Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very thoughtful and insightful question. I think he knows the answer but has given me the opportunity to say what I think.
Obviously the answer is yes. According to a provision in the MAI any law that is passed like the recent law on MMT and that eliminates the right of a private corporation to make profits will be considered to be a form of expropriation. Consequently today the Government of Canada is in court, so to speak, with Ethyl Corporation of the United States because it is being sued for passing legislation against the MMT.
Let us imagine a significant ecological site next door to a potential mine. A decision is being taken, after the MAI is signed and after a German mining company has shown interest in developing the mine, to turn that area into a park for future generations. That decision would be challenged under the provisions of the MAI as a form of expropriation to that theoretical German mining company. The government would have to compensate with hundreds of millions of dollars to do that.
That is only part of the problem. The real problem is the chill effect of that threat. The government knows that if it makes a park of that area the German mining company will sue it for hundreds of millions of dollars. It probably will not make it into a park although it knows it should. In consideration of future generations of Canadians the government knows that it must be made into a park, but because it knows it will be sued and it will lose, it is chilled and will not do it. It will chicken out.
I guess we can call it the chicken out factor in the MAI that I would be concerned about. I appreciate the question from my hon. friend.