No, it has a provision, and as I say, it is better than the NAFTA provision. The language is in itself, on that point, not too bad. It says:
Except in rare circumstances, such as when a measure or series of measures are so severe in the light of their purpose that they cannot be reasonably viewed as having been adopted and applied in good faith, non-discriminatory measures of a Party that are designed and applied to protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as health, safety and the environment, do not constitute indirect expropriation.
That's not bad, on its face. It sounds pretty good. My concern is that the companies can still bring that claim—and we've seen that they do—and say, for example, well, it wasn't reasonable, it wasn't good faith; it wasn't really directed at health or safety or the environment. So it still leaves the door open for these kinds of attempts to derail the regulatory agenda, even before it happens, by saying, well, we'll bring this kind of claim. That's my concern.
I really don't like to see the Canadian government and its subnational governments have their regulatory-making powers in the area of the environment constrained by this.