International Trade Committee on Oct. 25th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Ladies and gentlemen, we are about to begin our 30th meeting this session of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Today we're going to pursue our order of reference with regard to Bill C-8, 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.

We are welcoming witnesses from around the world today. We have with us in the committee room, from the Grain Growers of Canada, Richard Phillips, the executive director, and Gary Stanford, a farmer director of the Grain Growers of Canada. They are here from Alberta to provide witness today.

We also have witnesses via video conference, and I am looking at the screen. I hope you can hear me. When I mention your name, perhaps you could acknowledge such.

First of all, from the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, the AFL-CIO, we have Jeff Vogt, the deputy director for international development.

Mr. Vogt, are you there?

[Jeff Vogt, Deputy Director, International Department, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)]

Yes, I am. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you. Coming in loud and clear. Can you hear us fine from where you are, Mr. Vogt?

[Jeff Vogt]

Yes, no problem at all, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Great. Thank you.

In Munich, Germany, from Human Rights Watch, we have Christoph Wilcke, who is a senior researcher for the Middle East and North Africa division.

Mr. Wilcke, welcome.

[Christoph Wilcke, Senior Researcher, Middle East and North Africa Division, Human Rights Watch]

Good evening. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I guess it is evening over there. It's just after 3:30 here in Ottawa.

We'll begin with opening statements. I'm going to ask Mr. Stanford from the Grain Growers of Canada to begin. If we can keep the statements brief, we'll hear statements from each of you, and then we'll carry on with questions from the committee.

If you'd like to begin, Mr. Stanford, you have ten minutes or less.

[Gary Stanford, Farmer Director, Grain Growers of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee.

My name is Gary Stanford. I'm a farmer from southern Alberta. With me today is Richard Phillips, also with the Grain Growers of Canada.

The Grain Growers of Canada represent 80,000 successful farmers from across Canada. We grow a wide assortment of wheat, barley, oats, canola, rye, triticale, peas, lentils, and beans. Canada is a world leader in agricultural trade. We are the fourth largest agrifood exporter in the world, exporting half of our beef, cattle, and wheat, 60% of our hogs' pork, and 70% of our canola.

Across Canada, just over 90% of farms are directly dependent on export markets. They either export their products or sell them domestically, at internationally set marketplace prices. This represents over 200,000 farms and includes a majority of farms in every province in Canada. More open and fair trading systems are essential for the future growth and prosperity of Canada's agrifood sector and the Canadian economy as a whole.

Our preference is for a successful conclusion to the Doha round of world trade talks, but until these talks resume in a meaningful way, bilaterals can achieve major gains for us or at least keep us competitive with other exporters. However, bilaterals do not get at the issues of domestic subsidies, domestic supports, and export subsidies. Many of these hurt not only Canadian farmers but farmers in the developing world as well. It is important that you as politicians of all parties encourage the government to actively push other countries to get back to the table at the WTO.

Now I'd like to turn the time over to Richard and why Jordan is strategically important for the agricultural issues.

[Richard Phillips, Executive Director, Grain Growers of Canada]

Thank you, Gary.

Thank you to this committee for the invitation to be here today.

On the import side, we do import a small amount of vegetables from Jordan. In recent years, agricultural imports were between $1 million and $1.5 million, mainly cucumbers and gherkins.

Exports are of more interest to us as Canadian farmers. In 2008, agricultural exports to Jordan were over $12 million, mostly chickpeas and lentils. It is a growing market for us. In 2007 alone, Jordan was Canada's largest chickpea market, importing over 10,000 tonnes. In terms of crops, we also export canary seed, dry beans, and sunflower seed. Jordan is also a small market for our wheat exports. Other key agricultural exports include frozen french fries, animal feed, and prepared foods.

Currently Canadian agricultural exports face tariffs as high as 30% into Jordan. This agreement will do two things. First, it will eliminate tariffs on the vast majority of Canadian exports to Jordan, directly benefiting Canadian exporters and farmers. Secondly, it will give us preferential access over competitors. No major competitors, such as Australia, have this deal. The U.S. is not a major exporter to Jordan at this time.

While the immediate trade gains don't appear as large as they are with other countries, we feel there are three strategic points in our favour.

