International Trade Committee on Oct. 25th, 2010

[Jeff Vogt]

Again, I think it's a difficult question to answer in the abstract. I think engaging in trade with another country is no guarantee that workers in those countries will be able to benefit and earn their fair share of the gains that may be attendant to that trade. This is why we feel very strongly that it's important that there be strong labour provisions in trade agreements and that those be taken with utmost seriousness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Is the glass half full, or is the glass half empty?

Moving on to the glass is half empty, we'll begin with Monsieur Laforest.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon and welcome to all the witnesses. I will begin with a question for Mr. Phillips.

Earlier, you mentioned two or three strategic advantages. You said that Jordan was a member of the Gulf Cooperation Council and that the free-trade agreement between Canada and Jordan was beneficial, as well as strategically important.

Setting aside those strategic reasons, does the agreement still benefit the group you represent? Will the level of market growth be worth the trouble, without taking into account the strategy of other groups to develop further trade?

[Richard Phillips]

The answer is yes. Setting aside all the other strategic reasons, the tariffs are up to 30%. So if the tariffs come down, that will give us a significant financial advantage, as Canadian exporters, in selling to that market, especially the pulse crops—the peas, the lentils, the chickpeas. Those are products that are consumed a lot in the Middle East. They can't grow enough, and they always need to be importing.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you.

This is for both Mr. Vogt and Mr. Wilcke.

As you are aware, Quebec and Canada are two trading nations. You said that there were problems with the organization of labour and that rules or restrictions were not always respected, nor were human rights.

Mr. Wilcke, you can still see some benefit to a Canada-Jordan free-trade agreement. Earlier, I said that Canada and Quebec were trading nations because it is in their interest to engage in trade. We want to improve trade with the Middle East, but you said you had reservations about Jordan.

Can you name some Middle Eastern countries with a situation you would identify as troublesome? Can you name some countries that are better than Jordan in this respect?

[Christoph Wilcke]

I'm happy to try to answer that. First, I'm not an expert on the region. As a whole, I know that the qualified industrial zones are particular to Jordan in the way they are set up. However, labour rights abuses are certainly familiar to us from a number of countries in the region.

My remarks were set out not so much to describe the problems as to describe the access to justice. How does the Jordanian system work when something goes wrong? I think what you can say is that Jordan does not encourage people to speak out about any complaints and violations. But when there is an international focus on violations, that can help spur the government to action. But it won't come alone.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I will let you respond. Go ahead.

[Jeff Vogt]

Thank you.

In response to your question, what you have here, obviously, is a binding labour agreement between Jordan and Canada. When we look to other countries in the region and discuss whether there are better or worse ones than Jordan, certainly there are candidates. I think, obviously, the United Arab Emirates imposes significant restraints and, in fact, outright bans on trade unions. We have very serious concerns with regard to freedom of association and collective bargaining in Egypt, for example.

So I think that there are a number of countries in the region that provide us with much concern about labour rights practices. But in the case of Jordan, again, I think it's important to know that the two countries have negotiated binding commitments, and at the present time Jordan clearly doesn't comply with those. So to ratify this agreement in its current form is essentially to enter into an agreement with a country that you know from day one is not in compliance with the binding terms and conditions of the agreement.

I would certainly recommend, at least on this issue, and there are certainly other chapters that I think merit review, that there be dialogue with the Jordanian government about bringing its laws and practices into compliance with the terms of the agreement, obviously before ratification of the agreement.

I will make just one point of clarification. My colleague was referring earlier to this question of whether migrant workers are able to freely associate and bargain collectively. I'm just looking at a May 2010 report from the ILO. I think there was an intention in 2008 to extend the coverage of those collective labour rights to migrant workers, but it didn't materialize. So it is still the case that migrant workers are excluded, per this ILO report from this year, from participating in trade unions and from bargaining collectively.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I do not think you answered my question entirely, neither one of you. You did not name one, two or three other countries.

