Bill C-23 (Historical)

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia

This enactment implements the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements on the environment and labour cooperation entered into between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and signed at Lima, Peru on November 21, 2008.
The general provisions of the enactment specify that no recourse may be taken on the basis of the provisions of Part 1 of the enactment or any order made under that Part, or the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement or the related agreements themselves, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.
Part 1 of the enactment approves the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements and provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional aspects of the Free Trade Agreement and the power of the Governor in Council to make orders for carrying out the provisions of the enactment.
Part 2 of the enactment amends existing laws in order to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreement on labour cooperation.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-23 and I, along with my NDP colleagues, am proud to speak in opposition to the bill.

The bill is about free trade with a government that refuses to recognize human rights and a government that is complicit in human rights violations. The bill is also about free trade with a government that refuses to recognize the need to protect our planet and our environment, and that is complicit in taking our environmental resources for granted.

Canada signed a free trade agreement on November 21, 2008 and the legislation we are debating today is a result of that agreement and would implement the agreement signed between our two countries.

Even though the agreement is signed, it is not too late, which is why we are taking turns standing in the House to talk about the problems with this agreement. We are trying to wake the government up to the fact that this is a very bad deal. It is bad for Canada and it is bad for Colombia.

On May 25, the Bloc Québécois moved an important amendment to Bill C-23 which I believe is important enough to reread in this honourable House. The amendment reads:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, because the government concluded this agreement while the Standing Committee on International Trade was considering the matter, thereby demonstrating its disrespect for democratic institutions”.

That is a very important and precisely worded amendment. The amendment is important because it restates the purpose of the bill to say that, in fact, members of this House would refuse to give second reading to this bill. We refuse to give second reading because it is not a bill that is good for Canada and it is not a bill that is good for Colombia.

I have previously stated in the House some of the most egregious aspects of this FTA. As we know, the CCFTA consists of three parts. There is the main FTA text but there is also a labour side agreement and an environmental protection side agreement.

The areas of concern are as follows: First, this agreement shows a failure on labour rights protection. Colombia is one of the most dangerous countries on earth for trade unionists. They are regularly the victims of violence, intimidation and even assassination by paramilitary groups linked to the Colombian government.

The CCFTA does not include tough labour standards. By putting these labour agreements, as I said, in a side agreement outside of the main text and without any kind of vigorous enforcement mechanism will not encourage Colombia to improve its horrendous human rights situation for workers but will actually justify the use of violence.

This agreement is also a failure on environmental protection. The environment issue again is addressed in a side agreement and there is no enforcement. Anybody who has ever looked at law, legislation or policy knows that if there is no enforcement it is meaningless. There is no enforcement mechanism here to force either Canada or Colombia to respect environmental rights.

We have seen in the past how agreements like this are unenforceable. For example, I will draw attention to one agreement we all know and that is NAFTA. We have never seen a successful suit brought under the NAFTA side agreement on labour.

Another aspect of the agreement that is problematic is the investor chapter copied from NAFTA's chapter 11 investor rights. The CCFTA provides powerful rights to private companies to sue governments, enforceable through investor state arbitration panels. This is particularly worrying because of the many multinational Canadian oil and mining companies in Colombia.

The arbitration system that is set up in chapter 11 gives foreign companies the ability to challenge legitimate Canadian environmental labour and social protections. Giving this opportunity to private businesses in Colombia and elsewhere would further erode Canada and Colombia's abilities to pass laws and regulations that are actually in the public interest.

Another area that we find problematic is the agricultural tariffs. Colombia's poverty is directly linked to agricultural development where 22% of employment is agricultural. An end to tariffs on Canadian cereals, pork and beef would flood the market with cheap products. What would this mean? This would mean thousands of lost jobs for Canadians.

Bill C-23 would also seriously destabilize the Canadian sugar industry. Importing sugar from Colombia would threaten the closure of at least one of the Canadian sugar plants in the west and would result in job losses of up to 500 employees and 250 sugar beet growers; all this while at the same time Colombia is not a significant trading partner for Canada. It is our fifth largest trading partner in Latin America; all this while at the same time 2,690 trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia since 1986 and 31 trade unionists alone this year; and all this when nearly 200,000 hectares of natural forest are lost in Colombia every year due to agriculture, logging, mining, energy development and construction, and we are complicit in this.