First off, Jordan acts as a trading and distribution hub into the Middle East, with easy access to a number of other countries. Jordan has a relatively moderate leader and a stable government. Outside of the United States, we will be one of the few agricultural exporters with a free trade agreement.

Secondly, Jordan has challenges being self-sufficient in agriculture due to a lack of water. A trade deal, therefore, makes good sense. When we export our agricultural goods, we are not displacing local produce or affecting local farmers.

Lastly, Jordan with its population of six million people is a foothold into a larger trading body. The Gulf Cooperation Council consists of the nations of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. This group has a population of 40 million people, and this agreement gives us a foot in the door for a future deal.

In summary, there are several positives for Canadians: new market opportunities, new partnerships, new customers, and enhanced visibility for Canadian companies. Therefore, on behalf of the 80,000 successful farmers we represent, we strongly encourage you to support this trade agreement.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. We look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the Grain Growers for being so brief.

I think we'll go now to Washington, to the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, where Jeff Vogt is deputy director for the international department.

Mr. Vogt, can you please lead off with a brief opening statement?

[Jeff Vogt]

Sure, I'd be happy to. Thank you.

Good afternoon.

I thank this committee for the invitation to testify before the Standing Committee on International Trade of the House of Commons on the subject of the proposed Canada-Jordan free trade agreement.

While there are many aspects of this agreement that deserve careful consideration, I will focus my remarks today on whether the Kingdom of Jordan currently complies with the commitments it has undertaken under the bilateral agreement on labour cooperation. The simple answer to this question is no.

Article 1 of the Canada-Jordan Agreement on Labour Cooperation provides that each party shall ensure that its labour law and practices embody and provide protection for eight categories of principles and rights, the first four being the ILO core labour rights, as set forth in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, as well as four additional categories, including acceptable minimum employment standards, such as minimum wages and overtime, the prevention of occupational illnesses and injuries, and non-discrimination in respect of working conditions for migrant workers.

While the Kingdom of Jordan has recently instituted by cabinet decree important reforms, the labour code still falls short of the requirements of article 1. For example, importantly, the labour code provides that non-Jordanians cannot apply for membership in a trade union. This is a blatant violation of one of the core principles of freedom of association embedded in an ILO convention, number 87, namely that:

Workers...without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, to join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization.

This exclusion leaves the multitude of migrant workers in Jordan, roughly 300,000, unable to bargain over the terms and conditions of their employment.

The labour code also requires a minimum of 50 workers to form a trade union. According to the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association, this minimum threshold is too high and it is suggested that a more appropriate minimum threshold could be somewhere around 20.

The labour code authorizes substantial intervention by the government in the operation of trade unions, particularly at the confederation level, but also with regard to certain federations.

The labour code also authorizes the government to define those industries in which workers may form trade unions and prohibits workers from forming more than one union in each of them, which makes it very difficult for independent trade unions to form where federations currently exist. This shows, obviously, a violation of convention 87 and the principles of freedom of association.

The labour code also requires workers to provide their employers with 14 days' notice of a strike, and can impose mandatory mediation and conciliation during which strikes are prohibited.

The ILO has also noted that a system of compulsory mediation and arbitration that prevents a calling of strikes infringes on the rights of freedom of association.

Those are by no means all, but those are some key inconsistencies between what the obligations are in the Canada-Jordan Agreement on Labour Cooperation and their current labour code.

Under article 3 of the agreement on labour cooperation, the Kingdom of Jordan also has an obligation to effectively enforce its labour laws, including those laws it enacts, to be consistent with article 1 of agreement on labour cooperation.

In the garment sector, we have seen conditions improve somewhat since the 2006 exposé by the national labour committee and an FTA complaint filed by the AFL-CIO brought attention to the truly horrendous working conditions in the factories, the qualified industrial zones that produce and export garments to the United States as well as other markets. Since that time, the ILO has established a better work program that will soon, by government decree, cover the entire garment industry; however, the ILO's first synthesis report for Jordan reveals several serious problems.

With regard to forced labour, the report notes that in two-thirds of the assessed factories the employers put a curfew of 8 p.m., meaning that workers cannot leave the factories and were confined to their dormitories. In 65% of the cases, they discovered non-compliance with occupational safety and health, largely having to do with poor living conditions in their dormitories.

