Bill C-23 (Historical)

Canada–Jordan Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

This enactment implements the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements on the environment and labour cooperation entered into between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and signed at Amman on June 28, 2009.
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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I know that Raymond has a new and improved team with him. It's great. I congratulate him.

We'll now go to our orders of the day, the Jordan legislation, which is Bill C-23. We're planning to do to clause-by-clause on Thursday, but prior to that we want to hear from the witnesses we have before us today.

From the Council of Canadians, we have Garry Neil, the executive director. From the United Steelworkers, we have Mark Rowlinson, a labour lawyer. Thank you both for coming in.

We have had some very interesting testimony on this piece of legislation to this point. We look forward to your presentations. Then we'll follow up with questions and answers. Thank you for being here.

We'll start with you, Mr. Neil. The floor is yours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

There seems to be a bit of a delay, but let's try it and see how you make out.

We want to thank you for coming to the committee and testifying with regard to Bill C-23, the Jordan-Canada free trade agreement.

The floor is yours, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I'd like to call the meeting to order.

We have with us today, in our further study of Bill C-23, the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement, two witnesses in the first hour, and I'd like to introduce them.

From the International Trade Union Confederation, actually from Brussels, Belgium, we have Mr. Jeff Vogt. He is a legal advisor from the Department of Human and Trade Union Rights. Thank you for being with us.

Are we coming through okay?

[His Excellency Basheer Fawwaz Zoubi, Ambassador, Embassy of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan]

Good morning, and thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for inviting me here today. I know I'm the first Jordanian to talk to you about the subject, and I thank you for the invitation. Also allow me to voice my admiration for the comprehensive approach your committee has taken on this subject, which we attach great importance to in Jordan, namely Bill C-23, the Canada-Jordan Economic Growth and Prosperity Act. I shall try within the allocated 10 minutes to shed some light on certain areas that were not covered in the previous sessions.

Jordan is partner to eight free trade agreements, four of which are multilateral regional agreements with regional economic groupings such as the Arab countries and the European Union. We also have economic agreements and arrangements relating to trade, investment, and double taxation with 77 countries, including Canada.

For its part, the Jordan-Canada free trade agreement is a concrete example of Jordan’s striving to support its economy through a viable partnership in international trade while at the same time building on a long history of close ties with a like-minded country. We consider Jordan and Canada to be very close in our positions internationally in other arenas and we see eye to eye on many subjects.

The following are some examples to put to you here today. Jordan is the only Middle Eastern member in the Human Security Network, and our two countries contributed in the development of the International Criminal Court. Jordan was also one of the first countries in the Middle East to sign and ratify the anti-personnel mine ban convention in 1998. By next month, we will be free of all known land mines in Jordan, ending an operation of demining that started in 1993 to clear over 300,000 land mines.

For decades Jordan has been the largest host to Palestinian refugees. Our country of six million people hosts about half a million Iraqis, and with the recent Syrian situation, our records show that over 80,000 Syrians have passed to Jordan through border crossings. Eight per cent of those newcomers are students who have been admitted to Jordanian schools. Canada’s history in positive involvement in refugee issues in the Middle East includes support to UNRWA and having been once the gavel-holder of the committee on refugees during the multilateral peace talks with Israel.

The Honourable Lester Pearson is considered the father of the peacekeeping concept. Since 1989 over 100,000 of our troops have participated in more than 32 United Nations peacekeeping missions. As of November 2011, Jordan is the largest provider of civilian police personnel and fifth-largest provider of military personnel to United Nations peacekeeping, deploying both men and women.

On the humanitarian level, Jordan dispatched eight field hospitals, covering Afghanistan, Gaza, Benghazi, Jenin, Ramallah, Liberia, and Congo. The two hospitals in Afghanistan have treated more than half a million cases since their first deployment in December 2001, and the hospital in Gaza has treated 800,000 cases since 2008.

Two years ago Jordan began sending imams—Muslim clergymen—and combat-trained women into the villages of Afghanistan. Their mission was to preach moderate Islam to Afghan women. His Majesty King Abdullah II said that the people who he thought really hold the power, those who are going to make an impact, are the women, and nobody is talking to them.

Mr. Chairman, His Majesty King Abdullah II paid close attention at a very early stage to the necessity and urgency of political reform while focusing on the concerns and sometimes frustrations of the youth. In 2009, before the Arab Spring, His Majesty presented the Prime Minister of Jordan with a set of reforms to fight corruption, increase transparency, protect the rights of women and children, and remove all obstacles to the development of a free and professional media industry. Such an open, inclusive, and tolerant political sphere determined that the course of reform in Jordan is peaceful, gradual, and evolutionary.

In the past 15 months, Jordan has witnessed more than 100 protests, marches, or sit-ins per week, reaffirming and enhancing the peaceful character of the Jordanian political discourse.

In 2011 His Majesty King Abdullah II initiated the constitutional reforms. The royal committee entrusted with reviewing the Constitution suggested amendments to 42 fundamental articles of the Constitution to ensure the provision of the constitutional foundations that guarantee the balance between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, established for the first time a constitutional court that will safeguard the constitution, and set up an independent electoral monitoring commission, as stipulated by the National Dialogue Committee.

The government is currently completing the legal infrastructure legislation that will ensure the integrity and credibility of the political process, primarily through a political parties law and a representative election law. With endorsement of the new laws, Jordan will have accomplished most of the legislative infrastructure required for an institutional process to ensure that engagement of the grassroots, of political parties and unions, and of Parliament and government lives up to national ambitions and expectations.

It is true that the King of Jordan appoints the Prime Minister, but this appointment has to gain the approval of our elected Parliament with a two-thirds majority in a vote of confidence. The number of political parties in Jordan exceeded 30, yet due to prevailing voting trends in the voters in Jordan, many parties never made it to Parliament. The maximum majority obtained was 6%, which we admit is very low. It follows that His Majesty names an independent personality as a Prime Minister, the approval of whom remains vested in Parliament during a confidence vote. The aim of the new political parties law and the new election law is to further enable political parties to achieve the required majority to form a government.

Mr. Chairman, for political reforms to be incremental, durable, and sustainable, they need to be made in conjunction with economic reforms that develop the economy so as to reflect on the living conditions of Jordanians. Since 1989 Jordan has been committed to economic and fiscal reforms aimed at decreasing the budget deficit, achieving healthy growth rates, limiting unhealthy subsidies, and gradually moving toward a market economy.

The regional upheavals, armed conflicts, increases in energy prices, population movements, and most recently the disruption of the Egyptian gas supply to Jordan—the gas supply that comes from Egypt to Jordan has been bumped 15 times so far since the Arab Spring, and it costs us about $5 million a day for each day that supply is halted—have forced the Jordanian government to intervene in the economy, at a massive cost to the budget, to limit the impact of such upheavals on the living conditions of Jordanians. This has impacted our progress in economic reforms, since Jordan imports 96% of its energy needs.

