Mr. Pat Ivory:

Deputy Crowe referred to investor-state dispute settlement. I mentioned that in my presentation - the committee may have missed that part of it. I said that investor-state dispute settlement was about international trade law. Courts at state or province level - I think that Quebec was mentioned - are not always equipped to deal with international trade law because it is complicated and very different from the type of law with which they normally deal. That is a reason for the existence of investor-state dispute settlement. It is important not only within one agreement but in a whole suite of agreements that will span the globe - one might have the same types of provision in free trade agreements with Asian countries, for example.

On the social cost of regulation, I again emphasise that this is not about deregulation but about mutual recognition and closer co-operation. Nor is it being done in a hurry. Many of the issues which we have raised through TTIP with regulators - for example, in the pharmaceutical industry - have been talked about for more than ten years. Pilot projects on those issues have been going on through Transatlantic Economic Council and the EU-US High Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum. All we are asking is that, after all this work over all those years, a decision be made that one can have mutual recognition. It is not being done in a hurry. In no sense is reducing protection being talked about, or reducing standards for civil society or consumers.