International Trade Committee on April 26th, 2012

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes, that's fine. Just give us one minute.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Shall clauses 8 through 11 carry? All in favour?

Opposed?

(Clauses 8 to 11 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 12—Powers of Minister)

Now, Mr. Easter, you have an amendment, Liberal amendment 1. Would you like to move it?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, so moved, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Do you want to speak to it?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The reasons were basically what I said at the beginning, Mr. Chair. I do think there was some pretty grievous testimony made before this committee. Basically what the amendment does is to instruct the minister to consult with independent experts on human rights, etc. I'll not go through the whole amendment in order to save time, but I think the most important part of it is this:

within six months after this Act comes into force, [the minister shall] cause to be laid before each House of Parliament a report on that assessment that includes the findings and recommendations of those experts and organizations or, if that House is not then sitting, on any of the first five days next thereafter that that House is sitting.

The reason for it, as I said in my earlier remarks, is that I felt we are not allowed in the House to give instructions. I think there are very serious issues happening in Jordan relative to working conditions and in fact in human rights. What this amendment would basically do is to cause the minister to use experts to look at that situation, assess that situation, and report it back to Parliament. I think in that way, being that we're not allowed to give instructions, it would put some pressure, through this agreement, on Jordan itself to ensure that working conditions were in fact improving. It's a roundabout way of getting around the fact that we can't add instructions, to be brutally honest about it.

But I think it also would show that this committee had heard testimony that it's concerned about and, therefore, this committee in reporting back to the House the legislation wants monitoring of the situation so that we can see whether progress is being made or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I think the intent is clear. Does any other committee member want to speak to this? I'll put the question, shall Liberal amendment 1 carry? All in favour?

Opposed?

(Amendment negatived)

Now we move to NDP amendment 3.

Mr. Davies, do you want to speak to it?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chair, I think it's fair to say this is one of the most important amendments of the four that we've put forward.

I didn't have the pleasure of sitting through all of the evidence, but I did hear enough of the respective parties' positions to notice a couple of key things.

One key thing is that there seems to me to be a very honest and legitimate difference of perspective on how best to elevate labour and environmental standards and human rights in countries through the trade process. Those positions are sincerely and legitimately held.

If I can paraphrase what I heard the government's position to be, it is that by engaging in trade agreements with countries and having agreements.... Here, I would add that whether they're side agreements or in the main body is a different issue. Nevertheless, there are agreements on labour and human rights and environmental standards and the government's position is that trade agreements are one way of engaging a country and will result in improvements in those situations over time. I think that's a fair position to take.

I heard Mr. Keddy—I think it was him—give some anecdotal evidence of his experience in Colombia and his feeling, which I've heard expressed by the government on many occasions, that engaging in trade does have that effect. On the other hand, we also heard from several witnesses that, from their point of view, there is a lack of credible evidence suggesting that trade agreements, even with these kinds of agreements, have that effect, given the the way that bilateral agreements generally are structured. In their view, without more robust enforcement mechanisms, etc., these trade deals do not have that impact. And I think that position is legitimately and sincerely held.

The purpose of this amendment is to try to begin the process, in a good faith manner, of acquiring the kind of evidence that would help all parties in our Parliament assess those perspectives. I say this because I do think that everybody has the same objective: my colleagues on the government and on the opposition side all want labour, human rights, and environmental standards to be elevated in countries like Jordan, as we do in our own country.

That being the case, this amendment does a number of things. Essentially, it would simply require the minister, within 60 days after the act comes into force, to consult with independent experts on human rights and the environment—and we specify that human rights include labour rights—with a view to preparing what I'm going to refer to as a baseline report, so we can get a snapshot of the labour, human rights, and environmental standards in Jordan as they exist now so that we will have a benchmark from which to measure. Then, in each of the next three years, there would need to be a report done on the progress or not of Jordan—and hopefully it's progress—in those three key areas.