Free trade does not work in this context. What is the solution?

I would like to share with the House an idea that is familiar to many Nova Scotians and that is fair trade. Just Us! Coffee Roasters Co-Op really brought this idea of fair trade to Nova Scotia. Fair trade is a trading partnership based on dialogue, transparency and respect that seeks greater equality in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to and securing the rights of marginalized producers and workers, especially in the south.

Fair trade organizations that are backed by consumers are engaged actively in supporting producers, awareness raising and in campaigning for change, change in the rules and practices of conventional international trade, which is what we are seeing with this agreement.

The strategic intent of fair trade is threefold. First, deliberately work with marginalized producers and workers in order to help them move from a position of vulnerability to one of security and economic self-sufficiency. Second, empower producers and workers as stakeholders in their own organizations. Third, actively play a wider role in the global arena to achieve greater equality and equity in international trade.

To put it more simply, fair trade is an alliance between producers and consumers that cuts out the middle man. In this process, it empowers producers and it gives them greater dignity and a fairer price for their products. It provides consumers with high quality products that they know are more sustainable from both a social and environmental point of view.

Just Us! Coffee Roasters is Canada's first fair trade coffee roaster and it is located in the town of Wolfville, Nova Scotia. There are two Just Us! Coffee Roasters shops in my riding of Halifax, one on Barrington Street, which is in the heart of our business district, and the other one on Spring Garden Road, which is very close to the campus of Dalhousie University.

Both those coffee shops are touchstones for our community. They are not only a place to meet friends, a place to buy ethical products and a part of our local economy, but they are also doing more to support our local economy. They offer food prepared by local food suppliers, like Terroir Local Source Catering and Unique Asian Catering, which are small businesses located in the community of Halifax.

I applaud Just Us! Coffee Roasters for leading by example and for showing the country that fair trade is possible. It is my hope that the bill fails and that, instead of rewarding countries that fail to recognize human rights, we work with them to develop trade in a fair and equitable way.

Those are the reasons that I stand in opposition to Bill C-23.

The House resumed from October 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the brief question from my hon. colleague this week in honour of the tributes that we are about to hear.

Today we began and hopefully will conclude the second reading stage of C-56, the Fairness for the Self-Employed Act. That bill is receiving rave reviews all across the land and it is my hope that it will move very expeditiously through the House.

On Tuesday, we sent another employment insurance act to the Senate, Bill C-50. My understanding is that it has completed third reading over in the other place and we hope that will receive royal assent today.

Following Bill C-56, it is my intention to continue the debate at third reading of C-27, the anti-spam bill, which will be followed by Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, which is at second reading.

Bill C-56 will continue tomorrow if not completed today. Backup bills for Friday are Bill C-51, the Economic Recovery Act, which was reported back from committee this week, followed by any bills not completed from today.

When the House returns from our constituency Remembrance Day week, the schedule of bills will include Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia, and bills not concluded from this week. We will give consideration to any bills reported back from committee or new bills yet to be introduced.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Do you have a rough amount you can provide to the committee? If this investment has led to a multiplier effect of two or three, and we've stimulated $20 million or $30 million in additional beef sales, it would make a lot more sense for this government to withdraw Bill C-23 and invest the money in stimulating more beef sales.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

That's good news, and I thank you for the excellent responses.

In order for us to overcome that two-year gap, it's up to us as a government to move ASAP on Bill C-23.

[John Masswohl, Director, Governmental and International Relations, Canadian Cattlemen's Association]

Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I might even keep it under five minutes for the opening statement.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you again. The last time I was here to speak on Colombia, I was stressing the importance of Canadian beef being treated at least as favourably in our agreement as U.S. beef is treated under the Colombia-U.S. agreement.