The ILO also noted that the Jordanian labour law does not impose any general limit on the amount of total overtime hours or a maximum number of total hours per week, and therefore tolerates very excessive overtime hours. The ILO noted this as a particularly serious problem.

Again, with regard to freedom of association, the vast majority of workers in the garment industry are migrant workers, who, again, by law, are excluded from the ability to exercise their rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining. This obviously has an impact not only on those workers but also on Jordanian workers, both in the garment industry and outside.

Problems, of course, are not limited to the garment sector. In fact, outside the garment sector, where there isn't actually the presence of the ILO and this monitoring, we expect that the conditions would be worse. The 2010 U.S. Department of State human rights report on Jordan reported a number of violations of worker rights over the last year, from the use of excessive force by the police to break a peaceful sit-in by port workers to the continued forced labour of migrant workers employed as domestic servants--even though recent regulations are attempting to address this problem--and excessive overtime in the private sector outside of the qualifying industrial zones.

Jordan, both in law and in practice, currently does not comply with its agreement on labour cooperation with Canada. I urge the Canadian Parliament to take these matters into consideration before moving forward with ratification of the agreement.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Vogt.

We're moving now to Munich, Germany. I guess it's getting late for you there. Thank you very much for your appearance and for staying late to speak with us.

Christoph Wilcke is the senior researcher, Middle East and North Africa division of Human Rights Watch.

From Munich, we will go to Mr. Wilcke.

[Christoph Wilcke]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, honourable members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, for allowing me to address you today on the issue of the free trade agreement proposed between Canada and Jordan and on the issue of human rights therein.

I have worked on human rights issues in the Middle East for the past ten years and have been a researcher with Human Rights Watch for the past five and a half years, in which I have focused on Jordan among other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Yemen. I was last in Jordan a couple of months ago, in July and August, to investigate the human rights situation of domestic workers and to assess whether the changes that Jordan has put in law and in practice to regulate that sector have had any positive effect.

Before I turn to labour issues, however, allow me a few brief words on the human rights situation in general in Jordan with respect to the administration of justice and to freedom of expression, association, and assembly.

King Abdullah in November 2009 dissolved Parliament by decree and ordered that new elections be held within a year. They are now scheduled to be held in two weeks' time. Since the dissolution of Parliament, the government has ruled by decree and has issued a raft of new laws, including laws on the independence of the judiciary. This new law and attendant regulations have sparked opposition by quite a large number of judges--over 100, I believe--who say that the independence has been further curtailed.

In Jordan the legal profession has long complained about the administrative and financial powers that the Ministry of Justice holds over the judicial profession. In Jordan the Minister of Justice recommends candidates for the position of judge before the supreme judicial council nominates them. The king then has to endorse the nomination by decree.

Another aspect of concern in the administration of justice in Jordan is the position of prosecutors. They fall under the Ministry of Justice, but it is prosecutors and not independent judges who issue arrest and detention warrants, which are not reviewed by an independent judicial tribunal. These are valid for 15 days, and are renewable for up to two months before any judge takes a look at them.

In Jordan there are also a number of special courts. Most prominent among them is the state security court, where two-thirds of judges are military judges and where a military prosecutor prosecutes cases. This court has jurisdiction over a large number of internal security matters but also over cases such as those involving corruption.

In my experience over the past five and a half years, I have come across a number of cases in which prosecutors issued arrest and detention warrants without reviewing evidence very closely, often solely on the basis of complaints filed by citizens or other persons.

Jordan furthermore has imprisonment for debt, in violation of international law. Jordan is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 11 of which prohibits imprisonment for debt.

In March 2009 Jordan became one of the first countries in the region to issue a law against trafficking in persons. Commendably, this new law takes on the international definition of trafficking in persons, which includes forced labour. We'll turn later to how that is working.

Furthermore, in Jordan there exists administrative detention--that is, detention ordered by a Ministry of Interior official, the local governor--without any judicial review, for an unspecified amount of time.

Regarding freedom of expression, association, and assembly, in 2007 Jordan updated its present publications law, saying that it had done away with imprisonment for journalists. While that is true, the Jordanian penal code retains a whole host of articles that violate and criminalize free speech, including insulting the king, committing lèse-majesté, or disparaging the reputation of government institutions such as Parliament, a ministry, or its members.

