International Trade Committee on Oct. 25th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I'll just beg the indulgence of our other witnesses for a moment to thank Mr. Phillips and Mr. Stanford from the Grain Growers of Canada.

We'll now bid you adieu. If you'll quietly steal away, we'll continue with questions for the others. Thank you very much.

Moving to round two, I'd like to call on one of our vice-chairmen, John Cannis, to ask questions of the witnesses in Washington and Munich.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to welcome our guests, the ones who are leaving and also the ones who are in Europe and Washington.

To Mr. Phillips as he is leaving, I've often said myself that I'd rather be there, trying to teach and to change things, than actually stay away and be no good to anybody.

Mr. Chairman and committee members, I know that as other members were speaking, my colleague Martha Hall Findlay and I were discussing this in private. As I said to her, who would have imagined 35 or 40 years ago that there would be unions in China, for example? Who would have imagined 35 or 40 years ago that they would be talking about labour laws, standards--the whole gamut? I think that was achieved because we ventured to go there and change the way things were done. And they've changed significantly.

I was impressed with what the farmers had to say, but there was a downside to it also, Mr. Chairman, only because they talked about that group of the various countries--Bahrain, Qatar, the Emirates, and so on--and recently I've been a bit annoyed at the fact that we might be in jeopardy of losing these partners only because part of the trade agreement is trying to work toward our open skies. I would ask that this be addressed as well, somehow, with Emirates airline so that we can move progressively forward for the benefit of all.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a question of the two witnesses. It doesn't matter who answers; it could be either the gentleman from Germany or the gentleman from the United States. I'm going to pick up from where my colleague left off, and I want to give the witnesses this opportunity to answer; there wasn't time for them to finish earlier.

Does going there and working with these countries do them good, or does going there do them harm? I would ask them to think about this, because they focused on the garment industry, and they didn't talk about the agriculture exports--the beef, the lentils, the chickpeas, etc. I've heard from witnesses about the garment industry, the garment industry, the garment industry.

I recall, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, that some years ago there were some brands—I'm not going to name any, because I think it would be unfair—that they asked people to stop buying because the brands were being produced under certain conditions. The international community responded--and so did the company, properly.

I am asking myself, are we going to do good by just turning the key, throwing it away, and saying that because there are violations...? We've heard there are violations. That's what this committee is all about. That's what we're looking into.

Gentlemen, are there not other ways to address these issues, as opposed to just saying no, we're not going to do a free trade agreement with them?

I'm looking for either witness to perhaps elaborate on that, Mr. Chairman.

[Jeff Vogt]

I'll start first, I guess.

It appears that the Canadian government has already made a decision to pursue an approach of engagement rather than non-engagement, and you have, through the agreement on labour cooperation, come up with a series of binding terms and conditions. I think it is incumbent upon the government then to try to ensure that those terms and conditions are met.

Obviously the Jordanian government needs to do most of this work, because it's a reform of domestic labour law and regulation. But with already the participation of the ILO, with its Better Work program in the garment sector--at least for now--and the cooperation that the U.S. government and others have provided, I think it is possible to see reform, over the long term, of the enforcement mechanisms of the country that are necessary to make sure that employers adhere to the labour laws.

Again, I would just simply urge that two countries have agreed to this agreement on labour cooperation, and it would be important that both sides live up to the agreement to its fullest and, where necessary, help provide the resources or technical capacity to those who may need it in order to meet the commitments of the agreement.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

What you are saying then, Mr. Vogt, is go there, do the deal, and just work towards enforcement and implementation of the guidelines. That's really what I understood.

[Jeff Vogt]

It's not for me to say do the deal or not do the deal.

As I said at the beginning, there are a number of other chapters that I think are important to take into consideration beyond the labour chapter. So I'm not taking a position one way or the other. I'm saying you have an agreement. It gives you substantial leverage. Use it, and where necessary offer the technical support to allow it to be realized.

But I think it's important that this be something you do before you ratify the agreement. You have the maximum leverage now to try to bring Jordan into compliance with the obligations of this agreement now. And again, with the experience we had in the United States with similar language in the U.S.-Peru context, we were able to leverage this for important and substantial but not complete steps forward with regard to their labour legislation. We are now looking very closely to see to what extent Peru is living up to those obligations and enforcing those new laws.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I know my time is up, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

[Christoph Wilcke]

Should I reply quickly?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Sure, please go ahead, Mr. Wilcke.

[Christoph Wilcke]

I would offer a roughly similar conclusion. That is, if you do not go ahead with this agreement, I don't think Canada can expect to have any significant influence over labour conditions in Jordan. However, going forward with the agreement also by no means gives a guarantee that labour conditions will improve, even with the protections as they are in the treaty. The question is, if you want to go ahead, how can you do it smartly? What is Jordan's incentive to improve labour conditions? As my colleague said, now is the point of greatest leverage.