At that time I said the jury was still out as to whether this agreement would satisfy that requirement for the beef industry's support, but today I am very pleased to report that Canadian beef has received very favourable terms in the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association is very much in support of implementing this agreement.

Initially, we will have annual duty free access for 5,250 tonnes of beef, split equally into three categories, while the 80% tariff is phased out over 12 years. The three categories are high-quality beef, standard quality beef, and offals. In the high-quality category, it was very important to us that trading partners recognized that Canadian prime and all three of Canada's A grades--that's the single, double, and triple A--were recognized as comparable to USDA prime and choice. That recognition was achieved in the Colombia FTA, and we hope that will be a standard in all of Canada's future negotiations.

When the Canadian and U.S. agreements with Colombia are both implemented and fully phased in, both U.S. and Canadian beef will have unlimited duty free access to Colombia, and that's precisely what we were seeking. During the transition period, if both the Canadian and U.S. agreements with Colombia were to be implemented at the same time, the U.S. would enjoy some higher quota limits and slightly shorter phase-out periods. However, it's uncertain at this point when the U.S. Congress intends to ratify that agreement. So our belief is that there's an opportunity for Canadian beef to get a foot in the door if Parliament can ratify our agreement quickly.

To be blunt, the longer phase-outs for Canadian beef are not a concern if Parliament takes advantage of the opportunity to get ahead of the U.S. in the Colombia market. So we do urge you to move quickly on approving Bill C-23.

Another important matter to us, as the committee will be aware from the Korea negotiations, is that any trading partner that wants to reach an FTA with Canada must not retain any lingering BSE trade restrictions. We're pleased that Colombia has lifted all of its restrictions in this regard. In fact, the CCA sent representatives earlier this year to accompany Mr. Ritz on one of his missions to Colombia, and we sense a lot of goodwill on the Colombians' part to remove that impediment, and they have since done so.

So as far as the beef industry is concerned, with Colombia, it's thumbs up and full steam ahead. With those opening comments, I'd certainly be pleased to take your questions, either on Colombia or any other negotiations or trade issues that you want to raise today.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on October 9, 2009, by the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel regarding the use of Standing Order 56.1 to disallow further amendments and subamendments at the second reading stage of Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

I want to thank the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, as well as the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. Minister of State and Chief Government Whip for their comments.

The member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel argued that the motion of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, having been moved pursuant to Standing Order 56.1, should be ruled out of order since it does not fall within the definition of a routine motion as prescribed in that Standing Order. Instead, he argued that the Standing Order was used to limit debate, in the same fashion as moving the previous question.

In addition to agreeing with the arguments raised by the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, the member for Vancouver East expressed concern about the expanded use of Standing Order 56.1 and the “creeping, sort of incremental change” accompanying this, which then led her to question the appropriateness of its use in this case. She added that there are other mechanisms available to the government to manage the amount of time allocated to debate on Bill C-23.

The chief government whip contended that the government was applying Standing Order 56.1 correctly and that there had been previous instances where the Standing Order was used in this fashion.

For the benefit of members, the motion adopted on October 9, 2009, reads as follows:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practices of the House, the second reading stage of Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, shall not be subject to any further amendments or sub-amendments.

As mentioned by the member for Vancouver East, similar concerns over the expanded use of Standing Order 56.1 were raised in 2001 when it was used for the disposition of a bill at various stages. When I ruled on that point of order on September 18, 2001 in the Debates at pages 5256 to 5258, I expressed reservations about the trend toward using that Standing Order for purposes other than for motions of a routine nature. My predecessor had already urged the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the use of Standing Order 56.1, and I reiterated this need for the committee to do so at the earliest opportunity.

In the absence of such feedback, on May 13, 2005 in the Debates at pages 5973 to 5974, I allowed a motion that provided for the completion of the second reading stage of two bills to be moved pursuant to Standing Order 56.1. Again, I highlighted the fact that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs still had not undertaken a study of Standing Order 56.1, and as such, I was not in a position to rule definitively on the appropriateness of that Standing Order's use and I stated the following on that occasion.