In 2010, furthermore, just in late August, Jordan issued a law on the Internet, which extends all these penal code provisions to anything a person might express on the Internet.

In 2008 Jordan slightly updated its law on public assemblies. The main point of criticism is that it is the governor who retains absolute discretion as to whether to allow or to permit a public assembly, including routine meetings of non-governmental organizations that may want to rent a hotel room to discuss, let's say, election monitoring. The governor has routinely denied permission for such meetings to take place.

In 2009 Jordan slightly updated a 2008 law on non-governmental organizations, which is to a large extent the same as the old 1966 law. This law continues to give Jordanian authorities wide discretion regarding the registration of non-governmental organizations and in some cases also their dissolution. This is done by government decree and not by an independent court. Furthermore, in 2009 for the first time, NGOs seeking financing from foreign parties must seek government approval from the prime minister beforehand.

In 2008, as my colleague mentioned, Jordan updated its labour law. I believe foreigners are now allowed to join unions. However, they do not have voting rights, and they may not therefore vote in favour of a strike. The major improvement of the 2008 amendment to the labour law was the inclusion of domestic workers, which, in a first for the region as a whole, now fell under the umbrella of the labour law. However, the labour protections granted to domestic workers fell far short of those granted to other workers in other sectors. For example, Jordanian employers of mostly Asian domestic workers, almost all of whom are women, may legally confine them to the house and restrict their freedom of movement. Furthermore, as my colleague also mentioned, working hours are much longer than in other sectors, with no limit on overtime.

I want to bring to your attention a couple of cases that happened recently this year. For example, in May there was a small protest at a meeting where the Minister of Agriculture spoke by so-called day labourers employed by the ministry, protesting that a number of their colleagues had recently been fired. These were labourers who had worked for many years for the Ministry of Labour but had never been granted the status of government employees. The person who led these small non-violent protests was later charged at the state security court for an unlawful gathering and sentenced to prison. Also in May of this year, a university student, Hatim al-Shuli, was, by the prosecution, said to have written a poem published on his own Internet site that was said to have insulted the king. He was detained for 90 days and prosecuted for insulting the king. The prosecution remains current right now. Just last week, there was an incident ahead of the current election campaign where some people who called on Jordanians not to participate in the elections, believing them not to be free, were arrested by the government for expressing their views in public and gathering in a small non-violent protest outside of the prime ministry.

I have had opportunity to briefly look at the labour provisions in the free trade agreement under consideration, and I believe the inclusion of the ILO standards is an important step, but our observations are that these would have better been integrated fully into the agreement, not as a side agreement, to make sure that labour infractions and commercial infractions receive the same weight. Furthermore, as my colleague already noted, Jordan is not quite there yet in terms of respecting all of these ILO agreements and standards. It would have perhaps been wiser to think of a process of incentivizing Jordan to comply with them in return for gaining free trade status.

I would urge members of the committee to consider violations and restrictions in Jordanian law and practice of freedom of expression and association as part and parcel of such labour agreements as they may indeed constitute a trade barrier. My colleague has already alluded to the qualified industrial zones. This is where we receive the most complaints from migrant workers. There are complaints about abuse, physical abuse, non-payment of labour, long working hours, and confinement. The Ministry of Labour inspection service has indeed improved a little bit over the past few years, largely with U.S. technical and financial support, but at least in the domestic worker sector that I recently investigated, this has not yet borne fruit.

To conclude, I think the free trade agreement provisions regarding labour have the potential to improve labour conditions if Jordan were to fully implement them. I urge the committee to give consideration to providing equal weight to labour issues compared to commercial issues; move to an incentive on how to move Jordan toward compliance; make sure there's an individual complaints mechanism in that provision; and pay particular attention to the labour rights of migrant workers, and forced labour in particular.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you for staying to assist us today, considering the late hour there.

We'll begin a round of questioning.

I would like to point out to the committee that our witnesses from the Grain Growers of Canada have about 30 minutes before they have to leave. So if you have specific questions for them, you might want to roll them out.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I would ask that they submit some of their stats to the clerk so we can have them. They gave some very good statistics about numbers in their presentation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Okay.

Mr. Phillips and Mr. Stanford, have you noted the request for provision of the statistics you gave in your remarks?

