Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue 13 - Evidence - Meeting of June 28, 2012
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 28, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, to which was referred 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, met this day at 10:30 a.m. to give clause-by- clause consideration to the bill.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, today the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is starting its examination of 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.
We will hear first from Gerald Keddy, member of Parliament and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway.
Welcome to the committee. Please proceed with your statement, after which we will proceed to questions and answers in the usual form.
Gerald Keddy, M.P., Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will introduce the officials with me today. Ian Burney is the Assistant Deputy Minister for Trade Policy and Negotiations at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
Marvin Hildebrand is the Director General of our Trade Negotiations Bureau. He is responsible for many of our ongoing regional and bilateral free trade initiatives. He was the Canadian chief negotiator for the Canada-Jordan FTA, which he concluded in just three rounds from February to August of 2008.
Barbara Martin is the Director General responsible for our bilateral and commercial relations in the Middle East, including our relations with Jordan.
Ton Zuijdwijk is the General Counsel for our Market Access and Trade Remedies Law Division. He was our lead negotiator for the dispute settlement provisions of the Canada-Jordan Free Trade Agreement and provided general legal advice for the Canadian team during negotiations.
Pierre Bouchard is with Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and is responsible for the negotiation of Canada's labour cooperation agreements.
Senator Downe: Chair, I notice that the last item on today's agenda is clause-by-clause consideration. We submitted a list of 16 possible witnesses for other panels for today. Apparently only one of them is here. Could you give a brief update on the status of that list?
The Chair: The bill was referred to us yesterday. I will ask the clerk to respond to the question.
Senator Downe: Is it the intention to do clause-by-clause consideration or we will have additional meetings?
The Chair: The people on the proposed list of witnesses testified on the house side. I have had the benefit of reading their material. This bill has been in Parliament for quite some time. I understand that it has not been before this committee until now.
We will proceed according to the wishes of the committee. I suggest that, if at all possible, we should do clause-by- clause consideration to expedite this bill.
Senator Downe: I very much appreciate the parliamentary secretary being here, but the tradition in the Senate has long been that the minister comes as well, and I do not see the minister on the list today.
The Chair: No. The minister was on standby to appear here for several weeks. We had received indications that the bill would move more quickly in the chamber, but we are always subject to the conduct of the business of the Senate. The minister was on standby for a number of weeks but unfortunately had a commitment today that he could not free himself from, and the parliamentary secretary came back to Ottawa early this morning to testify.
Senator Downe: Is the clerk going to give us an update?
[Translation]
Line Gravel, Clerk of the Committee: I telephoned all the witnesses in Ottawa who could be here this morning because it was impossible to arrange videoconferences given the short period of time.
I phoned four witnesses: Mario Seccareccia, Bruce Campbell, Michael Hart and the Unite Here group. Mr. Hart was the only one of them who was available. I should mention that I phoned them yesterday around 3:00 p.m. to have them appear here today at 11:15 a.m., which is very short notice for them, but they were all invited.
[English]
Senator Downe: We may want to take that into consideration when we discuss the bill clause by clause.
You mentioned the House of Commons, and I have read those transcripts as well. They had over 12 committee meetings and heard over 40 witnesses. We may want to consider that as well later.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Madam Clerk, you said that you spoke with the people very late yesterday afternoon and that only one person was available today. Would these people be available at a later date, when we resume our work in September, for instance?
Ms. Gravel: I do not know; I invited them for this morning.
Senator Robichaud: You understand that these people are busy, and I am sure that they cannot clear their schedule at the last minute to appear here, especially if they are coming from far away.
Ms. Gravel: I suppose, as well, that some of them were not interested in appearing to discuss the bill.
Senator Robichaud: Yes, probably. However, we might have been able to have other witnesses appear if we were not pressed to finish this study this afternoon, right? I think that we are pushing a little, Madam Chair. I do not see the urgency of going full steam. This is something we should perhaps address a little later in the meeting.
[English]
The Chair: We can deal with that before we proceed to clause-by-clause consideration. We will proceed with the witnesses and then have our discussion.
Please proceed, Mr. Keddy.
Mr. Keddy: Thank you, Madam Chair and distinguished senators, for this opportunity to speak to the committee about the proposed Canada-Jordan economic growth and prosperity act.
In my remarks I will briefly highlight Canada's pro-trade plan, outline some key benefits of the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement, and discuss generally the nature of Canada's relationship with Jordan. Following my opening statement, I will be pleased to answer your questions.
Our government is committed to an ambitious pro-trade plan. Free trade agreements open doors for Canadian businesses through improved market access. This in turn leads to the creation of jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians. In fact, our pursuit of free trade agreements featured in Economic Action Plan 2012 sends a clear signal that Canada believes in open markets and strongly opposes protectionism.
Our pro-trade plan also places Canadian businesses and workers on a level playing field with global competitors. There are countries where Canadian companies are at a disadvantage because their competitors have preferential market access under some form of free trade agreement. To address this, our government's plan makes strategic use of free trade agreements, foreign investment promotion and protection agreements, science and technology cooperation agreements, air services agreements, double taxation agreements and regulatory cooperation to secure competitive terms of access for Canadian businesses and investors.
It should be noted that in less than six years Canada has concluded free trade agreements with nine countries: Colombia, Jordan, Panama, Peru, the European Free Trade Association member states of Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, and, most recently, with Honduras. Furthermore, trade negotiations are well under way with a number of other countries, including Ukraine and Morocco, and our government is involved in free trade negotiations with three major global economic powers: the European Union, India and Japan.
In addition, we are seeking to strengthen Canada's trade and economic relationships with the nine member countries of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Last week, Canada welcomed the support of the United States and all TPP countries for all participation in the TPP negotiations. This is an important step in an ongoing process that will provide Canada the opportunity to enter into the negotiations. Canada looks forward to helping develop a 21st century agreement that benefits all Trans-Pacific Partnership countries as a full and ambitious partner at the table.
Our government's pro-trade plan recognizes the critical role that international trade plays in the economic success of our nation. Sixty per cent of our GDP and one-in-five jobs depend upon trade. By deepening our economic ties with trading partners around the world through free trade agreements, Canada increases its economic strength and prosperity in a complex and competitive global society.