I believe having had nothing back [from the committee] I can only allow this one to proceed at this time, particularly so when the time allocated here is much more generous than would be the case under closure or under time allocation…Accordingly the motion appears to be in order.

Similarly, on October 3, 2006, I allowed a motion moved pursuant to Standing Order 56.1 which in part disallowed further amendments or subamendments to the second reading stage of Bill C-24, the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006. Another motion with such provisions was allowed to proceed on December 12, 2007, in reference to Bill C-28, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007 and to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on October 30, 2007.

As was the case in those two most recent examples, even though the current motion disallows further amendments and subamendments, it still allows members who have not yet done so to speak to the amendment and the main motion. Furthermore, as I then stated in my ruling in the Debates on October 3, 2006 at page 3571:

The motion does not set a deadline for completion of the proceedings, as would be the case under time allocation or closure...There is a significant difference.

This does not, however, negate the concerns expressed by members over time about the need for a clearer and agreed upon understanding of this Standing Order. The following quote from my 2006 ruling still applies in this case:

My predecessor and I have both encouraged the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the appropriate use of the Standing Order. To date I am not aware of any report by that committee on this question.

Should the House feel the need to change the parameters pertaining to the use of Standing Order 56.1, I would suggest once more that members bring their concerns to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Since the committee has not yet offered clear direction on the definition of Standing Order 56.1, and since motions disallowing amendments and subamendments have been ruled admissible in the past, I rule that the motion moved by the Government House Leader on October 9, 2009 is in order.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the NDP member for allowing me to interrupt him.

At noon today, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons put forward a motion pursuant to Standing Order 56.l that would prevent any new amendments to Bill C-23.

In my view, moving this type of motion pursuant to Standing Order 56.1 is out of order for the following reasons.

Standing Order 56.1 has to do with any routine motion for which unanimous consent has been denied. Standing Order 56.1(b) defines a routine motion. It may be required, and I quote:

—for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishing of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.

I do not think that a motion to prevent an amendment or subamendment to a motion for second reading of a bill can be classified as a routine motion based on the definition in Standing Order 56.1(b). I believe that it is a motion to limit debate much as moving the previous question would, and, I should add, Marleau and Montpetit consider the previous question to be a motion to limit debate.

I would like to bring to your attention a ruling you made on September 18, 2001, in which you stated:

The expanded use of Standing Order 56.1 since 1997 causes the Chair serious concern. The government is provided with a range of options under Standing Orders 57 and 78 for the purpose of limiting debate. Standing Order 56.1 should be used for motions of a routine nature, such as arranging the business of the House.

I am certainly willing to recognize that the government is being innovative with the wording of its motion, but the fact is that this motion is basically designed to limit debate. In that sense, I believe it should be ruled out of order, since it was introduced pursuant to Standing Order 56.1.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was using bank mergers as an example. If my colleague had followed my speech from the start, he would have learned something, because it is a good example of what can result from investing at all costs. If the Canadian banks had merged, which is what the Conservatives and the Liberal Party wanted, we would have witnessed a debacle just as catastrophic as what happened in the United States.

Bill C-23 is supposedly a free trade agreement. In fact, it is quite simply an investment agreement. That is what is dangerous. The government wants to enable private companies that specialize in mining development to invest more in Colombia without having to respect human rights or protect the environment. This is terrible, because it shows that this Conservative government is willing to do anything, as it proves daily. It gives tax credits for oil sands development, the dirtiest industry on the planet. It is not the Bloc Québécois that says that. The Economist and other newspapers around the world judge these things and find that the oil sands are the worst polluter in the world. Once again, the Conservative government has subsidized the oil companies to the tune of millions, hundreds of millions and billions of dollars since it came to power.

This is a concern because with Bill C-23, this free trade agreement, which is an investment agreement, will allow private Canadian companies to invest in the mining sector without having to respect human rights, working conditions or environmental standards. This will be a disaster.