And I would urge Jordan, before signing this agreement, to first of all bring its laws into compliance with international standards. It would be wise to move some of the incentives from lowering tariffs forward incrementally in line with improvements in the labour standards. The two most important things for me in labour rights in Jordan are the access to justice, and the complaints mechanism. There is a lot to be done, from the ministry of labour inspections to the courts, and the position of the government to monitor the overall situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you for that addition.

We'll turn now to Mr. Cannan, followed by Monsieur Guimond.

Mr. Cannan, you have five minutes.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and our witnesses.

I just want to follow up on my colleagues' comments on our being here to help Canadian businesses expand, and we're also concerned about human rights around the world. So we're trying to strike the right balance.

I will just go back to the U.S.-Jordan agreement almost ten years to the day, October 24, 2000, when the U.S. and Jordan announced their agreement. It took effect on December 17, 2001, and over that nine-year-plus period they've actually doubled their trade; and from 2007 to 2009, there has been an almost 40% increase, from just over $900 million to $1.35 billion.

As Canada is a trading nation, we're being left behind. So we need to move forward and level the playing field with, as was alluded to, a rules-based trading system.

My question to you, gentlemen, is that at a time when the United States continues to trade in an aggressive manner, we want to be leaders from both an economic and human rights perspective. Part of the labour cooperation agreement we signed fulfils and respects the 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. The declaration addresses issues such as the right to freedom of association; the right to collective bargaining; the abolition of child labour, which I know has been identified by some other witnesses; the elimination of forced or compulsory labour; and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. Plus the agreement includes an enforcement mechanism.

My question to you, gentlemen, is do we just continue to allow the Americans to continue to increase their trade while we step back to try to get this perfect agreement, or do we move forward with this agreement and build on a rules-based trading system and have an enforcement mechanism to help improve the labour situation and the economic situation of both countries?

[Jeff Vogt]

I don't know that I really can or should speak on behalf of Canadian business interests, so I think I am going to take a pass on this question, other than to note that--

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

You can speak up on behalf of U.S. businesses, because you supported that when it came in, in 2001.

[Jeff Vogt]

I think the Jordanian market is a very small one for the United States, not really that significant, and actually, at least for Jordanians, their exports dropped precipitously, particularly in the QIZs post-crisis, the qualifying industrial zones, and the industry has been declining for quite some time.

I think the Jordanian agreements, together with other agreements that were negotiated by the Bush administration in the Middle East, were largely ones not driven by economic and geopolitical considerations.

Again, I reinforce the importance that all countries negotiate fair trade agreements in which labour and environment are a part. As I mentioned before, getting the text right on investments, services, intellectual property, and government procurement are also absolutely critical to make sure that an agreement strikes the right balance, at least from our perspective, for workers in both countries.

[Christoph Wilcke]

What I would say to your question is that the U.S.-Jordan free trade agreement can be perhaps instructive as to how it worked in terms of those labour provisions under that treaty. My main point here would be that it was not the agreement per se that led to an improvement but it was international organizations like the AFL-CIO, which went public with violations several years after this agreement came into place, that then spurred some government action both by the United States diplomatically and by the Jordanian government.

Your previous question asked what the EU is doing. The EU has an association agreement with Jordan. I believe it came into place in 2002. It has a human rights clause in it. There is a six-month subcommittee on human rights meeting every six months in Brussels and Jordan. The EU is currently negotiating a free trade agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council, as was mentioned earlier. It is also looking at the human rights clause there.

These are all, from our perspective, positive developments; however, we've also seen that countries have been rewarded with free trade agreements that then have human rights clauses in them, but they are not respected in practice. Sometimes they are awarded these free trade agreements despite recent declines in human rights protection. So it's not an automatic mechanism toward improving labour rights.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Cannan.

We're going to move back to this side of the table. We probably have time for two more witnesses, so we'll hear from Monsieur Guimond and conclude with Mr. Keddy.

I'm sorry, we're not going to be able to hear from one of our guests today, Mr. Savage. It's nice to have you with us. I'm sorry that we didn't have time to fit your questions in.

We also have Mr. Mayes, and again, I'm sorry, we're not going to have time to get to your questions as well.

We will now hear from Monsieur Guimond.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you mentioned earlier, when it comes to the agreement between Canada and Jordan, the glass is either half-empty or half-full. Today's meeting is interesting in that it exposes us to other points of view. It also gives us some insight, especially into labour rights and human rights in Jordan.

My first question is for Mr. Wilcke. In an article that was published in February, you talked about violations of basic human rights by the state of Jordan, most notably the withdrawal of Jordanian citizenship from Jordanians of Palestinian origin. We know that approximately 2,700 Jordanians of Palestinian origin have been affected by this since 2004 and 2008.