Mr. Vogt, how did you come to the assessments you are giving us today? Do you, yourself, go there? Have you been to Jordan? Is your assessment based on first-hand experience?

[Jeff Vogt]

I have not personally been to Jordan. I have been to other countries in the region: Kuwait, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates.

The AFL-CIO has a sister organization called the Solidarity Center, which has offices around the world and maintains programs in about 60 developing countries. We do have offices in the Middle East region and have frequent contact with workers and worker organizations throughout the Middle East. Much of our information comes either directly from our field offices in those areas or from the reporting of the International Labour Organization and the International Trade Union Confederation, an umbrella organization of all trade unions in the world, as well as from other credible international sources.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

That answers my question completely.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Monsieur Laforest.

We're going to move now to the NDP. Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all our witnesses for being here today.

I'd like to start with both of you, Mr. Wilcke and Mr. Vogt, because I think you very correctly pointed out that it's not trade in and of itself that's good or bad, but the kind of trade agreement.

Certainly in Canada, for example, we have experience with what's happened in Mexico. The provisions around NAFTA have led to a demonstrable worsening of conditions for most Mexicans, a meltdown of the rural economy, and a vast increase in drug wars. So how a trade agreement is structured is very, very important.

I'd like to come back to the points you made, Mr. Wilcke, around the labour law. If I am correct in understanding what you were saying, there has only been a symbolic allowing of foreign workers to join a union; they can't participate and vote and have no labour rights except the symbolic right to join a union. Please respond on that.

For both of you, I think the point you're trying to make is that right now there is an opportunity for Canada to learn from what happened in the United States and to really push for compliance with all of those international agreements that have been broken.

Are you not both saying that rather than rubber stamp bad behaviour, what Canada should be doing is enforcing good behaviour and using the leverage of negotiations to put in place a trade agreement that actually helps Jordanian workers?

[Christoph Wilcke]

Thank you.

There's some confusion about the exact status of non-Jordanian workers in Jordan and their right to join a union. For certain, they do not have the right to participate and to vote on strikes. There we agree.

Over the years that I have been in touch with Jordanian workers, I know there are also separate union-type mechanisms in Jordan called the professional associations for doctors, lawyers, agricultural engineers, dentists, etc. There are about 12 professional associations. These are tightly regulated by the Jordanian government and do no have a lot of freedoms of association that we would otherwise identify.

You asked if we should rubber stamp bad behaviour. I think Jordan does react to international pressure. It certainly behoves Canada to engage in a dialogue with Jordan on what the appropriate labour conditions are and what changes need to take place in the ministries. One problem that Jordan has had in the past is its very frequent changes of ministers of labour. They have gone, and this year alone I think Jordan is on its third or so minister of labour.

A recent change that occurred in July this year was the curtailment of a tribunal in the ministry of labour called the wages authority, which had the authority to review salary disputes of workers until six months after they had left employment and to reach conclusions. Now they have only the ability to issue rulings for workers who are in current employment. But if somebody leaves employment because they have not been paid, they do not have access to this fast-track mechanism. In Jordan, by law, all labour disputes are supposed to be adjudicated within three months in the regular courts. However, that does not happen in practice. That's another issue I might—

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

Mr. Wilcke, I'm going to have to cut you short. I'm sorry.

I'm going to have to ask Mr. Vogt to respond, because I also have questions for our other two witnesses and I only have seven minutes.

[Jeff Vogt]

Thank you.

Yes, I think perhaps the experience of the United States and Peru could be instructive. The agreement on labour cooperation that Canada has negotiated with Jordan resembles in large part--and there are substantial differences--the U.S.-Peru free trade agreement labor chapter. In that instance we use the leverage of the labour chapter, especially in that it called--at least in the United States version--to adopt and maintain laws that were consistent with the rights that are stated in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Obviously that opened up an opportunity for us to engage with the Peruvian government on very specific labour law reforms addressing a number of concerns that both the ILO specifically and the trade union movement in that country had noted.