Earlier my colleague from the north shore gave examples of what mining companies have done in the past in his region. He might get a chance to ask me the same questions. If we do not restrict private companies, whether they are in mining development or banking, all they will want to do is make money at all costs. That is why I maintain that banking and mining companies are all the same. Oil companies respect absolutely nothing. They want to make profits at all costs and pay dividends every three months to their shareholders and bonuses to company CEOs. That is what happened in the banking system. They wanted so badly for things to go well in the banking system that they even paid CEOs to give speeches in chambers of commerce. Every banker in the world was fleeced. Fortunately at the time there were parliamentarians like those from the Bloc Québécois who prevented Canadian banks from merging. We saved their life.

Today, once again, I am pleased that the members of the Bloc Québécois are here to prevent such bills from being adopted. My Conservative colleagues can laugh but they know the power that the opposition can command when it decides that a bill will not pass. They know it.

Today, they tried to prevent us from speaking about Bill C-23. However this Parliament has rules to prevent Conservative governments from using every means to stifle public debate and democracy. Conservatives stand in the way of democracy. They prove it every day.

Quebeckers decided, in their wisdom, to send worthy representatives to defend their values and their interests. Quebeckers do not see their interests and values reflected in a free trade agreement that is nothing but an investment agreement. It is not a true free trade agreement. It is an agreement that allows companies to make investments, and I will say it once more—it cannot be said enough times—without respecting human rights and the rights of individuals. I will not go over all the examples of what has happened in Colombia to unionists who have been assassinated and so forth. My colleagues have already talked about this.

Allowing our corporations to do business with a country that does not respect human rights, the rights of individuals and the rights of workers may serve the private interests of certain Canadian corporations but is not of benefit to Quebeckers.

Once again, we will act as the conscience of Canadian companies. We cannot leave it up to capitalists to respect human and environmental rights. We can forget that. The oil sands are an excellent example, in terms of pollution and from an environmental standpoint. We cannot leave it up to those companies to respect the environment. All they care about is their profit margin. When one is also supported by a Conservative government that is willing to use public money to pollute, this adds up to the oil sands. This always makes me chuckle, because oil is a non-renewable energy source.

We are happy to have hydroelectricity in Quebec, which we paid for ourselves, without a penny from the federal government. Not one cent of the federal government's money went towards creating Quebec's hydroelectric system. Quebeckers paid for it. We will be able to meet the Kyoto targets, which the federal government will never be able to do. It continues to be the laughing stock of the planet, which it will prove once again in Copenhagen in a few months' time.

Fortunately, Quebeckers have the members of the Bloc Québécois to defend their values and interests.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak on Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

I want to say at the outset that the Bloc Québécois will not support this bill. Why? Because the Canadian government's main motivation for entering into this free trade deal is not trade, but rather investments. Indeed, this agreement contains a chapter on investment protection. It will make life easier for Canadians investing in Colombia, especially in mining. It is important for those watching us today to understand that usually bilateral agreements are signed to promote free trade, not investments.

This reminds me that, when I first came to the House of Commons, in 2000, the first to contact me were representatives from major Canadian banks. They were lobbying for legislation to allow them to merge their institutions. The Bloc Québécois doggedly opposed bank mergers in Canada, because we figured that dividends that grew every three months were enough for the shareholders, but also in terms of services provided to the public. As I put it to the lobbyists, why merge banks if there is no problem? They said it was to increase their investment power. They wanted to buy big banks, and the example I was given was that of the United States.

History will judge the Bloc Québécois, but one thing is sure: had the major Canadian banks been allowed to merge, as the Liberals and Conservatives wanted them to be at the time, there would have been a high price to pay now for having done so, and Canada would not be among the first countries expected to emerge from this economic recession, quite the contrary. Our ability to come out of the recession is predicated on how major the Canadian banking system is. Moreover, if we, Quebeckers, are so fond of the concept of a banking system focused on serving the public, it is because we have developed the largest banking service cooperative in Canada and North America: the Desjardins Movement. We are proud of that for one simple reason and that is—

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor today so that I can continue the debate on this free trade agreement with Colombia. The Bloc Québécois is opposed to Bill C-23 for a number of reasons. And we are not the only ones who oppose this bill. The whole of Colombian civil society, the unions that are trying to help workers in Colombia and a great many groups in Canadian civil society have also criticized this agreement.