In the case of Jordan, the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement positions Canada's businesses to take advantage of current and future opportunities in this growing economy. In 2011, Canadian merchandise exports to Jordan totalled $70 million — more than double the total of $31 million in 2003. Canadian merchandise imports from Jordan totalled $19 million, up from $6 million in 2003. Jordan's current average applied tariff is 10 percent, with peaks of up to 30 per cent on some products of Canadian export interest such as forest products, machinery, and fish and seafood products.
Upon implementation of the agreement, Canada will benefit from immediate duty-free access for roughly 99 per cent of Canadian exports to Jordan. The remaining tariff will be phased out over three to five years.
Jordan sought only a limited number of exclusions from tariff reduction which are limited to areas of tobacco, alcohol and some poultry products. The elimination of Jordanian tariffs is important to Canadian stakeholders and access to the Jordanian market will benefit Canadian exporters in a variety of sectors, including: forest products such as paper and wood building products; industrial and electrical machinery; construction equipment; vehicles and parts; and agricultural and agri-food products such as pulses, frozen potato products, beef, animal feeds and various prepared foods.
Duty-free access will also help Canadian businesses by levelling the playing field with key competitors in the Jordanian market, namely, those competitors from the United States and the European Union, both of which already have free trade agreements with Jordan.
Of course, the agreement will also have benefits for Jordan. Canada will eliminate almost all tariffs on Jordanian goods immediately upon entry into force of the agreement, with the exceptions being over-quota supply managed dairy, poultry and egg products, which are excluded from tariff reduction.
Canada's investment-related interests are addressed in a separate treaty, the Canada-Jordan foreign investment promotion agreement, or FIPA. FIPA establishes clear rules for investment between our two countries. Canadian investors are particularly interested in opportunities in Jordan's resource extraction, nuclear energy, telecommunications, manufacturing and infrastructure sectors. This FIPA provides Canadian and Jordanian investors with the predictability and certainty that they need when investing in each other's markets.
Together, the Canada-Jordan economic growth and prosperity act and the FIPA represent a major step forward in the growing economic partnership between Canada and Jordan. It will help Canadian companies compete and win in the Jordanian market.
I am pleased to note that Canada has negotiated parallel labour cooperation and environment agreements as part of the larger package of agreements signed with Jordan. The labour cooperation agreement includes commitments to ensuring that each party's laws respect the International Labour Organization's 1998 Declaration on the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, and that they protect labour rights and provide a mechanism to address labour complaints.
The agreement on the environment commits both Canada and Jordan to maintain high levels of environmental protection to effectively enforce domestic environmental laws and to not relax or derogate from such laws in order to expand trade or investment. Canada believes that trade and investment can be a positive force for communities worldwide and that trade liberalization, environmental protection and labour rights can be mutually supportive.
If I could, I will now talk a bit more about Canada's relationship with Jordan. In addition to creating new opportunities for hard working Canadians and Canadian businesses, this free trade agreement also demonstrates the importance that Canada places on further developing relations with Jordan. As Canada's first ever free trade agreement with an Arab country, this agreement shows Canada's support for Jordan as a moderate Arab state and promotes peace and security in the Middle East.
At the May 2011 G8 summit, leaders launched the Deauville partnership, which recognizes the importance of the Arab awakening and is committed to supporting reforming countries, including Jordan, on the path to greater democracy and economic reform. Ratification of the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement fits very well with the Deauville partnership and is eagerly anticipated by the Jordanian authorities. In fact Jordan completed its domestic approvals process for the free trade, environment and labour cooperation agreements in early 2010.
Should Parliament elect to pass this legislation, officials would then work with their Jordanian counterparts to bring the free trade agreement into force as soon as possible. Indeed, I would like to personally encourage the Senate to pass Bill C-23, the proposed Canada-Jordan economic growth and prosperity act, at its earliest consequence.
That is my opening statement. It is an honour for me to appear before this auspicious Senate committee. I will leave it open for your kind and generous comments.
The Chair: Are you telling us that this is the first appearance you are making before our Foreign Affairs Committee? If so, we will note that.
I will now look to senators for any questions.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: My first question will be brief. How does this agreement differ from the free trade agreement with Israel?
[English]
Marvin Hildebrand, Director General, Trade Negotiations Bureau, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: Both of the free trade agreements that you mentioned, the agreement with Israel and this one, are relatively simple agreements in that they are not what we would call comprehensive free trade agreements that include the full scope of chapters that we have in NAFTA, for example.
One difference between the two is that this agreement has a particularly rapid elimination of tariffs, as was noted in the opening remarks. Upon coming into force, this agreement would eliminate tariffs immediately on the vast majority of Canadian exports to Jordan and also similarly with respect to Jordan's exports to Canada. It is very ambitious in that context.
The third thing I would say is that with the passage of time, we do make improvements and modernizations in terms of the language we use in our agreements that reflect stakeholder needs and reflect better approaches to doing certain things. Given that this agreement was negotiated roughly a decade after the Israel agreement, there would be certain changes and perhaps you could say modernization of the language in that context.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Why were the agreements on labour cooperation and the environment not incorporated into the Canada-Jordan Free Trade Agreement?
[English]
Mr. Keddy: The agreement on labour and the side agreement on the environment are exactly that — they are side agreements. Because they do not deal directly with trade but are affected by trade, we have separate agreements for them.
Our officials would like to add to that.
Pierre Bouchard, Director, Bilateral and Regional Labour Affairs, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: It is important to point out that what matters here is the content and not the format. On the format, we do have side agreements because we see benefits to that. There is an issue in regard to provincial jurisdiction also that makes it easier after the fact for provinces to agree to the obligation to the agreement when it is a stand-alone international treaty. It gives it visibility and establishes direct contact or rapport between the two Ministers of Labour so there are definite advantages. However, the content is important.
You can have a weak labour chapter and a very strong side agreement, and there are two chapters on environment and labour within the free trade agreement. They are non-binding. They basically refer to the side agreements, but they are present in the FTA as well. There are chapters and the enforceable side agreements.
