Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This amendment makes it clear in the agreement that nothing in the Canada-Korea trade agreement would affect or minimize or adversely affect the ability of the Government of Canada or any of its sub-national governments to legislate or regulate in the public interest.
Many people in Canada have expressed concern about the investor-state provisions of trade agreements and are concerned that by giving rights to investors to challenge government legislation or regulation that they believe unduly adversely affects their financial interests, this may in some way negatively impact the ability of governments to take bona fide decisions to legislate and regulate the public interest.
Some examples of that include government legislation on the environment, or on our natural resources or social policy.
We have seen claims in the world filed in this regard, whether it's a challenge to plain packaging laws for tobacco companies in Australia, or a challenge currently in Canada by a company that is challenging the moratorium on fracking adopted by the Government of Quebec. It is a real concern.
What this amendment would do for greater certainty, Mr. Chairman, is to make it clear that nothing in this act affects the powers of the Government of Canada or of provincial, municipal, or first nations governments to enact legislation in the public interest. It would make it absolutely clear that when it comes to investor rights or trade agreements that the sovereign right of government to legislate or regulate bona fide in the public interest is unaffected.
I would conclude by saying that a response of those who favour ISDS provisions is often that they have taken care of the right to regulate in the public interest and that's clear in the agreements. When I read the agreements I don't think it's as clear as this. This amendment would make it crystal clear.