Because of the administration I think they decided to implement the trade agreement, although not all the critical issues have been addressed. But I think the agreement on labour cooperation between Jordan and Canada does certainly give you that leverage, to require the Jordanian government to bring its laws into compliance with international norms. It's something they've already agreed to in text. It is largely affirming something they have already agreed to as members of the International Labour Organization, through the ILO declaration, and obviously this labour agreement goes beyond the core labour standards but I think it does provide leverage, and I would strongly encourage the Canadian government to make use of that leverage and to bring about the legal and practical changes necessary to allow Jordanian workers a benefit.

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

Thank you very much. And I'd appreciate, if you do have a moment later on to respond to questions, if you would take an opportunity to respond to the structure of the European Union with Jordan. They have independent human rights monitoring and human rights governance committees.

I wanted to go to our other witnesses, Mr. Stanford and Mr. Phillips.

Many people say we have a dysfunctional trade strategy. When you look, we sign these bilateral trade agreements and then our exports to those markets go down. Whether you're talking about Israel, Chile, Costa Rica, we've done it time and time again. So obviously something is not working with our trade strategy. Most middle-class Canadians are earning less, and our exports, the markets we signed these bilaterals with, go down. So I'm wondering, in terms of the people you represent, whether you've seen an increase in exports for bilateral markets, at least in your industry. I'm talking in real terms, not in current dollars.

Secondly, how does the little investment that this government makes for export promotion, product promotion support, compare with our foreign competitors, who give much, much more? Canada always seems to under-finance export promotion, rather than putting its money where its mouth is.

[Richard Phillips]

Thank you very much for the question.

First, on the export promotion dollars, I think we did respond once on behalf of the pulse industry with some numbers on how much--last spring.

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

It hasn't changed?

[Richard Phillips]

I'd have to go back and double-check on that, but the government has been fairly active on a commodity-by-commodity basis. For example, they've worked very closely with the canola industry and the pulse industry specifically, on increasing not just into the bilaterals but into all their markets. So there is...I. don't know if they're focused quite so specifically on helping a company once we negotiate a specific bilateral. I don't think the tie is there with the direct funding. It's more of a general one, and then the companies and the industry, whether it's pulse or canola, determine where their priority markets are.

You can negotiate a bilateral, for example, with Jordan, but it's not necessarily a priority market for canola oil. That might still be China or Japan or the EU or somewhere else. So to some degree the private sector has to also determine where the priorities are, because the bilaterals aren't always exactly the same priorities as what they are, and I think that's part of the reason why you maybe haven't seen the numbers jump up immediately when there's a bilateral. Sometimes they're not a priority. It's hard to be a priority for all commodities in all markets because different countries have different domestic production. Some countries might produce a lot of oilseeds, so we're not going to export oilseeds there. In other places maybe they produce a lot more cereal grains and there's not the opportunity to export there. So where we go really depends on the market.

I think, if I can have another minute, part of what we don't understand all the time is that cultures deal differently from what we do here in North America. Sometimes we just deal on price, and in a lot of the other markets it's all about building longer-term relations and getting to know the people. And I don't think Canadians necessarily have done the best job of understanding those other cultures when they go in to start trading, which is, again, why you may not have seen immediate jumps in any numbers.

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

Do you actually monitor after the bilaterals are signed?

[Richard Phillips]

The Grain Growers of Canada? We don't have the financial resources ourselves to do that.

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

Okay.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

I understand it's getting close to the hour that you have to leave us, Mr. Phillips and Mr. Stanford. Do you want to make a closing...?

Oh, you're going to stay another ten minutes? Fine, because I'm sure you'll be having questions from this side.

[Richard Phillips]

One round of questions, a quick closing remark, and then we'll have to go. We're due at the finance committee to make our budget presentation. That's why we're leaving; it's not because we don't enjoy your company.