Mr. Reuben East:

Senator Higgins had a very specific question on Article 8.9 and a particular subparagraph of it. I agree with her interpretation in respect of the piece on subsidies. It states "For greater certainty, nothing in this Section shall be construed as preventing a Party from discontinuing the granting of a subsidy" and there is no compensation that goes with that. However, I respectfully disagree with her interpretation on Article 8.9.2, to which she compared it. Senator Higgins knows it well but I will read it for everyone's benefit. It states "For greater certainty, the mere fact that a Party regulates, including through a modification to its laws, in a manner which negatively affects an investment or interferes with an investor's expectations, including its expectations of profits, does not amount to a breach of an obligation". If it does not amount to a breach of an obligation, then there is no compensation that goes with it. I suggest that paragraph and paragraph 4 amount to the same thing. If there is no breach of obligation then there is no compensation - paragraph 4 speaks to compensation - and one arrives at the same thing.