Those reports would be placed before both houses of Parliament, and they would give parliamentarians, both in the Senate and the House of Commons, data to track and monitor what we all claim are the results of our trade philosophy and trade policy. It's really doing nothing more than trying to codify and organize some actual data to chart what we all say and hope are some of the effects of this agreement.

Mr. Keddy, in some of his statements today, quite properly stated that he hoped that part of this agreement would “lead to a greater respect for human rights, a greater respect for labour rights....” I think we all share that. If we sign an agreement but don't have an effective way for parliamentarians to get data to monitor that, it strikes me that we're left arguing this on a philosophical or theoretical basis for each agreement, and it would be nice for everybody to have some data.

I also think that if Canada is to exert influence towards improving the workers' rights in the environmental field, we need to signal this clearly and have an evidence-based way of assessing whether or not changes are taking place.

I think that's also an important signal to our trading partners, that we not only sign an agreement and assert these points diplomatically and at the trade table, but we also back that up with monitoring agreements.

I won't talk about my final amendment, which, I will argue, puts some teeth into this proposal, but I will say that they're linked in the sense that before we can assess the efficacy and success of a trade agreement, we need to acquire independent data that we can use to come to a credible and defensible position.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay.

Does anyone...? I think the motion is fairly clear.

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, it's somewhat similar to the motion that was defeated but a little more inclusive, and I very much support it.

I actually can't imagine how government members could vote against this particular amendment, given the evidence that we've heard. It's simple. The Government of Canada has negotiated an agreement. We're not in any way changing that agreement by the addition of these paragraphs from the amendment. But what we are saying, as a committee and as a Parliament, if it passes Parliament, is that given the evidence we have heard, including the contradictory evidence from the ambassador of Jordan versus what people on the ground working in Jordan have said, Parliament itself has concerns about both the environment and the labour issues in Jordan. So we are inserting into the legislation a process where evidence-based monitoring can be done.

That's to the government's advantage, Mr. Chair. I just cannot understand how members would vote against this. This actually would help the government in doing what it claims it wants to do, which is to ensure that environmental protection is there and ensure that labour rights are in fact protected, as I said earlier.

As witnesses before this committee have told us, in all of our trade agreements capital is protected to the nth degree. The environment and labour are always in side agreements, and so are not subject to the enforceability or the immediate action that can be taken, as it is, in protecting capital.

So this just makes absolute sense.

I have a last point that I would make. I'm sure the government members are getting calls—we certainly are in the opposition parties—from environmental groups and labour groups that are concerned that we would go into this agreement knowing the conditions that exist on both. This, I think, would give them certainty that the government means what it says on moving forward on the environment and labour.

So I just encourage government members to stand up for what we heard in evidence and put some pressure, through this trade agreement, on areas that we're concerned about relative to the trade agreement and what's happening on the ground in Jordan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay. I think we have a fairly clear snapshot.

Mr. Davies, and then, Mr. Keddy, you'll have a couple of minutes.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just have a couple of additional points. I can speak from my own perspective. I bring a perspective, in my new critic's role, of being very supportive of trade. I want to find a way to support this particular trade deal because I think there are some commendable things in it. The structure of this deal does follow quite a similar template to others that we have opposed in the past, but I think there are some improvements. There's no intellectual property in this. There are no investor-state provisions in this.

I think we have heard some mixed testimony about progress on labour rights in Jordan. We heard some pretty disturbing testimony from some of the witnesses, which I don't need to belabour here, that obviously shows there's work to be done in Jordan. But we also heard that there have been a number of minimum wage increases in Jordan, including two that have happened, and one that's slated for next year.

Really, in a good faith attempt to have our Parliament work towards getting a trade template for our country that we can all get behind, I'm prepared to approach this with an open mind and say that maybe the government is right. Maybe the government is right that by engaging in trade agreements that deal with labour and human rights, and with the kinds of monitoring and penalty provisions and ministerial consultation processes involved, which do add some teeth to these, labour rights are improved. Maybe it is effective.

This amendment does no more than ask all of us to put our money where our mouths are and actually collect the data that would support what we claim to be are the motives.