Senator Nolin: Mr. Keddy, it would be important for the committee to understand what caused the delay. We understand that the agreement with Jordan came about in June 2009. We are now in June of 2012. I think it will be appropriate to understand what happened between those two dates. Let us start with that.
Mr. Keddy: Jordan has been before the International Trade Committee on the House of Commons side now for three occasions. At least on one occasion we lost Jordan because the house was prorogued. There was a lot of study, and I think it is fair to say some in-depth study, of the Jordan-Canada free trade agreement, and I am not here to try to blame any single political party or anyone else. We had a number of elections and unfortunately this free trade agreement got caught up in them.
Senator Nolin: That would probably be the introduction to my question about the importance of having that bill adopted rapidly. You mentioned the importance of signing what would be the first treaty with an Arab country since the Arab Spring and after the Deauville agreement. However, the Deauville agreement was not there in 2009.
Where is the benefit for Canada of making a first step in a trade agreement with an Arab country? What is the big picture?
Mr. Keddy: That is a good question. There is a huge benefit to Canada with our first agreement with an Arab country and our first agreement with a moderate Arab country. If you look at the track record of King Abdullah II in Jordan, especially since the Arab Spring but even before that, he was moving to a more democratic-based constitutional monarchy. They have made some drastic changes. Not all are yet implemented in Jordan, but they are certainly moving toward a constitutional democracy.
We have a terrific advantage to compete with our main trading partners, the European Union and the United States, who already have free trade agreements with Jordan. This puts us on equal footing with them, plus uses Jordan as a gateway to other Arab nations that are also looking for the products Canada has to trade.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Mr. Bouchard, so that we understand the importance of this parallel treaty, it is important that you explain to us how the working relationship between Canadian and Jordanian companies will operate.
Mr. Bouchard: With respect to the citizenship of the companies, all the companies are treated equally. The agreement applies and both governments are obligated to implement their legislation and respect the international ILO standards.
Senator Nolin: Could you please list them?
Mr. Bouchard: Yes. The 1998 ILO Declaration covers four fundamental principles: the freedom of association and collective bargaining; the abolition of child labour; the elimination of forced labour; and the elimination of discrimination. Our agreement even goes beyond that and includes international standards relating to workplace safety and health, minimum standards, including minimum wage and that type of thing. It does not involve establishing the minimum wage but refers to it in the legislation. The rights of migrant workers are also included.
Senator Nolin: It is all well and good to have this treaty, but the day after the treaty is implemented, what happens for a Canadian company doing business with Jordan or a Jordanian company doing business with Canada?
Mr. Bouchard: The agreement applies. If a company is in Canada, it is the responsibility of the Canadian government to ensure that the rights are being respected. If it involves a Canadian company doing business with a Jordanian company in Jordan, only the Jordanian company will be affected by the agreement, meaning that the government will be required to ensure that all the obligations are being respected, and the Canadian government will have the opportunity, if it so desires, to raise concerns if necessary and to see whether cooperative solutions can be found.
[English]
Senator Mahovlich: Considering that the United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement entered into force more than 10 years ago, has there been a significant increase in trade between those countries? Which industries in the United States have gained the most from the U.S.-Jordan agreement?
Mr. Hildebrand: Yes, senator, you are indeed correct. The U.S.-Jordan agreement came into force in the last days of 2001. With a phase-out period on its tariffs, that actually extended 10 years. That phase-out period just ended a little over two years ago. I am quite certain that that agreement has contributed to an increase in bilateral trade between those two countries. I do not have the exact figures in front of me to specify the magnitude of the increase.
One thing I would point out is that even though this agreement was negotiated almost a decade after the U.S.- Jordan agreement and is potentially coming into force, it would come into force over a decade after the U.S.-Jordan agreement. Given the provisions in this agreement, we stand to be on a level playing field with the United States on roughly 99 per cent of our exports to Jordan immediately upon coming into force. Rather than have a five- or ten-year phase-out period on many of those exports, it is just the opposite. That is one of the key benefits in a range of sectors.
I would be more equipped to indicate the prospective benefits for Canadian sectors than the U.S. ones. As I said, I do not have the U.S. information at my fingertips in terms of the increase in trade since their agreement or the specific sectors.
Senator Mahovlich: Is there a real demand for forest products in those Arab countries?
Mr. Keddy: Yes. The sectors of our economy that have the greatest potential to grow will be forestry — paper products as well as building materials — certainly agriculture, agri-foods, machinery, and especially mining equipment. In agriculture, the whole pulse sector has a tremendous opportunity.
Senator Wallin: As a senator from a place that has a lot of pulse products, this is all good news.
I want to ask you a couple of political questions, and you will see what I am getting at. Mr. Keddy, you talked about the three delays, for obvious reasons that we know about. This is true in any labour agreement or other kind of agreement. Once you have got it, you want to sign it before you lose it because we have been to the table so many times. Are you starting to get a little nervous that if we do not get this one signed, sealed and delivered, we will be in some jeopardy?
Mr. Keddy: I would hope that we are not in jeopardy, and I certainly have faith in the Senate committee and the recognition that this came to your committee with complete support from the House of Commons. All three parties supported this treaty, which is one of the first free trade agreements on which unanimous support has come out of the parliamentary chamber.
Senator Wallin: All unanimous?
Mr. Keddy: Yes.
Senator Wallin: That is great. Again, just for the headlines, as you know, with the things you have all listed, it seems a little obvious, but it looks like this is a win for us.
Mr. Keddy: Quite frankly, I agree, but I would also say, respectfully, that it is a win for Jordan as well. This is an important agreement for Jordan. It diversifies their trading partners. It is a huge win for Canadian businesses. I always say when we are discussing free trade agreements that we are not talking about trade suddenly starting tomorrow. We are already trading with Jordan, so our companies are suddenly going to face a tariff reduction of a minimum of 5 per cent on most things and a maximum of up to 20 per cent and 30 per cent on some items. This is a tremendous opportunity for Canadian businesses to be on a level playing field with their competitors.
Senator Wallin: That is great. Thank you.