[Richard Phillips]

Yes, we can provide them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

I think we'll begin our first round of questioning with the Liberal critic for international trade, Ms. Hall Findlay.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to all of the witnesses for being here. It's a little different with those of you who are by video conference, but it is much appreciated.

To the Grain Growers, I understand the timeframe. When you provide that material I wonder if you can include some comparatives--some of the competitors to Canada in your areas, what the relative tariffs mean now, and what they might mean in the future. That would be very helpful.

I want to address my questions to both Mr. Vogt and Mr. Wilcke. I don't think there's anybody in this room who isn't concerned about labour conditions, freedom of speech, and freedom of association. I would say that every person in this room is equally concerned about those issues. I appreciate your taking the time to describe some of the concerns.

I think the bigger issue for us is whether trade helps or hinders those conditions. After all, this is a free trade agreement and we do have labour provisions. I appreciate Mr. Wilcke's comments about whether the labour piece is better in a side agreement or not.

I have a broader question about whether you think engaging in trade--or increased trade, as we already have trade with Jordan--will make things worse.

Mr. Wilcke, maybe you could answer that first.

[Christoph Wilcke]

Certainly. Thank you.

Jordan is a country that suffers from significant unemployment. There is a wide gap between official figures and estimates. Furthermore, it has an extremely low participation of women in the work force. It's just about the same rate as Saudi Arabia, for example, which is low for the region, and the region is very low for the world.

Jordan can use some economic activity to provide work for its citizens. The qualified industrial zones came up after the Jordan-Israel peace agreement in 1994 and were meant as a vehicle whereby Jordan would provide the workers, others would provide the capital, and the United States would perhaps provide the market. However, this has not actually benefited Jordanian workers. The majority of workers in these qualified industrial zones are from Asian countries. Jordanian businessmen have turned to Asia, Bangladesh, China, Indian, Sri Lanka, and other countries to hire cheap labour.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

If I could interrupt, maybe I could rephrase the question then.

Will not engaging in greater trade make things better? I'm trying to address the often heard criticism that we shouldn't engage in these free trade deals because of the conditions in the other countries. I guess it's a fundamental question of whether it is somehow improving those conditions if we refuse to engage in greater trade.

Mr. Vogt, maybe you could address this. You mentioned the 2006 exposé that helped improve certain conditions in the textile business. How did that exposé come about?

[Jeff Vogt]

First, I think it's a difficult question to answer in the abstract because it really depends on what the trade agreement provides, the model of the trade agreement you have. It is not just labour...but I'll return to that again.

A number of things that you find in most contemporary trade agreements have an impact on the ability for citizens to be able to enjoy the fruits of their economic activities, whether it's the investment provisions, intellectual property provisions, which may have an impact on public health and access to medicines, for example, or whether it's investor provisions that have potential to put at risk--

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Sorry to interrupt, but we're all very conscious--

[Jeff Vogt]

--public health or environmental regulations and so forth.

Having not read those provisions of the Canada-Jordan FTA, I can't speak to those, other than to note that in the United States we've been working on those issues. I note many similarities between the trade agreements that the U.S. has negotiated and those that Canada has negotiated. So to the extent that investment in intellectual property and services procurement provisions...again, it's just to know that those can have a substantial impact on the citizenry of a country that engages in trade with another country.

With regard to the 2006 exposé, it was something the national labour committee, through research in Jordan, followed up by the AFL-CIO submitting a complaint under the U.S.-Jordan free trade agreement, tried to raise: the issue of very severe worker rights violations in the qualified industrial zones. As my colleague Mr. Wilcke has referred to already, there were very unsanitary working conditions, forced labour in the form of withholding of passports of migrant workers, substantive--

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Vogt, I'm sorry, I just want to stress again that we're very conscious of time.

We're all very worried about the abuses. What I'm trying to get at fundamentally is how does negotiating or entering into a free trade agreement, or refusing to enter into a free trade agreement, make things better?

I was asking about the exposé because my sense of that was that there was engagement and an opportunity for people to go in to have a look; there was the publicity surrounding the bad conditions that in effect ultimately helped to improve them.

It comes back to the question.... We're all upset about the abuses and the bad conditions. The question is whether engaging in more trade is better, or is refusing to engage in trade actually a better option?

We just got buzzed, so we're short of time.