I also just want to say two quick things. One is that I think it's really important that these reports be prepared with the input of independent experts, to guard against the politicization of this. I think we're all interested in having as accurate a snapshot as possible of what actually are the results of our trade deals. I have no problem in saying that if this amendment is accepted, along with the sunset clause amendment, it would give some teeth to this deal, and the official opposition would support this deal as it's structured.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Mr. Keddy.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate what Mr. Davies and Mr. Easter are trying to do here, but what they're not explaining is what clause 12 really does. Through the appropriate ministers, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of International Trade, there is the ability now to have evidence-based monitoring of this trade agreement. That's not something we have to add to it; the ability is already there.

The reason we heard testimony from independent organizations that have been to Jordan is that there has been increased independent monitoring going on in Jordan today. We're not trying to say that it's a perfect situation at all, but this certainly allows for what you're asking. There already is a record, through the International Labour Organization, the ILO, and other organizations that have been working with Jordan, which has brought some of these stories on some of these conditions out. And there has been some sworn testimony here at committee about where those conditions have improved because of their monitoring of those particular situations.

I think that point needs to be put on the record, that's all, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I think it's very clear. We'll put the question.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I'd like a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay, you want a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

(Clause 12 agreed to)

Now we have a grouping. We can actually go from clauses 13 through to 43 as one block. There are no amendments until we get to clause 44, I believe. After clause 43 there is a new clause proposed by way of amendment.

(Clauses 13 to 43 inclusive agreed to)

Now we have amendment NDP-4.

Mr. Davies, the floor is yours.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Well, I'm zero for three, so if I were a betting man.... It's like the Canucks, but I can't get into that.

[An hon. member]

Don't go there.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

No, the pain is still too immediate.

Mr. Chairman, in light of the previous votes, I'll be brief and explain the nub of this amendment. The NDP suggests that there be a sunset clause whereby the act would automatically dissolve at the end of a three-year period unless both Houses of Parliament passed a resolution to continue it.

Now, this is a stand-alone amendment, but it also was intrinsically linked to the NDP's proposal that we have an independent reporting process that would take a baseline human rights, labour, and environmental snapshot, and then involve monitoring over the next three years. That would give parliamentarians in both Houses the data that I think we would need to basically evaluate the result of our work here.

I would point out that Mr. Keddy may be correct in that there may be some monitoring provisions built into the agreement, but those monitoring agreements really occur at the government-to-government level and at the monitoring level. That's a fair point, but the purpose of the scheme that the NDP has put forward would allow that monitoring to be done independently and be put back before parliamentarians and this very committee.

When we pass a bill and do the kind of in-depth work that we're doing in listening to the testimony and doing this clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, I think it's our responsibility as parliamentarians to have that information come back to us to inform us whether or not our objectives in passing this act are in fact being met.

The sunset clause is part of that. It would put teeth into the Canadian commitment to defend workers' rights and the environmental progress that I think we all want.

Now, as for the signing of the free trade agreement between the U.S. and Jordan 10 years ago, the evidence before this committee established that it did not propel the promised changes in workers' rights. It has brought media attention and political pressure, and we believe that this has helped propel some areas of improvement. So we think Canada should be learning from that experience of the United States and should be using some different mechanisms that may also act as pressure points on Jordan, to help it realize how seriously Canada takes the improvement of workers' human and environmental rights as we link them to trade.

I think it's fair to say as well, and I give the government credit on this, that the fact the agreement addressed labour, environmental, and human rights signals to Jordan that these issues are of importance to the Canadian government and Canadian people. But without having some sort of explicit escape clause, some sort of term, some sort of ability to review this act, I think the teeth are not really there to signal to Jordan that we're serious about improvement—and not improvement over decades but starting immediately and in the short term. We think three years is a good enough time to determine if Jordan does in fact make progress in those three key areas.