Senator De Bané: Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, can you tell us a little bit about the net impact of this free trade agreement on economic relations between Canada and Jordan? To say it differently, to what extent do trade agreements like this one, with this country, really sustain the economy of our country? Do you see a real potential here? I would like you to comment on that.
Mr. Keddy: I think the quick answer to that is yes, but the long answer is the fact that when we look at this trade agreement, with roughly $70 million of exports to Jordan, a lot of people may look at that and say that is a small amount with regard to the trade of over $700 billion that we do with the U.S. However, after saying that, we have to realize that that $70 million is a lot of money to the companies that are doing that trade, and it is extremely important to those individuals, going back to my other statement, for the ability to be on a level playing field with our competitors vis-à-vis the European Union, especially the United States.
The question was asked earlier about how much trade has increased with the United States. It needs to be double- checked, and we will get you those numbers, but I believe American trade with Jordan doubled after they signed their free trade agreement. There is great potential there for Canadian businesses.
In the big picture, it is extremely important that we sign these agreements, whether they are worth $70 million to double to $140 million, to diversify their trading relationships around the world. We have seen some of the complications and challenges of being overly dependent on one huge trading partner.
Senator De Bané: Thank you very much, Mr. Keddy.
May I ask a question of the assistant deputy minister? Considering that the United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement includes specific commitments on services, would the absence of such commitments in the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement place Canadian service providers at a disadvantage relative to their American competitors?
Ian Burney, Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations Branch, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: Thank you for the question. It is a very good one. My understanding is that there are no services obligations in the U.S.-Jordan agreement, but we can double-check.
Certainly, in the analysis we made going in, we did look at the question of whether or not we should be pursuing services as part of this agreement. The judgment made at the time was that Canadian services interests in the Jordanian market were sufficiently addressed in a multilateral context, so in the commitments Jordan has already made in the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services.
Obviously the Doha round of negotiations has not moved quite in the direction we all would have hoped, so there may be a possibility to take another look at this down the road. The current agreement with Jordan does have an evolutionary clause in it that allows for the possibility of introducing other elements in the future, should circumstances warrant. For the moment, the basic answer is that we were satisfied by the commitments Jordan has made at the multilateral level to address our services interests.
Senator De Bané: Perhaps Mr. Hildebrand would be so kind as to send to the committee, through the clerk of our committee, a short document explaining the major differences or comparisons by sector between this trade agreement and the one that Canada recently concluded with other countries, particularly Panama, Colombia, Peru, and also Jordan's neighbour, Israel. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Bouchard, you responded to Senator Nolin's question saying that Jordan had to satisfy certain principles, such as the freedom of association and collective bargaining, no child labour, workplace safety and health and a minimum wage. What is the minimum wage in Jordan?
Mr. Bouchard: The minimum wage in Jordan has increased substantially in recent years. I believe it is around $200 or $210 a month.
Senator Robichaud: When we talk about minimum wage, we normally talk about an hourly wage. I believe that it is around $10 an hour in Canada.
Mr. Bouchard: In most of the countries we negotiate with, the point of reference for wages is per month. So it is $200 or $210 a month.
Senator Robichaud: Knowing that there are four weeks in a month, if we divide $210 by four, that would give $52.50 a week?
Mr. Bouchard: If we assume that there are 40 hours in a work week, if you have 200 hours, which would be about $1 an hour.
Senator Robichaud: And is that acceptable for us?
Mr. Bouchard: Unfortunately, that is the standard in most countries. Other developing countries in Latin America have monthly minimum wages that vary between $160 to $250 or $300. Obviously, there are developing countries where the minimum wage is higher, but the minimum wage for most countries within this bloc is around that amount, with an average of $250, $300 a month, which amounts to $1 or $1.50.
Senator Robichaud: So all the goods that are produced by these people working for that minimum wage are competing directly with goods from Canada produced at $10, $12, $15, $20 an hour?
Mr. Bouchard: Basically. They have an advantage from a wage point of view. Canadian workers have an advantage from the point of view of equipment, a greater productivity and the infrastructures, the very nature of the country, which is stable, advanced, close to markets. It is a question of comparative advantages.
Senator Robichaud: I actually believe that it is a comparative advantage. Do we have any data on child labour?
Mr. Bouchard: We could get the specific data, but the problem is less prevalent in Jordan. We are obviously all aware that the main problem is migrant workers. Since Jordan is a developing country, the situation is not perfect when it comes to working children. But given that the migrant workers are adults — you will not have migrant workers because, in general, they are all there legally, and therefore enter the country as adults — there will be fewer problems with respect to children.
But obviously, as a developing country, it is a country that must make efforts. But the situation of children who would work in export companies is not a problem that is raised in the reports we receive. There may be problems with poor children, poverty in the street, but in manufacturing goods that would be exported to Canada, that is not a problem we saw in Jordan.
Senator Robichaud: Who prepared the report that says that children are not involved in manufacturing exported goods?
Mr. Bouchard: We are referring to the United Nations report by the International Labour Organization. We are working with the ILO through technical assistance projects. The Canadian government has already injected about $1.2 million in various labour-related projects that touch on one of the main sectors, namely, textiles and exports. The ILO is on the ground, seeing the conditions, sending us reports, and the issue of child labour in those sectors has never been raised. The problem is obviously the issue of migrant workers, and the Jordanian government is continuing to work on that.
Senator Robichaud: Are we only concerned about child labour with respect to exported goods and that, with respect to other sectors, it is not as important if they work elsewhere?
Mr. Bouchard: Not at all. Obviously, the obligations of the agreement apply to all sectors and, if there is a complaint, all sectors can be covered in the dispute resolution process.
However, if the problem is not resolved following departmental consultations and we need to start a complaint process, a panel could impose penalties and, when it comes before the panel, some conditions must be satisfied, including the condition that it must be trade-related. In this case, it would be more difficult if there had been cases involving child labour in situations that were not trade-related. We could raise these cases all the same, and it could be the focus of consultations. But, obviously, this agreement was negotiated in the context of a free trade agreement, so the link with trade is there. So it depends on the sectors.
