Mr. Speaker, over and over again today we have been told by Conservative members that this is a standard FIPA and that they are all the same.
This language is from the current investment treaty with Benin. It will take me a minute to read it:
....except in rare circumstances, such as when a measure or a series of measures is so severe in the light of its purpose that it cannot be reasonably viewed as having been adopted and applied in good faith, a....measure...designed...to protect...public welfare objectives, such as health, safety and the environment, does not constitute indirect expropriation.
That is not bad language. The language in the China investment treaty requires that a country like Canada prove that any measure is “necessary” to protect “human, animal or plant life or health”. We are way less protected under the Canada-China investment treaty than Benin is in dealing with Canada.
Does my friend have any comments?