No, the issue is that if they reduce their environmental standards, there should be a penalty of some type.
Why do we have a $15 million penalty in the labour agreement? Why the inconsistency? Why do we say that if you lower labour standards, you're subject to a fine of up to $15 million, but if you lower your environmental standards, it's nothing?
My third and final point is that nothing in what I'm saying in this motion obligates the parties to have the same environmental standards. We're not trying to impose Canadian environmental standards on Panama. What the agreement calls for, in my reading, is that the parties' environmental standards, as they exist, are not to be lowered to attract investment or trade. It doesn't suggest that they be at the same level; it's that they won't go lower.
Again, our very reasonable amendment would say that we do the same thing to the environment agreement that we've done to the labour agreement and give that obligation some teeth in case it's abrogated. Right now, absolutely nothing would happen if Panama or Canada lowered environmental standards.