I think that's an excellent question, and for the first time in the Canada-EU negotiations, the provinces are directly represented at the negotiating table, as you note.
I don't know what the exact provisions of that treaty will be with regard to provincial compliance, but I do believe that provincial and territorial governments, and the federal government itself, have a very strong interest, particularly if these types of investment protection provisions and investor-state dispute settlements are to be included in CETA, as it seems likely they will be, to ensure that these broadly worded, open-ended vague notions of, for example, expropriation and other issues related with the interpretation of these investment rights by various arbitrators and arbitration panels are clarified.
These issues have to be clarified and resolved prior to the provinces committing themselves, if they're going to do that in areas of provincial jurisdiction. I think it's a strong argument for not including these investment protection provisions and certainly for not including “investor state” in the treaty.