Ms Suzanne Drisdelle:

I thank the Deputy for her questions. As my colleague, Mr. East, mentioned, many of the examples we have heard of companies suing various jurisdictions were based on a different system, namely, the ISDS. The ICS will replace it with a more predictable and accessible mechanism. I can understand there being an emotional concern and a fear of the idea of a foreign company somehow having an effect on local laws, but as we continue to reiterate, CETA protects the domestic government and ensures it can regulate in its own right on these matters of substance and importance in the public interest. As such, I do not see there being a risk of a chilling effect.

In terms of SMEs, I am hearing an assumption that the ICS will encourage arbitration or somehow bring more cases against states. I am not sure why that is. If cases come about and there is a need for them to be dealt with and discussed, the ICS provides a better system, one with more predictability and several processes it must go through, including vetting to ensure that frivolous claims are not put forward. This will reduce the cost for SMEs. Without the ICS, the SMEs will be left with fewer tools. If one is dealing with 27 different jurisdictions, what one needs to do is not as obvious or predictable and there is no consistency. The ICS benefits SMEs and their ability to access an arbitration system and have it be predictable and consistent in a way that deals with different concerns. I do not see that as being an issue or the chilling effect as being a serious concern.