Solidifying national political and economic reforms and allowing them to progress and flourish require a conducive regional environment. Democratic transition must be combined with peace and security regionally to avoid the risks of radicalization, derailment, or hijacking, hence ensuring that the transition toward the desired reforms will fulfill the aspirations of the public for freedom and prosperity.

Finding a just, lasting, and comprehensive peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and achieving the two-state solution is the utmost priority of Jordan. The Arab-Israeli conflict is the core issue in the Middle East. It has consumed immense energies and rendered development and reform efforts secondary to the efforts of settling the conflict and stabilizing the region. Peace is a prerequisite for stability and development, and these two are essential to democracy and good governance.

Jordan believes a timelined resumed peace process should be launched as soon as possible, with defined terms of reference and a clear end point based on the original terms of reference. Those terms of reference are the United Nations Security Council resolutions 242, 338, and 425 and the “land for peace” formula; the Arab peace initiative of the Beirut Summit; and United Nations Security Council resolution 1397, which is the two-state solution.

Earlier this year Jordan embarked on a diplomatic effort to break the impasse that had befallen the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, and this culminated in exchanges and direct exploratory talks. Those talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis took place in Amman.

These talks were serious, and we hope that they have enabled us to maintain the timetable identified by the quartet in its September 23, 2011, statement under which an agreement on all issues should be reached by the end of 2012, realizing the two-state solution.

I thank you very much.

[Bob Kirke, Executive Director, Canadian Apparel Federation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I would like to thank you for this opportunity to appear before the committee on Bill C-23.

My name is Bob Kirke. I am the executive director of the Canadian Apparel Federation. Our association is made up of hundreds of firms in the apparel industry across Canada, representing every sector and product in the industry.

I would like to provide the committee with some background on the industry concerning trade and other policies that impact our operations and to answer any questions you might have.

I would like to focus my remarks on issues that were raised in the debates in the House both in December and earlier this month. I have summarized them under three headings: one is the potential risks to Canadian employment posed by this deal; the second is the labour situation in Jordan, as was reflected in conversations earlier; and third, what I guess might be called the wisdom of signing an FTA with Jordan.

The retail market for apparel in Canada is about $29 billion. Of this amount, about 75% is now imported, in most cases from developing countries. If we look back, 2001 was a high-water mark for Canadian apparel production and employment in recent times. At that time, the Canadian dollar was at 62 cents to the U.S. dollar and the industry had approximately 100,000 employees. After 2001, employment began to decline as the dollar appreciated. This was accelerated with unilateral Canadian tariff concessions to least developed countries or LDCs in 2003 and the ending of import quotas in 2005.

It's not just the source of apparel destined for the market that changed, but the prices in the market declined on a continual basis over the last decade. With 2002 as the base year, the consumer price index shows that prices for clothing have declined by 10% over the last decade, even as other commodities have increased in price between 10% and 40%. Clothing is the only category in which prices have declined over the period. The actual price for clothing in the market has gone down.

I'm just going to go briefly to the impact on domestic employment. I understand that many members would be concerned about granting tariff-free access to the Canadian market to low-cost producers from developing countries such as Jordan. At the same time it's important to understand that the Canadian government has granted tariff-free access to our market to many developing countries—the LDCs that I just spoke of. These undertakings have led to the restructuring of the domestic manufacturing industry. Manufacturing employment is a fraction of what it was a decade ago, both in apparel and in textiles. In many respects these changes are impossible to reverse.

Tariff-free access to the Canadian market granted to least-developed countries in 2003 led to a massive increase in duty-free apparel entering Canada from countries such as Bangladesh, Lesotho, and Madagascar. As an example, last year Bangladesh exported more than $950 million in apparel to Canada, fifty times as much as Jordan does.

Establishing a free trade agreement in Jordan will have virtually no impact on this situation. It will divert production from other developed countries, but it will have no measurable impact on domestic employment in the apparel industry—or the textile industry, for that matter.

In granting the concessions to LDCs, Canada receives no reciprocal benefits. These countries offered no preferential access to their markets for Canadian goods. By contrast, an FTA wherein we can generate export opportunities for some industries—I think of the industries sitting here beside me—seems far preferable as a trade policy.

I would add that some Canadian firms that are or would be producing in Jordan would welcome the agreement, because it would allow them to source duty-free for both the U.S. and Canadian markets from the same source. Jordan has an established trading relationship with the U.S., as was mentioned in the earlier meeting, both under its qualifying industrial zones program, which preceded the U.S.-Jordan FTA, and the FTA.

In terms of labour conditions, during the debates on the floor and just previously in this meeting a number of concerns were raised about the labour standards in Jordanian factories. I encourage the committee to speak directly to firms with operations in the country. Yesterday I referred to the clerk the name of one company that would love to testify. They have been mentioned on the floor of the House in regard to the labour conditions at their factory, a factory that has subsequently been recertified and is working with the ILO.

This is a good example of exactly what happens in the country. I'm confident that these companies whose operations were the subject of comments from members of Parliament would be more than happy to address this committee, if asked.

I was glad to see that there were comments directly about the ILO program in Jordan, the “better work” program. My comments in regard to the labour situation reflect the comments in that report. In general terms—and I just want to repeat—on all measures that it measures, labour standards and the conditions on the ground in Jordan are improving.

Work is being done in Jordan to improve and reinforce labour practices. These efforts are far more substantial than one finds in virtually any other developing country, many of which have been granted duty-free access to the Canadian market.

To repeat, we have given duty-free access to our market to over 40 least-developed countries, many of which have apparel industries that are fundamentally the same as what we find in Jordan. The only difference is that, with one exception, none of these countries have established an internationally supported program to improve labour standards under a credible institution such as the ILO, as is found in Jordan.

I urge you to consider the real progress being made to improve compliance and create an infrastructure in Jordan to provide for continued improvement.

My final comments relate to what has been referred to as the wisdom, if you will, of entering into a free trade agreement with Jordan. As my comments will attest, a free trade agreement with Jordan will not have a major impact on the apparel industry in Canada. In addition, the labour conditions in Jordan are better, and they are subject to greater scrutiny than many of the other countries that currently enjoy duty-free access to our market.

I believe there are positives in the Jordan FTA. While the argument might be made that we need to negotiate free trade agreements with more significant partners, I don't think that precludes signing this agreement with Jordan.

If members of this committee wish to understand our industry's priorities, I would echo the comments made earlier. Our position would be that this committee should urge the government to move forward on our free trade agreements, especially with the European Union.

In reality, we are not cost-competitive on high-volume moderately priced goods, with very few exceptions. At the same time, numerous firms in Canada, such as Canada Goose, have demonstrated that there are opportunities for domestic manufacturers if they focus on high quality and move up the value chain to higher-end products. Free trade with Europe offers real export potential for these types of firms.