Obviously, we are keeping an eye on domestic work by children. That is where abuses are often seen if children are working as servants. But even there, in Jordan, domestic workers are generally adults, often women from other countries, who work in residences. And the reports we receive make very little mention of Jordanian children because, by definition, these are the only children, and foreign children would not be in abusive child labour situations in Jordan.
Senator Nolin: Mr. Bouchard, can you please tell us who may file a complaint?
Mr. Bouchard: Any Canadian citizen may file a complaint, any Canadian organization, be it an employer organization, a union organization, an NGO, they can all file a complaint with the Canadian government. The provinces that are going to voluntarily accept the obligations of the agreement could also file a complaint. The complaint is filed with the Canadian government, with our office, and then a procedure begins.
Senator Nolin: In other words, it could be a Canadian tourist who, on a trip to Jordan, discovers or thinks he or she has discovered a discrepancy with the treaty and files a complaint upon returning to Canada? It could be that?
Mr. Bouchard: Absolutely.
[English]
Senator Downe: I am wondering if the government can advise what they anticipate Jordan will be exporting to Canada under this agreement.
Mr. Keddy: One of the issues I would like to touch on before I answer your question is the whole question surrounding child labour. The labour agreement clearly provides for the abolition of child labour. I think that needs to be stated.
Particularly in the textile industry, we certainly expect that Jordan will be looking to export apparel and garments into Canada. At the same time, I think it is very important to say that these interests were taken into account and the apparel industry in Canada itself, our apparel industry, is not expecting any flood of Jordanian textile imports coming into Canada.
The other products that Jordan will be exporting into Canada will be the chemicals and a number of other products. I will ask the officials to provide the full and complete list.
Mr. Hildebrand: As mentioned, their largest export to Canada is apparel followed by inorganic chemicals; several agricultural products, notably cucumbers; and also various articles of iron and steel. The trade relationship is relatively low. Their exports to Canada have increased since 2003 from about $6 million to $19 million last year.
In terms of prospects going forward, this agreement will immediately eliminate — except for supply-managed products, dairy, poultry and eggs — all of Canada's tariffs on imports from Jordan. It will be a question of comparative advantage and what Jordan's economy, industrial and other capacities bring to bear in that circumstance.
It is a bit difficult to predict exactly which sectors will gain the most. I think the ones that are currently active on the short list of products exported to Canada probably stand to do even better. The reality of these types of agreements is that there are advantages that cannot be predicted and that emerge by virtue of the provisions but also the deepening of the commercial relationship that comes from that.
Senator Downe: Thank you for that.
This committee in 2009 approved the Canada-Peru agreement, and since then, Canada's exports to that country have increased only marginally but our imports have increased dramatically. What analysis has the government done on that? Have Canadian businesses not been aggressive enough? What caused that discrepancy between what we hoped would happen and the current situation?
Mr. Hildebrand: There are a couple of things. First, as you note, it is a fairly recent agreement. Since it came into force, there has been a relatively limited amount of time for any sort of change and increase in exports to occur. Statistics are current, but if we look at annual statistics, for example, there just is not that much water under the bridge yet.
Second, the agreement includes a phase-out period for tariffs, so it will be a number of years until the agreement is fully implemented. That will also inform trade flows.
Third, in terms of a significant trading relationship, annual circumstances and market-related circumstances affect certain trade flows. Certain flows of trade are very consistent year after year, depending on the product in question. Other products, and I am speaking generally here in terms of trading relationships such as commodities, can be very much driven by production patterns in one country or another, by prices and other circumstances. For those reasons as well, a long-term perspective on this particular bilateral trade relationship will be useful and will provide an increasingly broad perspective on the outcome and the benefits for Canada of the agreement.
Senator Downe: It may have been a short time for Canada not to take advantage of the treaty, but Chile did not have that problem. Our trade imbalance went from $2.5 billion to $3.9 billion in three years under this agreement. They were very active, and we seem to be slower off the mark. We have other examples that are over a longer period of time. We have one with Costa Rica, for example, where this trend has been continued.
My question is: After we sign the agreement, does the government give any assistance, training or support to Canadian companies to take advantage of these new markets so we do not have a repeat of what happened with Chile where they were prepared and we looked like we were not? Is any such program in place?
Mr. Burney: Perhaps I will take a stab at that. Within the department we have both a trade policy arm, which I am responsible for, and a business development arm, and we very much try to coordinate the two. In the immediate aftermath of the conclusion of a trade agreement, we work closely with our colleagues in the business development side of the house to implement marketing programs and other business development initiatives to take advantage of the opportunities created by the trade agreement. Market access is only one variable among the many that influence trading patterns, including currency movements and commodity prices and what have you. We would not expect always to see a one-to-one correlation between the conclusion of a free trade agreement and an increase in trade. All else equal, the free trade agreement should stimulate commerce, but there are many other variables in play.
To answer your question, yes, we do try to integrate our approach and coordinate between the negotiation side and the business development side of the department.
Senator Downe: I understand that the government eliminated 35 commerce offices and trade promotion positions and is closing 7 of the 18 trade offices across Canada.
Mr. Keddy: That is correct, but it should be noted that this process was undertaken by the Canadian government. We also looked at our priority countries. For instance, we are keeping our emphasis on emerging economies. We have an emphasis on Pacific Rim countries, especially China and India, which are huge and growing economies. We looked at our gateways and trading routes in North America and in the Americas. We have taken resources and put them in areas where there are growing economies and a lot of activity where they can gather and generate more dollars for Canadians.
In regard to the Peru-Chile relationship, there is a tremendous geographical advantage for Chile vis-à-vis Peru versus Canada. That does not mean that we will not be able to take advantage of our free trade relationship with Chile, which we are in the process of modernizing. It needs to be recognized that the older agreement was exactly that, and this new agreement will cover a number of other sectors and modernize the trading relationship and hopefully be advantageous for Canada in a way the old agreement was not.
Senator Downe: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Keddy and all officials from the department, thank you for coming and presenting your case before the committee.
We are now pleased to welcome Mr. Bob Kirke, Executive Director of the Canadian Apparel Federation; and, as an individual, Professor Michael Hart, Simon Reisman Chair in Trade Policy at Carleton University.
