Mr. Reuben East:

I will be quick because I know that we are pressed for time. Some of the concerns outlined by Senator Martin have not only been acknowledged but addressed, in the reformed ICS system. Some of those areas include not only the right to regulate that is across the agreement that the chargé d'affaires, Ms Drisdelle, mentioned, but a new permanent, transparent and institutionalised dispute settlement tribunal system that is quite different to the traditional commercial arbitration system, because, for example, it no longer includes the ability to have ad hoctribunal members. There is a roster of members that the states appoint themselves. The investors have no say in this, unlike under the ad hocsystem. There are enhanced ethical requirements in a strict code of conduct that is quite innovative and goes beyond many of the old-style pieces in this area.

Senator Martin mentioned the limited right of appeal. I believe that he referred to it as an annulment. I acknowledge that under any of the old ISDS systems, such as cases taken under the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, ICSID, system, there is a very narrow right of appeal but it is very different under CETA. Indeed, the appellant system that was created provides very broad grounds of appeal. Therefore, it is quite innovative. A tribunal can uphold, modify or reverse an award.

I would argue that this is an example of the reformed system that Canada and the EU were trying to accomplish with this new investment court system, ICS.

On transparency, we very much appreciate and acknowledge those concerns but hearings are, by default, open and documents are accessible to all. There is also an ability for non-disputing parties to make submissions as amicus curiae.There are actually quite a few reforms as well, to have a very transparent system.