Setting aside anything else, I believe it's important to say we have negotiated an agreement with another sovereign country and it has already taken nearly three years to get this bill to this stage. I think longer delays actually harm our reputation.

With that, I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to address you, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[Andrew Casey, Vice-President, Public Affairs and International Trade, Forest Products Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a real pleasure to be here today to testify on Bill C-23.

Thank you very much, on behalf of the Forest Products Association of Canada. We're the national trade association that represents Canada's lumber, pulp, and paper producers across the country. It's an industry that directly employs more than 240,000 Canadians and it's the economic lifeblood of more than 200 communities from coast to coast.

All parliamentarians are very familiar with the economic challenges this industry has faced over the past couple of years: the rapid rise in the Canadian dollar, the U.S. housing market and their economy more broadly, the troubles in Europe, and the changing demographic in terms of readership and the use of paper as everybody moves to electronic devices. All have presented what we've commonly called the perfect storm. Some might argue, in fact, that it's a changed climate for the industry.

The upshot of this—and parliamentarians, of course, are no stranger to this—is that we've been forced to close nearly 200 mills across the country and have lost nearly 100,000 jobs across the country. That has had a devastating impact on regions and certainly on a significant number of communities across the country. As I said, parliamentarians are very well aware of this, as many of you have had a number of communities in your ridings strongly impacted by what is happened in the industry.

I'm not here to say that the industry has rounded the corner and that everything looks bright and rosy, but I can say that the industry has not stood idly by as it has been challenged. It has been reinventing itself, transforming itself, moving aggressively into the bio-economy through bio-products, bio-chemicals, and bio-energy.

That represents a significant part of where this industry is going. But we can't lose sight of the fact that we still need our core products to be strong; that is, the lumber, pulp, and paper products. They need to continue to be a major part of our economic model going forward. Without them, the move to the bio-economy will not happen.

An important part of ensuring that we have a strong core for our industry is our trade markets. Our industry produces about $56 billion worth of product each year. Nearly half of it is exported. Obviously a lion's share of it goes to the U.S. marketplace, but another large chunk of it goes to other markets around the world, Europe and Asia being the primary other markets. In fact, we're the single largest exporter to both India and China.

This leads to the question why we would be here in support of Bill C-23 for Jordan. Jordan represents a market of about $20 million for our products. When you look at that in the grand scheme of things, in an industry that exports more than $24 billion worth of products, $20 million doesn't really represent a large market share.

The fact is that the Jordanian market is growing. It represents a market of nearly $400 million per year in forest products; that's what they're importing. They're getting a lot of their lumber and paper products from other countries with whom we compete. We'd like to have a bigger part of that market share. Having a deal such as this allows us to secure that marketplace and drop some tariffs on certain products. Certainly on the lumber side and on the paper side it drops some significant tariffs.

If I might use this as an example, what we found in previous deals, when we looked at the big deals such as those with India and China, is that we became excited about them, and for good reason. Those are large marketplaces that represent large potential for the industry. When you look at smaller markets, what we have found in cases such as the Jordanian deal is that it represents a very important marketplace for one mill. It's similar to what Kathleen just outlined for her membership. When we dive into these marketplaces, we find that one mill or one particular region is where that product is coming from, and so it represents a very important opportunity.

I'll give you an example. We have a product that comes out of a joint venture between Canfor Pulp, out of Prince George, British Columbia, and Tolko, out of The Pas, Manitoba. They sell cement bags to Egypt. It's a similar deal. They're competing against European producers of that product. The European producers are benefiting from a low tariff rate—in fact, 7% less than what the Canadian producers are benefiting from. This represents $35 million to the joint venture, Premium 1 Papers, in Canada and represents about 500 jobs in Canada. They are losing market share to the Europeans because we don't have competitive access to that marketplace.

In a similar vein, we're looking at marketplaces such as Jordan as a way of ensuring that we can grow and diversify our marketplaces to lessen our dependence on the U.S. marketplace and provide long-term jobs for certain parts of the country.

I'll leave it at that and I'll be happy to take questions once we've gotten through the panel.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Marvin Hildebrand, Director General, Trade Negotiations Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to the committee about the Canada–Jordan Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, which implements the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement and the related agreements on the environment and labour cooperation.

As you may know, I was Canada's chief negotiator for these negotiations, and today I'll highlight briefly Canada's trade negotiations agenda more generally. We'll note some key benefits of the Canada-Jordan FTA, as well as discuss generally Canada's relationship with Jordan.

Mr. Chairman, permit me at the beginning of my remarks to introduce my colleagues joining me at the table here today. To my left is Ton Zuijdwijk, general counsel with Foreign Affairs and International Trade. To my right is Pierre Bouchard, director of bilateral and regional labour affairs, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. Also joining me is Denis Landreville, lead negotiator, trade negotiations division, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. To my far right is Barbara Martin, director general, Middle East and Maghreb bureau at Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Following my remarks, we will be available to respond to your questions.

First of all, let's talk about the government's pro-trade plan.

Consistent with government priorities as set out in the Speech from the Throne and the Global Commerce Strategy, the government is pursuing a robust pro-trade plan, which is an essential contributor to Canada's future prosperity, productivity and growth.

A key component of the government's strategy is the ambitious pursuit of regional and bilateral free trade agreements.

As highlighted in both the Speech from the Throne as well as Budget 2011, free trade agreements open doors for Canadian businesses by providing improved market access and other preferences to an increasing number of foreign markets, which in turn helps to make Canada stronger in an increasingly competitive global economy.

To this end, we are conducting free trade negotiations with two major global economic powers, the European Union and India. Trade negotiations are also already underway with a number of smaller partners, including Ukraine, Morocco and the Caribbean Community, CARICOM.

Canada is also exploring opportunities to deepen trade and economic cooperation with other major economic partners, including Japan, China, the nine-member Trans-Pacific Partnership and MERCOSUR—Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay.

To date, Canada has implemented free trade agreements with 11 countries, including with our North American Free Trade Agreement partners, Mexico and the United States; Israel; Chile; Costa Rica; Peru; Columbia; and the member states of the European Free Trade Association—Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

In August 2011, Canada concluded a free trade agreement with Honduras, which is currently ongoing detailed legal review. Implementing legislation for our Agreement with Panama was tabled in Parliament in mid-November 2011, at the same time as Bill C-23.

Regarding the Canada–Jordan free trade agreement, in particular, we still face a measure of global economic uncertainty, Mr. Chairman. In a growing number of countries, Canadian companies are at a competitive disadvantage because their foreign competitors have preferential market access under some form of free trade agreement. The Canada–Jordan free trade agreement addresses these concerns by levelling the playing field with key competitors in the Jordanian market, namely those from the United States and the European Union.

Over the years, Canada and Jordan have built a strong, mutually beneficial relationship. Despite a small decline in our bilateral trade with Jordan in 2009 with the impact of the global economic slowdown, Canada's 2011 merchandise exports of $70 million were more than double the $31 million total in 2003. This free trade agreement provides an opportunity to further enhance this growing relationship.