Gentlemen, welcome to the committee.
Michael Hart, Simon Reisman Chair in Trade Policy, Carleton University, as an individual: Thank you, Madam Chair.
As I did not have much time to prepare, I do not have a formal statement. I was urged by the committee clerk to give up my golf game today and come here instead. I hope the weather holds this afternoon.
It is not difficult to say a few positive things about this agreement, but I have to warn you that I think those are quite minor. This is what I call part of a strategy of majoring in minors. There is nothing wrong with it, but there is nothing terribly good about these agreements either.
This agreement has a much longer history that the government has on its website. When I was still in government, in 1995 we initiated discussions with Jordan, even ahead of the Americans. That did not succeed, so discussions were reinitiated in 2007 and concluded in 2009. As the parliamentary secretary said, it is due to parliamentary happenstance that it has taken three years to get this far.
The most important reason you should pass this agreement and get it into law is that it sends a signal to much more important trading partners that we are able to complete what we start. It is not a very good signal to start talking to people in 1995 and implement an agreement in 2012. It shows a certain lack of follow-through, even if you finished negotiations in 2009 and it takes another three years to implement it.
There is nothing controversial in this agreement; it is a very standard agreement, as some of the questions that senators have already asked intimate. There is not much economic impact that is likely to result from this agreement. We have a very minor trading relationship with Jordan. That will improve marginally as a result of this agreement, but Jordan is much more in the EU economic sphere than it is in the North American sphere.
The American agreement has had some impact, as ours will, but ours will be quite minor. It is what my late colleague Bill Dymond and I called a retail trade agreement; that is, there are one or two sectors of the economy that are interested in this. As Senator Wallin recognizes, the pulses and lentils people find these agreements particularly interesting, and that is one thing that we trade with that part of the world, as well as a little bit of pulp and paper and such products, but I do not see this as a major agreement, nor do I foresee a large invasion of products from Jordan.
Again, most of the investment in Jordan in the kinds of things that they are now beginning to export is oriented toward the EU, but we will get some of it. In fact, I have seen some Jordanian apparel in stores now, and on balance that is a good thing. If we want people in countries like Jordan to do well, we should support these kinds of agreements because they open opportunities that they would otherwise not have.
However, the extent of that opportunity should not be exaggerated. One reason that we are able to eliminate these tariffs quite quickly is that Jordan was already a beneficiary of the generalized system of preferences, and therefore the gap between now and what will be the case in a few months' time is quite minor. It will have some impact, however, which is generally a good thing.
The more important thing to keep in mind is that we will embark on some more important negotiations in the near future, and we need to send a strong signal to those potential partners that Canada is serious about these negotiations and we want to get on with them.
Bob Kirke, Executive Director, Canadian Apparel Federation: Thank you for the invitation. I have some prepared remarks, but I will skip over most of them in the interests of time. I do agree with Mr. Hart that passage of this agreement will suggest that we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and that is a good thing.
I would like to reflect on some of the comments that have been made over the last three years, primarily in the house, but in other quarters as well, in particular with regard to labour conditions in the apparel industry and a couple of other circumstances specifically related to apparel and textiles.
It is important to understand that the Canadian government has granted tariff-free access to our market to many developed countries. This was done in 2003 and was extended to what are called least developed countries, countries such as Bangladesh and Cambodia. Tariff-free access to the Canadian market led to a massive increase of duty-free apparel entering Canada. Last year, for example, Bangladesh exported approximately $1 billion of apparel to Canada.
In the context of this debate, the current rates of duty on apparel are approximately 18 per cent and will come down to zero immediately under this agreement.
In debate on this bill there have been questions raised about whether there will be a domestic impact here in Canada. I suggest to the committee that there will be virtually no impact on the Canadian industry, except that it will source its apparel from different places. Whereas some countries will be sourcing exclusively from Bangladesh, they will now have the option to move that production to Jordan.
Jordan has an established trading relationship with the U.S., as has been outlined, both in specific a program called Qualifying Industrial Zones, as well as under the U.S.-Israeli Free Trade Agreement. There were actually provisions under the U.S.-Israeli Free Trade Agreement many years ago to do production in Jordan, and there is subsequently a Jordanian free trade agreement with the U.S. It has been a long and evolving relationship in the States and we are a little bit to the party.
During the three years the bill and its predecessors were before Parliament, a number of concerns were raised about labour standards in Jordanian apparel factories in general; questions regarding child labour, for example, which was just raised here at the committee. While there were many comments on the house floor regarding labour standards, none of those comments made reference to the ongoing positive work in the country.
I think the speaker from HRSDC mentioned the Better Work Jordan program, and I believe he also mentioned that Canada has supported that program. They produce a report annually, specifically with regard to the labour conditions in the apparel industry, and in its most recent report the clear conclusion was that on all measures relating to internationally accepted labour standards the conditions on the ground in Jordan are improving significantly. I would say parenthetically that they are far superior to the 47 countries which we have granted tariff-free access to our market — absolutely. This is an example of good international multilateral agencies at work.
My final comments are regarding the wisdom of entering into this type of agreement. While the apparel industry companies in Canada that make their goods in Jordan will benefit from this, it is still not a major agreement by any stretch. There are many other quarters within the apparel industry that would like to see the government move as quickly as possible to more substantial trade agreements.
Our recommendation is to pass this bill but also to redouble our efforts to tackle free trade agreement agreements with more significant trading partners.
I believe that the agreement was signed three years ago today and it would be, I think, highly appropriate to bring it to a conclusion.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kirke.
Senator D. Smith: Were you here for the previous panel's questions?
Mr. Hart: I heard most of them, yes.
Senator D. Smith: I am open-minded on this and I agree that we have higher priorities. It is great to think optimistically, but Senator Downe did cite some statistics of a couple of the previous ones, including Panama. There is optimism and then there is the reality of the statistics showing that the deficit is significantly growing.