This agreement is premature. Moreover, it does not take into account the serious problems in Colombia, especially with regard to human rights and respect for individuals. Colombia is one of Canada's minor trading partners. Canada exports grain to Colombia, which in turn sends us products that are often hand-made. Where this agreement could be important to Canada is in connection with the extractive industry. Colombia is among the Latin American countries that are very rich in ore. Canadian mining companies that set up there need protection, because these countries are not safe.

It is no secret that Colombia is a country with a great many guerillas. What is more, President Uribe is not known for promoting social justice or upholding human rights. When we first started talking here in this House about this free trade agreement with Colombia, the ambassador of that country sent tonnes of documents to members of Parliament. We received those documents in our offices. We were told that there had been changes, that President Uribe had changed his ways in the past few years and that Colombian law had changed. That is not exactly true.

We recently read a blog by Linda Diebel of the Toronto Star, who accuses the hon. member for Kings—Hants of trying to whitewash the Uribe government by peddling untruths. Diebel scoffs at the member's claim that there are no longer any paramilitaries in Colombia. That is the line we got from various Conservative members who have spoken. It is shameful; these people are prepared to hide the truth to advance their agenda and adopt an agreement that is decried by many in the general public, in the world and in Canadian civil society.

Linda Diebel reminds the hon. member for Kings—Hants that the new death squads that have formed and that the new groups of drug traffickers are just the old paramilitary groups and they still have close ties to the army. According to Diebel, he is wrong to say that the situation of murdered unionists in Colombia is improving. She goes on to say that recent figures show a slight increase.

She roundly condemns this member's campaign to whitewash the Uribe government, which has been condemned by the main human rights groups. This is a president who ignored the actions of the death squads when he was governor of Antioquia.

What does this mean? It means that when our investors, who want to make money, go to such a country, they need protection. The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is not about trade and, I reiterate, is all about investments. Because this agreement contains a chapter on investment protection, it will make the lives of Canadian investors easier, especially for those investing in mining in Colombia.

Judging by all the investment protection agreements Canada has signed over the years, the one that would bind Canada and Colombia seems ill conceived. All these agreements contain clauses that enable foreign investors to sue the local government if it takes measures that reduce the return on their investment. These measures are similar to the NAFTA chapter 11 provisions and are particularly dangerous in a country where labour or environmental protection laws are uncertain at best.

We should remember that, with respect to foreign investment in certain countries such as Colombia, there are few if any rules that protect people against environmental disasters. There are no provisions with respect to child labour or working women, for example, or to protect workers in general. These are countries where a human being is not necessarily valuable and it is up to us, I believe, as a civilized country that recognizes the importance of the human being, the importance of prohibiting child labour, and the importance of ensuring gender equality, to set rules for our entrepreneurs so that they do not disregard human rights and are cognizant of environmental protection, even if the environment is not that of their own country.

I have seen slides, pictures showing, for instance, that the ground in areas where some Canadian extractive companies were mining was so polluted that river water turned pink. This water had become unusable for the local people, who then had to walk miles every day to fetch water. The groundwater has been completely contaminated for decades, perhaps even centuries to come. It should be possible to tell a Canadian mining company that, because it is contributing to water pollution in an area, action will be taken against it. But if the company is penalized somehow and cannot operate, it could sue the government, increasing its chances of being able to continue to not give a damn about the environment and human rights.

That is one of the reasons why we oppose this free trade deal. It provides excessive protection to Canadian extractive companies. It is one thing to protect Quebeckers and Canadians, but this agreement ought to include standards to protect the people and the environment.

There may be a few words about them here and there in the agreement, but that is not enough.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to confirm that we are proceeding with Bill C-23 as we just had a motion dealing it.

The House resumed from October 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately then, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1, I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, second reading stage of Bill C-23 shall not be subject to any further amendments or sub-amendments.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent for the following:

That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the second reading stage of Bill C-23 shall not be subject to any further amendments or sub-amendments.