Jordan's current average applied tariff is 10%, with peaks up to 30% on some products of Canadian export interest, such as certain forest products and articles of machinery. Upon implementation, this agreement will eliminate Jordanian tariffs on the vast majority of current Canadian exports to Jordan, with remaining tariffs phased out over three to five years. There are only a small number of exclusions in the areas of tobacco, alcohol, and some poultry products.

This agreement provides Canadian companies with benefits in a variety of sectors, including agriculture and agrifood, with products such as pulses, frozen potato products, beef, animal feeds, and various prepared foods. Forest products such as paper and wood building products, industrial and electrical machinery, construction equipment, and vehicles and parts are also included.

The Canada–Jordan free trade agreement's focus is primarily goods market access. The context is that our services interests via-à-vis Jordan are being adequately addressed in the World Trade Organization. Canada's investment-related interests are addressed in the Canada–Jordan foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, which was signed at the same time as the free trade agreement and implemented in December 2009.

As Canada's first-ever free trade agreement with an Arab country, the Canada–Jordan free trade agreement will not only help improve market access to Jordan's growing market, but will also provide a platform for expanding commercial ties and raising Canada's profile in the broader Middle East. This FTA will also benefit Jordan, ensuring access to Canadian products at more competitive rates and increasing access to the Canadian market for Jordanian goods.

In fact, Mr. Chair, upon the coming into force of this agreement, Canada will eliminate all tariffs on Jordanian exports to Canada, with the exception of over-quota supply-managed dairy, poultry, and eggs, which are excluded from tariff reduction.

The Canada–Jordan FTA is not about goods market access alone, however. The agreement also contains principle-based chapters on the environment and on labour cooperation, and high-quality side agreements with strong binding obligations, which were negotiated in parallel with the free trade agreement.

The Canada–Jordan FTA is a concrete demonstration of Canada's commitment to enhancing regional peace and security by helping to improve economic conditions in the region.

This agreement also shows Canada's support for Jordan as a moderate Arab state that promotes peace and security in the Middle East, as well as Canada's support for the commitment of His Majesty King Abdullah II and his government to implement comprehensive political and economic reforms in Jordan. Such reforms include measures to enhance accountability and political participation, as well as economic measures to liberalize the Jordanian market and provide support for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Regarding the next steps, Jordan has already notified Canada that it has completed all of its internal steps to allow the agreements to come into force. Should Parliament elect to pass this implementing legislation, officials will then work with their Jordanian counterparts to bring the Free Trade Agreement and the related Agreements on the Environment and Labour Cooperation into force on a neutrally agreed-to date as soon as possible.

Mr. Chair, this concludes my presentation. We would be happy to respond to questions the committee may have on the Canada–Jordan Economic Growth and Prosperity Act.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I will call the meeting to order.

We are about embark on the free trade agreement between Canada and Jordan. This is Bill C-23. It has cleared the House and we'll be seized with this, as we move, until we complete it as a committee.

Just before we get into that, though, there are a couple of little things.

First of all, at our last meeting we talked about a reception with the business delegation from India. That will take place. This is good news: it will not be paid for by the committee. There will be a reception on the evening of Wednesday the 14th after votes, at six o'clock at the convention centre. There will be notification going out for all the committee members to meet the delegation there. That will work out very well.

The other thing is that we need to pass a budget for this Bill C-23 piece of legislation we're embarking on. So I'd entertain a motion very quickly to clear that out of the way.

Mr. Holder moves it.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Look at that. Who says committees don't get along?

We have with us today, from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Marvin Hildebrand, director general, trade negotiation bureau.

I believe, Mr. Hildebrand, you are going to be presenting. You may want to introduce the people you have with you from the department. We are excited about this piece of legislation, and in the previous government it got to third reading. This time our goal is to get it much further than that, and into implementation. With that, the floor is yours. You may proceed.

The House resumed from March 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Canada-Jordan Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the member listened carefully to my speech, that is exactly what I said. The Conservatives’ approach consists of signing nothing but bilateral trade agreements. So the Doha round and all the multilateral agreements under way at the WTO have been put on ice.

I have had the opportunity to visit Geneva myself on several occasions. I am the critic for a number of other subjects, but I was and am the Bloc Québécois critic for agriculture and agri-food. In that case, it was crucial for us to support multilateral agreements. It is to the benefit of the developing countries and to everyone’s benefit, except that is not this government’s approach.

That said, this government regularly presents us with bilateral free trade agreements. We have to look at them in light of what is presented to us, what they mean, both for our economy in Quebec and for the Canadian economy, and also for the countries signing this type of free trade agreement.

If I am told that we are going to sign a free trade agreement with a country like Colombia, but Colombia is going to ratify international agreements about environmental rights, workers’ rights and trade union rights and is going to make sure that children are not going out to work, then plainly that is a positive thing, and for Colombia as well. However, that is unfortunately not the case.

So yes, we support multilateral agreements, but that does not mean that we have to oppose all bilateral agreements. Some are good, both for Quebec and for Canada, and for the country the agreements are being signed with. The agreement we are talking about now, with Bill C-23, falls into that category.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when things heat up, I am always happy to step in. I intend to calm the waters. I am not saying that my speech will be boring; I am sure it will not be. As the hon. member for Bourassa knows very well, and as he has just said, we in the Bloc Québécois always have interesting things to say, particularly when it comes to free trade agreements.

It is my pleasure to rise on this issue, particularly because with all the time allocation motions the Conservative government has imposed on us recently—and I certainly do not want to put ideas in their heads for the bills that are currently before the House—our turn does not come quickly or often.

So I am going to take full advantage of it to talk about the Conservative government’s free trade policy since it came to power and more specifically about Bill C-23, the free trade agreement between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. I had the opportunity to address this issue several times in previous Parliaments. The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill. Canada has already signed a free trade agreement with Israel. We are familiar with the unique sensitivity of that region and the conflicts that go on there. The message to be sent would be positive, in fact: it would be about signing a free trade agreement with a country like Jordan.

Obviously, if you look at things through Quebec’s eyes, you can understand the reason why we support this bill. Obviously, we will always weigh all the factors to determine whether this free trade agreement is good or bad for the Quebec economy. We are not opposed to all free trade agreements, nor are we in favour of all such agreements. Obviously, the pros and cons have to be weighed in relation to the Quebec economy.

In the case of Jordan, we are not going to argue that this is going to be an extremely fruitful free trade agreement, but it may be worthwhile, particularly for the agricultural sector. There is not a lot of water in Jordan; not a lot of crops are grown or livestock raised. So this is a door that may be worthwhile for the agricultural sector. I will offer some statistics in a moment about our trade with that country. They will prove that it is not enormous at the moment, but every door that is opened in this respect may be worthwhile.