Are we in denial about the realities of the ability of Canadian companies who hope to benefit from this of being able to compete? What is the reality? Are we in a bit of denial, or do we need to be more proactive and jump in to encourage Canadian companies that have some potential to compete in there to be ready; or, will we at a bit of a disadvantage as we have been with respect to some of the other ones that have been referred to?
Mr. Kirke: Let us assume that the agreement is implemented and that we move forward with the tariff reductions. You will see companies, some of which appeared before the Commons committee on this bill, that will do more business in Jordan, not in Bangladesh. They will move that production.
There will not be net increase in imports. I am not sure in specific sectors where we are not losing anything. Canadian companies are actually moving to a better place to do their business on a more consistent basis and with better labour protections, and so on. There are benefits there that are maybe not shown in the import-export statistics.
Second, they are put on the same footing as their American counterparts. Calvin Klein will do production in Jordan because they have a long-standing free trade agreement arrangement with the United States. However, Canadian companies have not been willing to go there because they have not had the benefits coming into Canada. They can now go to Jordan. They work with the ILO to ensure their factories are working well. They get tariff free access into both Canada and the U.S. That may not be shown on the trade stats but it puts Canadian companies on a better footing to compete elsewhere.
Again, it is more complicated than saying we imported this much and exported that much; there is our problem. It is a lot more complicated than that.
Mr. Hart: I have no idea what officials in the government now think. I left 16 years ago, but on the day I left I stopped taking bilateral trade statistics seriously because they are meaningless. It really does not matter whether we are in deficit or surplus on a bilateral basis. All that indicates is the ebb and flow of an economic relationship. That neither imports nor exports are growing is more indicative of whether or not an agreement is having the effect that it is intended to have.
In many cases these marginal agreements do not have much impact. In fact in the case of the Chile agreement, we were asked a number of years ago to do a study of the impact of the Chilean agreement on Canadian interests and we had to determine that it had no impact on Canadian trade at all. That does not mean the agreement did not serve its purpose. From the interest of Canadian businesses, that agreement served primarily as an investment agreement. We are the largest investor in Chile. We did not have the kind of investment protection that we needed in that economy, particularly for the mining sector, so we gained that through that agreement. As a result, we gained investment opportunities there and Chile was able to improve its access to the Canadian market for fresh fruits and vegetables and wine. It is a win-win agreement but it does not show up in the numbers.
I no longer take the numbers seriously because the nature of industry now is that it is so disaggregated on a global basis. Mr. Kirke referred to companies going to Jordan to have some of the work done there. That means that they may be sourcing some of their inputs in some countries, finishing them in another and then bringing them in here. Whether that is a Jordanian import or an import from another country is immaterial. What is material is this, namely, are we making the best use of scarce resources. In that particular case, with the small agreements, no, we are not.
I counted and there are 40 people sitting around here, agonizing about whether to implement this really minor agreement. I counted seven officials sitting here with the parliamentary secretary, and I think, "Do not they have anything better to do?" We negotiate these agreements; it takes years to do that. We fly back and forth, when we should do it all by email because they are so minor. Do I think this is the best use of resources; no, not really.
Senator D. Smith: I have to confess that I contributed somewhat to Chilean sales of wine in Canada. I do not think that will be the case with Jordanian wine.
Senator Downe: You made the point and you made it well about this being a minor agreement. In the age of limited resources, we heard about cutbacks at the department in the trade and commerce section. Obviously, I am assuming — and you will correct me if I'm wrong — that we should be after the bigger partners and we should be putting our efforts, for example, with the Canada-EU, which was due last year and we are still waiting for it.
These minor agreements consume an awful lot of time and effort, as you indicated. Departmental people must be swamped, because the government is running around doing one-offs all over the world. We have Asia crying out for additional deals and the EU is stalled. Is that a summary of your position or is it different from that?
Mr. Hart: It is close to that but not quite there. I think that yes, we should be pursuing the bigger partners, but more importantly — and I have a paper coming out with C.D. Howe next month which will explain this in more detail — I think it is time we cleaned up the whole customs business and got rid of the tariff all together. If you look at the tariff now, it has about 8,000 tariff lines of which about 6,000 say "free." That means we have about 2,000 tariff lines left. Many of them are minor tariffs. The only significant ones are in the supply management area, and you know my views on supply management. It is high time we tackled that particular problem and solved it. Aside from supply management, we keep these minor tariffs in place and that employs hundreds of officials not only in ensuring that we collect that minor tariff but that we retain that the goods are consistent with the rules of origin, that they are consistent with the valuation provisions, that they are consistent with the classifications provisions, and so on. If the government really wanted to save some money, they would announce on July 1 that we are going to "free," and they would send out notices to about 5,000 customs officials saying that they will no longer be needed. Some could be rehired as security officials, but they would not be needed as customs officials. That is radical, but you wanted to know what I really think. That is what I really think.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Thank you to our witnesses for appearing before the committee. My question is for Mr. Hart, because he seems to know Jordan well; and so it is a question that I would have liked to have asked the previous panel, but I did not have the opportunity to.
I would like to know if and to what extent Jordan is involved in producing nuclear energy, because I do not know where they are getting their electricity from. Do you think you could answer my question?
[English]
Mr. Hart: I am sorry, senator, but you are asking a question that goes well beyond what I know. I am a trade guy and I try to keep up on trade things, but I am not all that familiar with the Jordan situation.
The Chair: I take it, Mr. Kirke, you are in the same position.
Mr. Kirke: Yes.
Senator Downe: I want to reference the Better Work Jordan report that you referred to earlier in the executive summary. The working times — excessive work hours and compulsory overtime — remain a major concern. How do countries and companies deal with that?
Mr. Kirke: A lot of labour in the factories in Jordan is migrant labour. These are people coming from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and a variety of other places. Just as Canada has people coming from Latin America to do agricultural labour, Jordan brings people in to do manufacturing labour. This partially explains comments about things such as child labour. Children are not involved in migrant labour, so there is not a child labour problem in Jordan.
The dilemma with migrant labour is that they come, at great cost and inconvenience to their personal lives, to a different country with the sole purpose of making as much money as they can.
There are also other circumstances which encourage factories to work as much as possible, and so you have a challenge where people want to work many more hours than these restrictions allow. There are factories that are under a lot of pressure to meet deadlines, and it is a very tough balancing act.
