I'd just like to focus on this provision, if I may. This provision says that nothing in this act prevents Parliament from implementing a provision of the agreement or fulfilling obligations of the government under the agreement. I don't want to get into a debate about your characterization of the case you mentioned, and without accepting that characterization, this provision does not say that the government, by virtue of this act or by mention or omission in this act, is entitled to breach obligations in the free trade agreement. If the breach of those obligations were to give rise to a claim under your example of investor-state provisions, that's the way it is. That's what happens when you take on obligations. This provision doesn't address that, though.
On June 1st, 2010. See this statement in context.