Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

To do the preliminaries, I have also spoken at the Thomas D'Arcy McGee Summer School. I am very interested in our common and shared democratic values. However, the fact is that the values that Canada and Ireland, or indeed the EU, might share are not values that need to be shared by corporations. They have different sets of values. That is why in general, globally, we have seen a shift away from international arbitration mechanisms. There are still arbitration mechanisms in new deals that are being agreed, but they are mechanisms for arbitration between the parties that actually sign the deals. It is arbitration, for example, between Canada and the EU, that does not include private corporate investors who do not sign up to the deal or have obligations under the rest of it. That is what we have seen in the case of the US.

The question has not been answered in respect of the fact that we have seen a new level of partnership between the US and Canada immediately following changes in deals involving the removal of investors from the arbitration mechanisms. I know that private investors are still included in relation to Mexico. That is a key point. It is also worth noting that during the renegotiation, NAFTA continued to apply. Therefore, the provisional application can continue while we discuss these measures. It was much faster - just two years. When there is not a controversial element, it seems that trade deals get negotiated much quicker.

On the common values piece, Mr. Collenette has been very clear that his interests are business interests. That is what he will represent. In that regard, I am concerned when I hear about the lobbying. When I think about this consultation and mediation phase that is going to happen when an ICS case might be taken. I am concerned that during the mediation phase we will see these parties engaged in the very high level of access that they have had in relation to this in mediation. Is that where the chilling effect happens?

Is that the point where it will happen most, where there is mediation and states back down on their roles?

I have three very specific questions for Mr. East. We have all looked at the CETA tribunal. The term, "fair and equitable treatment" is still very wide; it does include reasonable expectations. In Article 8.9, it is not the mere fact alone that constitutes the breach but the mere fact plus the fair and equitable treatment. It is interesting that Article 8.9.4, in respect of the removal of subsidies, specifically states there will not be an obligation on compensation for investors. Do the witnesses agree that the direction given to the ICS on the removal of subsidies indicates that compensation might not be expected but that the direction in respect of regulation does not give any insurance that compensation might not be expected? That is the key piece of the chilling effect.

Mr. East said that Canadian companies are not suing under the energy charter but Vermillion Energy, which is a member of this Ireland Canada Business Association, is suing and has threatened to sue France specifically under the energy charter. Will we see that used? There is a question on legitimate expectation. Mr. East stated that companies should expect the same treatment domestically as internationally. Is it not the case that the compensation which will be given to companies under this international arbitration is far higher than what they would expect nationally because it includes those legitimate future expectations?