In many cases the workers want to work and they want to make more money because they are shipping it back home. The factories want to meet deadlines and they do not want to lose orders. There is a challenge. I think the ILO's program has worked well in Jordan because U.S. retailers especially are now completely embracing it.
I had a conversation with one who was using one of my members that does work in Jordan. When a problem came up, which I believe had to do with maximum work hours, they said, "You have been using factories that are not in Better Work Jordan. You are going to get there. Call them today and bring them in. Then, after that, get onto the golden list which is maintained by the Ministry of Labour in Jordan."
That is the genesis of the problem. The problem is that on a variety of fronts people want to work a lot more hours than we would consider reasonable, and you do need that oversight.
Senator Downe: The report also talks about forced labour. The reason people have to work more hours is that they have to pay a fee for the recruitment to a third party. They have to pay this back before they can send any money home. That must be a concern to your association as well.
Mr. Kirke: Absolutely. Again, that is why we want to see companies use accredited factories. There is no question that examples of that exist. Nygard International from Winnipeg appeared before the House of Commons committee, and I believe their Emirates factory participated by video conference.
It is a struggle. There are some disreputable people in some migrant labour recruitment, but I think it is being addressed. You have to appreciate that all those other 47 countries that get zero duty into Canada are not doing any of this. The questions are: Is Jordan doing the right things? Is Jordan working with international agencies? Is there a positive trajectory? I think on all counts the answer is yes.
Senator Downe: This report also indicates that it is a significant problem because migrant workers in over 40 per cent of the factories in Jordan indicated that the debt they owe to third party recruiters has adversely affected their freedom to leave their jobs, let alone send money back to their families. That is a substantial percentage — 40 per cent.
Mr. Kirke: I am not sure if that relates to the factories in the program or outside the program. My point would be that the larger the uptake of that program, which is supported by the Canadian government and has been for many years, the better it is.
I want to clearly say that a very large percentage of the apparel industry in Asia is a migrant labour industry. In China all the internal labour is through migrant labour. You actual have more control over those circumstances in Jordan where there are mechanisms under the side agreements to bring these issues forward. The ILO Better Work Jordan as a model. On those scores, it speaks not perfectly but positively about what is going on there.
Senator Downe: I am not sure if I share that view. This same report states:
In six factories (22 per cent), it was found that workers were either subjected to verbal or physical abuse, or were threatened if they did not complete their production targets.
These are significant and serious problems, and I am sure they would be of concern to any Canadian hearing about this.
The Chair: Do you wish to respond?
Mr. Kirke: Certainly. I think the companies in our association encourage firms to operate in the most socially responsible manner. Again, one of the dilemmas is to address concerns and to identify the most substantial ones. I can assure you that where issues have come up, the firms that we deal with address them.
The Chair: Mr. Kirke, thank you for coming. In fact, you were the only person who contacted me to indicate that you wished this agreement to be expedited and were willing to come to testify. I received no other requests.
Mr. Hart, perhaps you can still hit the nine-hole course or the three-hole course, but we thank you for coming and making this a priority.
Senators, we have exhausted the list of our witnesses today and I am in your hands at this point.
Senator Nolin: Should we proceed to clause by clause?
The Chair: Can we proceed to clause-by-clause consideration?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Madam Chair, given that some of the witnesses that have appeared must now send us written answers, it would be better to tell them not to do so since we are proceeding with the clause-by-clause study.
[English]
The Chair: We have done that in the past in many committees. I hope they will continue to send us the material as an ongoing Foreign Affairs Committee, and particularly some of the general trade issues. I hope we continue to get the answers and we have many mechanisms to follow up.
I hope that it is a balance between proceeding with legislation and our ongoing oversight role. As you know, we talked yesterday, but I will not disclose in camera discussions. We follow a lot of trade practices, and this may be an area that we wish to continue to follow up.
One aspect that I had not given much thought to is with regard to what happens immediately upon passing the agreement and what other measures could be implemented across Canada so that our businesses could be more competitive and ready to take advantage of trade agreements or to look at different mechanisms of attacking trade issues.
I hope we do not stop our analysis. I note, Senator Robichaud, you will make sure that I do.
Senator Robichaud: I will try.
Senator D. Smith: I am happy to deal with this. I am not trying to be partisan, but I want to say that I hope this does not become a pattern where the Commons has twelve committee meetings and we have one. I know that when we get close to a session ending — maybe it is not a session but just a summer break; time will tell. You get my point. I am not being partisan. It is not okay. It is just grin and bear it, maybe.
The Chair: You know that I would probably not proceed with anything if I thought that we were going to receive information we did not have.
I am not speaking for the committee, and I hope that is made clear, but for myself. The list of witnesses that was put forward contained witnesses that were involved in the house process. They are witnesses that have been before House of Commons and Senate committees before, so they know the procedure. No one came forward to indicate they wished to testify. I know that these groups track what we do. They all have communications capability. Often, when there is an expedited process, my phone starts to ring and the emails start, saying "We want to be heard." That has not occurred. I just double-checked with the clerk as to whether anyone contacted us to testify right up to the present moment, and there was no one.
I agree with you that we should not make this a precedent. I will certainly undertake that it is not. For the record, I have been impressing upon my leadership and continue to do so — and I trust you will do the same — that we not be put in this kind of position at the eleventh hour. Having been in the Senate through many leaders and many governments, this is not a unique situation. From day one, I have found that the Senate is not always totally factored in when it comes to legislation. We have not corrected what has been an ongoing issue for us, and thank you for putting it on the record.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of 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?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Downe: On division.
The Chair: On division.
With leave of the committee, I would like to group the clauses of the bill. Do I have leave to do so?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the short title in clause 1 stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clauses 2 to 5 under "Interpretation" carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 6 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Shall clause 7 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Shall clause 8 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clauses 9 to 15 in Part 1 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Shall clauses 16 to 43 in Part 2 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Shall clauses 44 and 45 in Part 3 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 46 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall schedules 1 to 5 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall the short title in clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the bill carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Senators, thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)