Bilcon case in Nova Scotia, in which an environmental assessment process was disputed by a Canadian investor who had some investments in the United States.
This is what we see repeatedly, particularly with Canadian mining companies. They're the most active users of ISDS mechanisms in Canada's existing treaties abroad. They have successfully brought cases, for example, against Colombia, which very recently lost a case related to a mining ban in a very sensitive environmental region of the country, which applied to everybody, but simply because Canada had a treaty, a Canadian company was able to sue for compensation in that case.
It's a very grossly imbalanced system.