Lumber might also be a worthwhile avenue for Quebec; certainly pulp and paper would be. This affects me specifically, as does agriculture, because companies like Cascades and Domtar are well established in my riding. These are possibilities for the pulp and paper industry, the Quebec industry that already exports the most to Jordan, in fact.

I have statistics dating from 2008. I have not found any that are more recent. At that time, trade between Canada and Jordan totalled $92 million, which is a long way from the numbers we are currently hearing in relation to the free trade agreement being negotiated with the European Union. Of that $92 million, $35 million came from Quebec and $25 million came from the pulp and paper industry. So that is why I was saying that this avenue was worth exploring. In fact, Quebec is the Canadian province that has the most trade with Jordan: 45% of current trade originates in Quebec. As I said, Canadian exports total $92 million, and that will undoubtedly improve somewhat, thanks to this free trade agreement. So we can conclude that it will also improve for Quebec.

Reports suggest that Jordan is currently in the process of modernizing its government and economy. It is a country where education is very important. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, promoting trade with this country could send a clear message of support to other Middle Eastern countries in this regard. As I was also saying, Canada has already signed a free trade agreement with Jordan's neighbour, Israel. By signing this agreement with Jordan, Canada would demonstrate a degree of balance in our interests in that part of the world, given the strained political relationship between Israel and the rest of the Middle East, including Jordan.

What currently concerns us about the Conservative's approach to these free trade agreements is that they have chosen to sign bilateral agreements. Everything we are hearing right now about the development of international trade involves opportunities for bilateral free trade agreements. They recently signed such agreements with Colombia and Panama. They are holding discussions with the European Union, which is not, of course, one country.

The Conservatives have basically abandoned the Doha round. All multilateral agreements have been put on hold and other free trade agreements are being discussed, including a very significant one with China.

This is obviously a problem for us because this approach is much less effective than a multilateral approach for the development of fairer trade that respects the interests of all nations. For example, in the Doha round, developing countries placed considerable hope on a multilateral agreement. However, the richest countries in the world are not listening at all and are not interested in changing things, which means that multilateral free trade agreements are constantly being blocked. Canada is clearly not helping this cause.

We want to see a change in trade priorities. Canada should now shift its focus from trade liberalization to creating a more level playing field. The Bloc Québécois believes that our trade policy must focus on fair globalization, not just on the pursuit of profit at the expense of people and the environment. We want the new free trade agreements to include enforceable provisions that require respect for minimum standards related to human rights, labour laws and respect for the environment.

Some will say that such is not the case with all bilateral free trade agreements. Of course, we had evidence of that this week when we again discussed the free trade agreement between Canada and Panama. Panama is a tax haven. How can we accept, in 2012, that a country like Canada would enter into a free trade agreement with a country where it is still possible for banks and big companies to take advantage of tax havens? Moreover, in Canada, there is still nothing in place to prevent such practices. There are some provisions, but they contain loopholes that make such practices still possible. What message are we sending to big companies, banks and not exactly right-thinking people—not right-wingers—who see that Canada has decided to enter into a free trade agreement with Panama? The message is obviously to step right up: the door is open and tax havens are ready for business.

We cannot agree to this kind of free trade agreement. Another quite recent free trade agreement was the one with Columbia, a country where human rights are violated, journalists are murdered or imprisoned, and unions are completely banned.

I cannot understand why free trade agreements are still being entered into with these nations in the belief that the situation in these countries is going to improve, perhaps magically, as a result of signing a trade agreement. Rather, we are sending the opposite message: that it is not a problem; that in these countries abuses of power are okay; that the people in these countries can be treated in ways we would not do here, in our country, to our people. These countries are given the impression that our concerns are not serious because we will trade with them regardless, and everything will be fine and dandy. That approach is not at all credible. That is why multilateral agreements fundamentally improve the situation.

In their current form, side agreements that deal with minimal labour and environmental protection standards lack a binding mechanism that would make them truly effective. That is what we want to see in future free trade agreements.

In order to be credible on this issue, there must be swift compliance with the major conventions of the International Labour Organization against discrimination, forced labour, which still exists in countries with which we trade, child labour, which unfortunately still exist today, and also conventions regarding the rights of union associations and free negotiation.

That being the case, all the free trade agreements need to be reviewed to ensure that we are dealing with countries that are, at the very least, on the right track, countries that are prepared to make the changes needed to be able to trade. I have always thought that, before approving a free trade agreement like the one we are planning to sign with China, we should put our cards on the table and be satisfied that such countries will comply with our minimum standards, that there are no children working and no union leaders in prison, and that sound environmental practices are being followed.

I am not sure that in the early stages of discussions with China we will succeed in having that country adopt basic environmental standards. Take agriculture, for example. When products are imported from China, we do not know how they were grown, or what water and pesticides have been used. Even today, products enter Canada even though in some instances their quality is clearly dubious. There have been scandals. There was the scandal in China over melamine in milk. There were scandals over toys in which the concentration of lead was much too high. It is therefore important to ensure that changes have been made before any bilateral agreements are signed with countries like China.

For some years now, Jordan has been demonstrating that it can conduct trade operations in a manner that Quebec finds acceptable. Jordan can be trusted and trade relations with that country would be beneficial to both parties. The figures I gave just now make it clear that these free trade agreements are not on the same scale as the one that is currently being negotiated with the European Union.

There is another way the government negotiates free trade agreements that is open to serious criticism. For the free trade agreement with the European Union, the issue of supply management was left on the table for the first time. Historically, all governments and parties have always excluded supply management for our farmers—poultry, milk and egg producers, an approach that has been very beneficial for both producers and consumers. We have always excluded supply management so that countries could not interfere with our tariffs and try to sell more products to us. Unfortunately, with the European Union, we left the supply management system on the table. This is extremely worrisome, even though the Conservatives are telling us not to worry about it, and that they will comply with the motion I moved and sponsored in 2005 to tie the hands of Canadian negotiators with respect to international supply management.

The fact remains that there is no transparency in the discussions between the European Union and Canada, nor in any free trade agreement. The time has come for Parliament to do what other countries do, so that the details of these agreements can be discussed while negotiations are underway, in order to remain informed about the substance of the discussions and be able to comment on the nuts and bolts of free trade agreements.

As for Canada and the European Union, we have no idea whether there have been discussions on supply management. We can sometimes learn things from leaks—for example that the French would like to send us more cheese. If the French sent us more cheese, Quebec, which is a major producer of cheese, might suffer the consequences. It is essential to remain extremely cautious.

I have been speaking about agriculture, but the same arguments hold for Quebec culture. It is important to pay careful attention with this kind of free trade agreement. Although transparency is the norm today, it is unfortunately not the case with the Conservative government.

The bilateral agreement approach is not the right one. When we are presented with bills like the one we are discussing today, Bill C-23 between Canada and Jordan, they have to be treated on a case-by-case basis. This particular bill needs to be examined in light of what is stated in the free trade agreement. Frankly, it is impossible to say that it is not a good agreement. We will therefore agree to vote in favour of it.

