Mr. Philip Kelly:

No, it is a term of the agreement that the agreement provides no barrier. It is an interpretative clause so there is no issue of compensation arising.

The Senator asked about opt-in and opt-out. We are trying to encourage people to invest in our countries and, to do that, we are offering them a level playing field across the 28 member states in terms of the rules they might play by, and we are offering them a compensation mechanism if they are wronged. I accept this is not available to domestic firms, which would have recourse exclusively to domestic law. As we are trying to entice inward investment, we are providing a special mechanism to them rather than offering them 28 different constitutions and national laws by which they might try to vindicate their rights. The Senator is right that it is confined in that way. It is not optional. The option is whether to avail of it or to go to the domestic courts. If a firm chooses one, it cannot do the other.

On the issues of climate change and so on, there are again specific commitments in the agreement that both the EU and the Canadian Government will honour the Paris agreement and will not reduce environmental standards. As I mentioned, the environment committee in the European Parliament made a recommendation in favour of the application of CETA and there are specific mechanisms whereby, if there is an allegation that somebody is reducing environmental standards in order to secure trade or inward investment, the other party to the agreement has a right to raise those issues. There is an annual mechanism by which the parties would review the application of these terms and, if there was a dispute over the facts, they would appoint an independent panel of third-party experts from third countries who would provide advice as to whether the allegations of lessening of environmental protections were valid.