Where do things stand today?

[Christoph Wilcke]

Sure, and I'll try to keep it extremely brief.

In February of this year, I went to Amman to discuss with Ministry of Interior officials the Jordanian practice of arbitrarily withdrawing Jordanian nationality from citizens of Palestinian origin.

In 1988 King Hussein of Jordan stated that he would have nothing more to do, legally and administratively, with the West Bank, which had been occupied by Israel since 1967, and that everybody living there would not have Jordanian citizenship any longer.

What we're seeing now are repercussions of that 1988 decision. Jordanians of Palestinian origin who might have been in Kuwait at the time or even living in Jordan are still having their citizenship withdrawn. It is an ongoing practice. It is clearly in violation of Jordanian law. It is contrary to international laws, some of which Jordan has not yet signed, such as the treaty on the prevention of statelessness, for example. It also comes in the current context of peace negotiations and the climate in the Middle East. Jordan wants to preserve a position whereby the largest possible number of persons living in Jordan are stateless so that they might qualify to be refugees and either go back to Israel or the West Bank, should there ever be a peace agreement, or receive compensation.

These persons, in terms of the right to work, have loss their residency status in Jordan, do not have the right to work, either in the public or the private sector, and need special permission to do so, which is issued by the intelligence service there.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I want to ask the both of you one last question. It is believed that there is a willingness on Jordan's part to improve its track record on human rights and labour rights. Do you think that is the case?

[Christoph Wilcke]

I'd like my colleague to take this question. I think it's a very good question. The question is not whether Jordan, as a state, wants to do so. There are many different factions in Jordan with different interests. The parliament in Jordan usually doesn't have a lot to say. It certainly does not draft legislation, as, for example, you do. It is the government that is appointed by the king that does so. However, especially in the royal court and in parts of the government--and the governments change almost yearly in Jordan, including the prime minister, by appointment of the king--have been rather progressive in wanting to further human rights agendas, including, sometimes, labour rights.

The 2008-10 changes in the law and practice certainly don't come from parliament or from the populace but from high up in the country. There are also significant obstacles. Especially security services are sometimes opposed to such reforms.

This is important in one aspect we haven't discussed yet. Jordan maintains something that is called overstay fines. Anybody who is out of residency status in Jordan incurs about a $3 U.S. per day fine for overstaying. That means that a lot of migrant workers who leave their employment, sometimes, or most of the time, because of abusive conditions--they are beaten, they're not being paid, they're overworked--cannot actually leave the country, because they quickly accrue much more in fines than they're ever able to pay. I have met many migrant workers in Jordan who are stuck there for months, sometimes years, and are unable to return home because of this particular immigration setting.

[Jeff Vogt]

I would concur with my colleague. I think the Jordanian governments over the last few years have shown some willingness to improve conditions. Certainly there have been some legal reforms. It works with the ILO in the construction of better work program in the QIZs, the qualifying industrial zones. Again, echoing the comments of my colleague, there are differences within the government. There are still substantial obstacles to overcome before the Jordanian government will have a set of laws, regulations, and practices that are fully consistent with international norms.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, and thank you, Monsieur Guimond.

We'll go to Mr. Keddy.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to our witnesses.

I have a couple of questions.

First of all, although our representatives and our witnesses from agriculture are no longer here, I think it's worth picking up on a point they made, and that is the fact that Jordan is certainly water-challenged. Much of the Middle East is water-challenged. We--whether it's Canada, the U.S., or the European Union--have fairly abundant water and great agricultural resources, so we're certainly in a position to help those countries feed themselves, and that may become even more important in the future. There's a greater market there outside Jordan, a total market of at least 40 million people, and probably more, if we expand to all the countries in the Middle East, so I see that as a great opportunity.

I'll come to my specific question. The fact is that we have a binding labour agreement here, and a binding agreement on the environment. I understand the logistical problems of implementing these. I think we all do, and we're all cognizant of that challenge, but what I'm hearing from both our witnesses here is a little confusing.

Mr. Vogt, you said that you thought the U.S. decision vis-à-vis their free trade agreement with Jordan could do nothing but help in the long run, and I would declare that our free trade agreement with Jordan could do nothing but help in the long run. We're already trading with Jordan. We're not just beginning to trade with them tomorrow; we're putting rules-based trading in place, with rules that will be binding upon both Canada and Jordan. No one is trying to pretend that the situation is perfect, but certainly putting rules-based trading in place versus simply trading with very few rules and high tariffs has to help both countries in the long run. That's my point here. We're simply trying to put parameters on a situation that already exists.

I'd like to hear from you first, if I could.

[Jeff Vogt]

For a point of clarification, I don't believe I ever said that the U.S.-Jordan free trade agreement could do nothing but help Jordanians. I'm sorry if you perhaps misheard me.