A small word of warning about water exports. I spoke about them in one of my speeches during the previous Parliament. I know that in the bill to implement the agreement between Canada and Jordan the issue of water, whether in liquid or gaseous form, is excluded, but this is not explicit in the free trade agreement itself.

Perhaps the negotiators could take note of this information; it could also be discussed in committee. Just now, I was speaking about the possibilities of agricultural trade. One of the reasons Jordan does not grow many crops is that it does not have a lot of water. It would be highly undesirable, for any current or future agreements, if we were to begin to think we could use water—particularly water from Quebec, which is very well endowed in this respect—to encourage other countries to import a lot of water. Our view is that trade in water should be completely excluded. Hence it would perhaps be a good idea not only to specify this prohibition in the implementing legislation, but to do the same in the agreement itself.

In spite of everything, it is possible to have productive dealings with Jordan for all those reasons. As I was saying earlier, in that part of the world, it is important as a symbol to show that we are open to trade not only with Israel, but also with other countries such as Jordan. It is a good example to hold up. Because we know that, at the moment, the Conservative government tends to have blinkers on and to take the side of one country only—not to mention any names, but it is Israel. This message that we are sending seems to me to be much more a message of openness, and the result will be that everyone will benefit.

In terms of future agreements, we must also make sure that we do not negotiate free trade agreements blindly, with no regard for human, environmental and labour rights. If we do, we will end up with free trade agreements like the one with Colombia. I can hardly wait to see if there will be any improvements because of that free trade agreement. I am sure there will not be, because we are sending the opposite message.

We are telling them to carry on, that there will be no problem, that they are going to make money and do business without anyone even rapping them on the knuckles or warning them that there will be no trade until they have improved their situation. That is a bad example. There are good examples, such as when it is possible to trade with countries that have good intentions, though they may not necessarily be at the level of Canada or Quebec. In that context, Jordan is a really interesting case.

From Quebec's point of view, looked at through our eyes, we do not have the luxury of saying no to all attempts at free trade, given all the small and medium-size businesses we have everywhere. I call on all Quebec members to bring themselves to accept that we can negotiate free trade agreements with certain countries. This is one of them. Panama is not a good example, and neither is Colombia. But in this case, given the figures, while there is not necessarily any money to be made, there is an interesting opportunity certainly for agriculture and forestry, both of which need opportunities badly, and why not also for pulp and paper, as I mentioned.

Perhaps I am being a little self-serving in this because, in my constituency, it will be very attractive for companies like Cascades and Domtar. We also have Kruger in the area. The opening of these opportunities is the reason that the Bloc Québécois has decided to support the principle of this bill.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, the new Bill C-23 on free trade between Jordan and Canada gives us an opportunity to consider the nature of such an agreement. A free trade agreement means opening doors. Canada is opening its door to Jordan, and Jordan is opening its door to Canada. But what is going to come in? That is a fundamental question. Our cultures are different in terms of human rights, labour law and environmental law. Is it possible to harmonize these two countries? Well, that is the entire question, and the entire problem.

We hope that this agreement will bring progress to Jordan in terms of human rights, environmental law and economic law, but that is not a foregone conclusion. At first blush, the problems are significant. When it comes to labour law, in some areas Jordan looks more like the Middle Ages than like a modern country.

Our steelworker colleagues have told us that on one visit they observed abuses in relation to migrant workers, there being many of them in the textile industry and in home support work. First, those workers very often have their passports taken away from them when they enter the country. They are required to work at a hellish pace, more than 90 hours a week. Very often, their wages are not paid or it is difficult for them to get their pay. When it comes to housing and nutrition, the least that can be said is that they are deficient. They live in cramped, dirty apartments or dormitories. Their food is nothing special; it is low in both calories and vitamins.

Working conditions like this are unacceptable, particularly when we will be competing with that country economically. Our entrepreneurs, who pay wages and make sure that our country’s social and humanitarian laws are obeyed with respect to all workers in Canada, will be facing competitors who have no such concerns and spend as little as possible on their workforce. This agreement, which might well be copied in numerous Middle Eastern countries, must not send our entrepreneurs into bankruptcy and Canadians into unemployment. This is a fairly basic question for the political representatives of the Canadian people. We want a trade agreement that benefits both countries and that is not going to lead to a reduction in Canadians’ economic and social rights.

That is not the only problem, although we have seen some encouraging initiatives. Jordan has taken some important steps. To begin with, there was a reform of the labour laws, which recognize the right to organize, the right to unionize, the right to speak and the right to negotiate collective agreements. These are important steps that must be considered. Jordan has also banned human trafficking. This is an important step in a country where recruiting people from Sri Lanka, the Philippines and India to work in Jordan was a flourishing industry. These foreigners were recruited and, once in Jordan, not paid. Jordan now wants to put an end to this practice.

Jordan has also criminalized forced labour in its labour code. Forgive me for saying this, but it is some ways an acknowledgment of the existence of slavery. Forced labour includes compelling someone to work for an unreasonable number of hours. Jordan criminalized this practice in its criminal code. It is prohibited. In 2011, Jordan harmonized its relations with the International Labour Office and the International Labour Organization. These are very important steps and that is why we are not opposed to this agreement, however we do want to review it.

These are positive steps. If Jordan has taken a step towards integration with the global marketplace then, for goodness sake, why not? This is very encouraging. Seeing Jordan pass laws, however, is one thing, but making sure they are enforced is quite another. This is important and must be verified. We recommend, therefore, that this bill proceed to second reading, where it can be more closely considered, and where we can determine whether the promises made have been kept. This is to be expected.

We will keep a very open mind as we consider this bill in committee. We will review what Jordan has done. Having said that, we will be exceedingly inquisitive and prudent, and we will not take any statements as gospel truth. We will make sure that there has been progress, that these laws have brought about true change, and that domestic workers are no longer slaves, let alone sex slaves, as is sometimes the case. We will demand to see the change.

There is also the matter of the environment. Before the Conservative government came into power, Canada was truly determined to combat pollution and provide a safe environment for Canadians and workers. The guarantee was made that the workplace was not deadly. It was guaranteed that any environmental emissions would not be dangerous in both the short and long-term, for Canadians now and in the future. These are basic things. There are no illegal dumping grounds in Canada; there is no chemical soup in our waters. We will not tolerate having our environment sullied and our access to clean water jeopardized. All that seems quite basic and yet, when it comes to clean water, there are some shortcomings, particularly on first nations reserves. It is quite disturbing for a country like Canada, but it would appear that we have the willingness to change. I shall take that into account and hope that things do indeed change.

What is the situation in Jordan? The rules in this regard are not clear. It is simply indicated that neither of the two countries has the right to suppress the basic environmental rules. But does Jordan already comply with the basic minimum rules? Can Jordan be compared in this regard to Canada? All the indications are that it cannot. That means this constitutes an invitation to all the polluting industries of Canada to relocate to Jordan, where they will not have to make expensive investments to conform to Canadian standards, and where they will not have to pay the workforce as well as they do in Canada. This is an important question.

