Mr. Reuben East:

I thank the Deputy the question. Concerns about the old ISDS system were mainly raised by civic society groups. I participated in the negotiations with the EU and it is really important to emphasise that these concerns were taken very seriously. Not only did we acknowledge them, we made some pretty substantial revisions to the investment chapter to address those concerns. Canada and the EU very much turned their minds to the question the Deputy posed when we negotiated CETA in the investment court system. The agreement is very clear. It bears repeating that various chapters, not just the investment chapter, guarantees parties the right to regulate in the public interest, for example, in areas such as the safety of agricultural goods, public services, environment, culture, health and safety and labour protection, among others.

That is supplemented by specific exceptions and reservations taken by the parties in the form of Annexe 1 and Annexe 2. I mention them because it essentially means that, for certain areas, certain obligations do not apply. Essentially, they have carved out public policy space. This is quite important because those areas cannot be the subject of a dispute. This is an important way to buttress this potential concern about a chilling effect.

CETA does not, in my view or in Canada's view, prevent the Irish or Canadian Governments from regulating in the public interest nor does it require that an investor be compensated simply because a government measure has affected its expectation.

It also does not allow an ICS tribunal to require that a government change its laws, regulations or policies. These are all very important elements in this ICS that are quite different from the old ISDS model. In my view, they will act as safeguards in respect of the concerns about the old ISDS model.