I don't know why we can't get it right. I mean, I think we did get it right in the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement. We simply agreed to get rid of ISDS in that new agreement. We made a big deal out of it when the deal was announced, because ISDS undermines our ability to pass environmental policies.
There are a lot of lawsuits and, across Latin America, ISDS is a major issue. A number of corporate cases involve public services and certainly involve Canadian mining companies abroad. Canada is the 12th biggest economy in the world, but we're the fourth most litigious country when it comes to companies using ISDS to challenge environmental decisions in other countries, challenges with respect to mining permits and whatnot.
For all the reasons I think this committee has talked about before, it's a pretty lopsided system. Voices of people who would be impacted by investments are really not considered. You know, you can put amici curiae submissions into these cases, but they're frequently turned down. When they are accepted, they're frequently ignored by the tribunal. There is simply no way to get into the discussion of issues other than the investors' desires to make a profit and the state's responsibilities in the treaty to that investor.
It's problematic for a number of other reasons, but those are the basics.