In certain countries, people have said that asbestos was safe if worked properly under acceptable health conditions. It seems that this is the case in Canada. However, we know that in countries to which we export asbestos, this is absolutely not the case. This question is relevant and deserves to be verified. We do not want to encourage a country to become a dump for the whole world because it has an agreement with Canada. That would be neither acceptable nor tolerable. Our public image all across Canada depends on this, as do our ethical standards as a community. Do we want to develop an economic and political culture in which profit prevails over respect?

In short, we shall certainly not sign a blank cheque. There are more problems in the area of economic rights. Expropriation is prohibited. Do we have the right not to be expropriated when we invest in a country? I am sorry, but no. To promote the economic rights of its citizens, a country may legitimately consider it necessary to expropriate a private enterprise, even if that enterprise is a foreign company from a country with which a free trade agreement is in place. An expropriation can be carried out for medical, economic development, educational or a multitude of other reasons within the context of a democratic government.

Expropriation does not mean theft. It is simply the forced purchase of a company which is regarded as essential to the country. This is a country’s sovereign economic right. It appears however that there is an intention to place a limit on this agreement. That limit is likely to affect Jordan more than Canada, for there are a great many Canadian multinational mining and manufacturing companies. There are few Jordanian companies liable to invest in Canada in key sectors of our economy. If that should happen, however, I do not see why Canada should require a barrier of this nature. Yes, a sovereign country, any sovereign country, has the right to protect the economic rights of its citizens by effecting an expropriation. Hydro-Québec was born of an expropriation; so was Ontario Hydro. Petro-Canada was established through expropriations. We are not complaining about this.

There is also the issue of repatriating profits, which can be a bone of contention. Repatriating profits, if they are excessive, could put a country in a difficult situation, leading to a deficit on balance of payments and a lack of investment. In Canada, we are currently experiencing what is known as Dutch disease. Our dollar is going up because of massive natural resource exports, especially in the energy sector. At the same time, we are experiencing a major deficit on our balance of payments. That is what is known as Dutch disease. And it comes on top of a loss of our industry.

A sovereign country can choose to tackle this problem by restricting the repatriation of profits through legislation that requires the profits to be partially or fully reinvested. It is not illegal for a country to want to make sure that its economic partner guarantees a financial return. A sovereign country does not need to limit its powers in a free trade agreement. The free trade agreement has to bring wealth to both countries. In the present situation, that does not seem to be the case. We are eroding the powers of a state in favour of private enterprise and capital. We are forgetting that we were elected by our constituents to defend them, not to sell or give up on their rights. We will have to think carefully before we pass this type of legislation.

We keep seeing the same types of problems. We negotiate agreements with small countries without asking any questions about the very nature of the rights in place in those countries. Panama is the perfect example. Some say that it is a problem because it is a tax haven. No, Panama is not a tax haven, it is a tax dump. Every drug trafficker goes through Panama. That is no recommendation. Will we be able to guarantee that there will be an end to those practices? No, and that is a problem. Now we have exactly the same type of problem. We are not saying no to what is unacceptable. We know about it and we put up with it.

In what has been proposed, the agreement is lacking when it comes to corrective measures. In an agreement between two countries, it is important to document what might cause problems and the action we will take to resolve those problems. There are major shortcomings in that respect as well, and we would like to put an end to them. In discussions in committee, we would like to hear opinions and proposals so that we can amend an agreement that is questionable at the moment. That does not mean that we are dismissing any possibility of an agreement with the Middle East, far from it. We appreciate it when a country agrees to negotiate agreements with us that may be highly profitable, that may lead to an increase in imports and exports and, especially, that may help a country improve its legislation.

It seems that Jordan would really like to become a country that is not at the low end when it comes to human rights, that is not a dumping ground for corporate polluters. It does not want to be a country where domestic work is almost associated with prostitution. We realize this. We are quite pleased to see the direction being taken by the Jordanian people and government. If it is true, this direction deserves to be encouraged. If this is the case, we will negotiate as equals with a country that has given us satisfactory guarantees with respect to basic human rights.

We will need to consider plenty of other factors, in addition to economic, labour and environmental rights, including religious rights and issues relating to family and matrimonial law. How are we going to align these agreements? All of that will be an essential part of the committee's discussions.

It is because of this very possibility of discussing these factors that we are going to support this bill on the trade agreement between Canada and Jordan at second reading.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will pick up where I left off a few weeks ago. I talked about the value of signing bilateral free trade agreements with countries around the world. That consideration is all the more relevant when we have very limited trade relations with the country in question, as is the case with Jordan.

On Monday, in my speech on the free trade agreement with Panama bill, I pointed out that trade between Panama and Canada represented an insignificant fraction of Canada's total trade with the rest of the world. We have to ask ourselves whether associating ourselves with Panama is worth risking Canada's international reputation. We could ask ourselves the same question about Jordan.

I should mention that, in 2009, total trade between Jordan and Canada amounted to barely $86 million. As with Panama, trade between Jordan and Canada is growing quickly without a free trade agreement in place.

I would like to go back to the first part of the speech I made about Jordan. We have examples of high-achieving countries around the world. I spoke about China and Brazil. They are increasing their international trade enormously without signing free trade agreements. However, these countries are very active through other means. They are using much more powerful and much more worthwhile means to increase their foreign trade and support their economy.

It is very important to take that into consideration. Because the way I see it, signing free trade agreements in such a disorganized way, without reviewing them beforehand, without determining whether or not they are small in scope, raises many more religious issues or, at the very least, the question of a basic belief that is not supported by fact—let us think of progress that we could measure and that would enable us to provide benefits to all Canadians.

This is a governmental approach that I find very worrisome. We can even wonder about the possible interpretation: as I said on Monday, is the government not sort of running away to avoid facing growing domestic problems?

I am the critic for small business and tourism. I can see that, currently in the Canadian economy, we are having problems supporting start-up companies. Entrepreneurship is seriously lacking, and the government is not taking care of that. But what the government is doing is overloading officials assigned to reviewing and implementing free trade agreements by increasing the number of superficial, artificial agreements that do not meet the needs of Canadians as a whole, for peanuts, for insignificant things that will, however, have a significant impact.

I would like to point out to the House that, if Bill C-23 is approved, Canada—without any guarantee and without having properly reviewed what is involved—will end up with ties to a country that may still have serious problems with regard to labour law.

Previously, when the NDP had serious concerns about this, it had learned and understood that there were outrageous cases of exploitation of foreign workers. A concrete example would be what is happening in the textile mills in Jordan. People were working in atrocious conditions, were living in totally inhumane conditions and were practically treated like slaves.

