Foreign Affairs committee  Thank you, Mr. Goldring. I'm not sure I can answer the last question in terms of how many business opportunities were prevented, although it's a good question to ask as a rhetorical question, absolutely. What was the delay? I can't speak to why the six prime ministers we've had since 1966 and their various governments didn't choose to ratify and implement ICSID--well, sign, initially; we only signed it, as you pointed out, less than a year ago.

Foreign Affairs committee  Well, from 1993 onward, that's where it starts getting really interesting. Think of the initials MAI. When MAI was under negotiation, it was well down.... I remember being an adviser to the industry department back in the early days, in 1994, when the MAI issue started percolating as prenegotiations; negotiations were launched officially in 1995.

Foreign Affairs committee  It was a totally bureaucratically driven process that was completely under the radar. But then in 1996 or 1997, there was an election, and it showed up in the campaign. I don't know which of you here were running then, but I just don't envy the poor candidate who might have been asked--let's say by Maude Barlow--“So what do you think of the MAI?”

Foreign Affairs committee  Yes, exactly. Or in Alberta, think of all those energy and resource companies, mid-cap companies, the $1-billion and $2-billion plays, that have assets, interests, exploration plays in the Middle East, all over the world, who could have easily benefited, but their governments, for one reason or another, have chosen to use the ICSID thing as a chip in the federal-provincial game: we won't let you do it unless you agree to certain things that are fundamentally unrelated.

Foreign Affairs committee  But most importantly for investors, we have an effective system of rule of law. So an investor goes in, and ICSID is really meant to get at issues of what happens when the investment goes wrong. If everything's going fine, nobody really cares if the government cuts a corner and raises a tax a couple of points.

Foreign Affairs committee  I'm glad you're only leaving it at that, Mr. Dewar.

Foreign Affairs committee  It has been a few years. Let's start with the beginning, then. Giving up some sovereignty was the question that particularly caught my attention. I think it's at the core of what you were saying. No doubt Canada is an attractive investment destination for foreign investors worldwide.

Foreign Affairs committee  Let me start with the RIM China situation. There are a number of issues for RIM. One is exporting the hardware that's manufactured here to China. Another issue is having the software and licensing the system that is designed with Chinese telecom carriers. A third issue is actually being able to establish there and deliver the backup, the back office, the support services to run the RIM-type service through Internet suppliers and telecom suppliers.

Foreign Affairs committee  What I mean is that the situation is the same. Social, health or environmental legislation or an expropriation that make a company lose money will not enable that company to claim it back. But the fact that the government has legislated or acted in a manner that violates national treatment, and thus non-discrimination, obligations, the minimum rights and standards of treatment under those treaties or expropriation, will enable them to make a claim.

Foreign Affairs committee  As Bill C-9 was passed before the final stage in this dispute, which has been going on for some 20 years, I frankly admit I don't believe so. Lastly, under Chapter 11 of NAFTA, there are already claims against the Canadian government in the softwood lumber affair, but I believe they have been settled in the agreement that the Government of Canada reached with the United States.

Foreign Affairs committee  Thank you very much for your question, madam. First, your question is based on the assumption that the mere fact that a government passes laws on social issues such as the environment, education or public affairs gives a company rights under a bilateral treaty or NAFTA where those laws have the effect of causing that company to lose money.

Foreign Affairs committee  China is a good example. I will get back to your comment about the Indias and the Brazils of the world, but China is a very good example. The country I think would have every incentive to comply with an ICSID award, which is quite different from complying with an award of a Chinese court or a Chinese arbitrator that might have gone to a foreign investor.

Foreign Affairs committee  In terms of non-signatories, Mexico is probably the most glaring example of a major trading country and a major investment host that's not a member. I have concerns from the standpoint that, from a Canadian investor's perspective, once we ratify, assuming we ratify ICSID, it would be much better to have that process available vis-à-vis Mexico.

Foreign Affairs committee  You're quite right.

Foreign Affairs committee  Thank you, monsieur le président et membres. I am in fact, as you said, the chair of the international affairs committee of the chamber. In my day job, I'm a partner with the Bennett Jones law firm and I'm head of the international trade and investment practice there. Since we were invited to appear here on fairly short notice, I originally thought we might do an overview of ICSID and where the business community comes out on it.