I would also point out that this agreement can be extended simply by a resolution in the House of Commons, and by the Senate, so it retains democratic and parliamentary control over this agreement. I would argue that this is the kind of creative and effective improvement to our trade agreements that would actually improve their efficacy and also make them more accountable in reaching what we all agree are their objectives.

I'll conclude by saying, Mr. Chairman, that if we believe that signing these agreements with countries like Jordan improves labour and human rights, and environmental standards—and that's what we're hearing—and if we say, as the government does, that engaging in trade with these countries is the way to do that, then having an effective mechanism to keep pressure on the country with whom we are trading to meet those very objectives, at the risk of having that preferential trade status revoked, is nothing more than having the courage of our convictions. It is smart bargaining. It's effective bargaining.

In the corporate sector, in the commercial sector, nobody would ever sign an agreement that was open-ended. There are terms for the end of contracts, which put the prospect of renegotiation on the table. They keep parties motivated, because they're invested in the objectives of the deal, and there's a risk of having the deal cancelled if the objectives are not met. When we sign an open-ended trade agreement that doesn't have that standard in it, it's less effective as a result.

Once again, I would think it's prudent and smart commercial practice. It's smart and effective governmental and parliamentary action to have a review mechanism in this agreement and an ability to have a snapshot of this after a certain reasonable period of time, and to cancel it if the objectives are not being met.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Nobody could argue that it's not a creative amendment.

Mr. Holder.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I have great regard for the new vice-chair from the party opposite, but I could never imagine a clause that I could so totally disagree with. The context is so ideological.

I just heard my friend opposite talk about and actually recognize the government's acknowledgement of labour and human rights and the environment, and then he put this kind of condition on the relationship.

I've never been aware of any trade agreement that had this kind of confining clause in it. Imagine that you've put something in place, and three years from now, you have the potential to rip it up. That is bizarre to me. I say this as a business guy. I couldn't imagine this kind of restriction, because it really puts into question, frankly, all that goes into an agreement. It is rather interesting. It takes so long for all of us to get any agreement in place. What a way to tie the hands of all.

Respectfully, I won't support the amendment, because it is antithetical to what we are trying to accomplish. Trade agreements, by their nature, are longer term in view. It's not like having a contract with a supplier that you're going to review in 24 months, or in this case, 36 months. This is longer term. It requires a longer view. The longer-term opportunities will be significant for both Jordan, I sincerely believe, and Canada—or why else would we do this?

Respectfully, to my friend opposite, I cannot support the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I have some concerns about the amendment. I have a question for the mover and also a question for the witnesses.

The difficulty with this amendment and the previous rejection of stronger measures to monitor labour and the environment is a huge disappointment in terms of where we're at on this legislation.

From a business perspective, trade agreements assure businesses that they can get into a relationship in a foreign country, which is sometimes very difficult to do, and make the investment and so on. The trade agreement is there basically to give your business some protection in doing business over the long term.

I would ask the mover of the amendment how he would respond to that. It could jeopardize the ability of business, because the certainty isn't there to make investments.

I also have a question for the witnesses. What provisions are in this agreement, or indeed, in the legislation, that would allow Canada to withdraw from the agreement? And what would be the cost to Canada of doing so?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Mr. Davies, be very quick.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

I just want to say that I have reciprocal and great regard for Mr. Holder as well. But I think he said he wasn't aware of any trade agreement that had the potential to be ended. I would point out that the free trade agreement signed with the United States can be cancelled on six months' notice. That's unilateral. There is no need for agreement by the United States. So it is absolutely normative in trade agreements to have a provision to leave them.

Perhaps I would be open to entertaining an even longer period of time—maybe it should be five years. But the purpose of this is to create an incentive for Jordan to meet the objectives that we're asking it to meet. If the Jordanian government does meet the objectives we've all set out, there is no doubt that the House would support this.

I would also point out that one of the reasons I picked three years was that it would still be within the term of this present government. It actually gives a tool to the present government to reassess the progress and simply reaffirm the commitment in the Senate and the House of Commons, where it enjoys a majority as well. It was simply a means of giving some teeth to the objectives.