Jordan wanted to achieve some progress in that regard. But is it enough so that Canada can associate with Jordan without causing serious harm to Canada's reputation, since it has such a strong influence on the international scene? That is the situation Canada is in. That is why the NDP does not necessarily oppose at all costs entering into a free trade agreement with Jordan or any other country in the world. However, the NDP insists that we must have sufficient guarantees before we will support it.

As a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade—which is often dysfunctional and is too easily denied the basic tools needed to assess the work of officials and the minister in question, as well as free trade agreements under negotiation or already concluded—I am quite concerned.

The fact that the NDP agrees that this bill should be sent to committee for examination is in no way a blank cheque. This does not mean we fully support the bill as it currently stands. We still have questions and concerns. This does nothing to put an end to the attitude shown by this government, which is simply using one distraction after another to try to hide all the deficiencies in its management, not to mention all the scandals that keep emerging.

I have the honour of being part of a very young caucus; many NDP members are in their twenties. This agreement commits Canada for a long time, indeed, for a very long time. A parallel can be drawn here. A free trade agreement is almost like a marriage contract between two people. That is why we must examine it very carefully, in order to weigh the pros and cons and to know what we are committing to.

Unfortunately, sometimes in matters of the heart, a union between two people is entered into lightly and too quickly, which can be disastrous. The Government of Canada has adopted a rushed and reckless approach. I would encourage all hon. members of this House and all the members of the committee to participate in an open, clear and transparent review.

If the government wants the unanimous support of this House for this bill, then it should involve all the parties concerned, which it is not doing. At least, it has not so far. For the six years the Conservative Party has formed the government, it has shut everyone else out. It makes me wonder what that means for the interests of our country and for our future. It is not a healthy approach.

That is why the NDP is showing openness so that the government can share with us, in good faith, the information it has and show us clearly, through cold hard facts, the value of this future free trade agreement.

I am going to keep an open mind even though I have been rather disappointed by the government's attitude in the past. We will, however, give a quick account of the problems with the existing agreement that the government is trying to push through the House.

We are willing to work with the government provided that it is willing to consider the problems with the current agreement. When the agreement was concluded and the NDP was able to speak to this matter during the previous Parliament, the NDP pointed out that a number of credible, independent international agencies had warned us about the general abuses endured by workers in Jordan, especially foreign workers.

Unfortunately, in some of the textile plants, there are cases of slavery. There have been some credible reports on that. Canada cannot condone this. When it comes to international agreements, our country is completely against such practices.

To sign this agreement without having a guarantee from the Jordanian government that it is addressing the problem, actively working on it and fighting the abuse of foreign workers would be an outright betrayal of our international commitments. I am sorry, but I am not prepared to put our excellent reputation on the line for the paltry amount of $85 million worth of trade in 2009.

This free trade agreement also refers to the protection of investments. Although we have not been negotiating a long time in the case of the European free trade agreement, I have worked on it a fair bit. I have said it before and I will say it again: provisions that protect investors who do business in Canada are an aberration. It makes no sense because the rule of law prevails in Canada. We have all the legal mechanisms and legal protections necessary to guarantee investors that they will be treated with respect and that their rights will not be violated. What effect can the government give to a provision to protect Jordanians, or even Europeans, who invest in Canada? Is Canada a banana republic? The government will have to account to the committee on that. The government will have to explain what this means and why it is going down that road.

The lessons of NAFTA have shown that the NDP was quite right to be cautious and to ask for guarantees. We will do so with this free trade agreement and with others.

The House resumed from December 14, 2012, consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I did not hear it right. I thought this was a question about the House agenda. In any event, I will answer a couple of the questions.

First, with regard to the management of the House business, I will renew once again my invitation to the NDP to give us the number of speakers and the length of time they wish to speak on any of the bills before this House. They have yet to ever provide me an answer on that. I have asked in the past here and elsewhere and I will continue to ask.

I appreciate that the Liberal Party has been somewhat forthcoming in that regard. If we see the same from the NDP, we will be able to actually come to co-operative arrangements. However, barring that, it is clear that the NDP agenda is simply to run up the score and compel the government to utilize the resources available in the Standing Orders in order to ensure that we actually do come to decisions and take votes in this House.

Today we will continue with the opposition day. Tomorrow we will be having a debate to take note of the Standing Orders before, as I understand, the Procedure and House Affairs Committee takes on a more extensive and detailed study of proposed changes to the Standing Orders. Following the constituency week we will begin on Monday, February 27, with debate on Bill C-7, Senate Reform Act.

On Monday afternoon, we will continue debate on Bill C-24, the Canada-Panama economic growth and prosperity act. Tuesday, February 28, will be the fourth allotted day, which I understand is to go to the Liberal Party.

On Wednesday, we will continue debate on the Canada-Panama Free Trade Act. On Thursday morning, we will continue debate on Bill C-23, the Canada-Jordan Free Trade Act.

On Thursday afternoon, we will begin debate on Bill C-28, the financial literacy leader act.

As the House can see, this will be a jobs and growth week. Jobs and growth remain our government's top priorities.

As we have seen with the North American Free Trade Agreement, free trade creates jobs and economic growth for Canadian families and businesses, and this is true of the two free trade bills that we have before the House. Like the Canada-Jordan free trade act, which, I would point out, in the previous Parliament went to committee after only a few hours of debate, we would hope that we could get the same agreement from the other parties to do so here. I invite them to do that.

I can also say, from my own personal experience, that the Canada-Panama free trade agreement has been around for a long time. I recall two and a half years ago being in Panama with the Prime Minister as negotiations concluded on this agreement. I remember, as Minister of International Trade, introducing in the House on September 23, 2010, for the first time, the bill to implement the free trade agreement. It is about time that it passes into law to benefit Canadians, exporters and workers.

Bill C-28 would create the position of financial literacy leader to help promote financial literacy among Canadians. This is something for which I think all parties have expressed support. I am sure we should be able to come to an agreement on how to proceed. I proposed a motion to the House that laid out a reasonable work plan for Bill C-28 but, sadly, that motion was not supported. I encourage the opposition House leader to get together with us again to try to work on a reasonable work plan.

I do look forward to seeing some progress as we continue the hard-working, orderly and productive session of Parliament we are in. Rather than trying to run up the score and compel time allocation to be used, I would encourage the official opposition House leader to work with all parties in this place to make progress on the bills before us.

On that note and in the spirit of co-operation and working with my colleagues across the way, I have one further addition regarding tomorrow's debate. I thank my colleagues for this suggestion, which I believe, Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous consent for. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the motion “That this House take note of the Standing Orders and procedure of the House and its Committees”, standing on the Order Paper, be amended by adding the following:

“; that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to study the Standing Orders and procedures of the House and its Committees, including the proceedings on the debate pursuant to Standing Order 51; and that the Committee report its findings to the House no later than May 18, 2012”; and

that the motion, as amended, shall not be subject to any further amendment; and when debate has concluded, or at the expiry of time provided for Government Orders on the day designated for the debate, as the case may be, the motion, as amended, shall be deemed adopted.