EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, November 27, 1996

.1539

[English]

The Chairman: I call to order this meeting of the Subcommittee on Sustainable Human Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Today we have quite a full schedule. We're very much honoured to have appearing before us today the Hon. Alfonso Gagliano, the Minister of Labour, before the Minister for International Cooperation and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. They share jurisdiction, these three ministers, for our subject on child labour. Minister Gagliano has been particularly active with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and with other departments as well in this area.

With that introduction, I'd like to call on the minister, to welcome him and to ask him to present his remarks. Mr. Gagliano.

Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and dear colleagues.

[Translation]

First of all, I wish to thank you for inviting me to discuss with you the issue of child labour, a subject of real concern to people like you and me who abhor the economic exploitation of children.

.1540

The mistreatment of children is among the most heinous violations of basic human rights. It is also an extremely complex issue, one that is rooted largely in poverty and influenced by cultural and traditional social practices.

[English]

You have already heard from my colleagues, the Minister for International Cooperation and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. My remarks are complementary to theirs. Mine are from the perspective of the government's responsibility for workplace issues.

My mandate includes managing Canada's participation in the International Labour Organisation. Our country has been a member since the organization was established in 1919. The ILO is the only organization in the United Nations system that is tripartite.

We have strongly supported the ILO standard-setting activities and the organizational effort to strengthen core labour standards globally. This includes provisions to eliminate exploitative child labour as well as extensive research distribution of current information and technical assistance.

This past June, at the ILO's annual conference in Geneva, we supported a resolution calling on all countries to make a concerted effort to progressively eliminate child labour.

[Translation]

As well, Canada strongly supports the ILO's decision to put child labour on the agenda of its 1998 annual conference for the purpose of developing a new convention that will address the most exploitative forms of child labour.

I can assure the sub-committee that my officials and I will work in close collaboration with the provinces and labour and business organizations to prepare the Canadian government's position on this new convention. And, of course, we will actively participate in its development.

We will also be giving close attention to the recently published ILO study: Child Labour: Targeting the Intolerable.

This timely document chronicles the exploitation and abuse of working children, surveys international and national law and practice, and suggests practical approaches to remove children from debt bondage, prostitution and hazardous occupations and activities.

[English]

My mandate also includes responsibility for ensuring Canada fulfils its obligation under the North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation, one of the two parallel agreements to the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA.

Protecting the rights of children and young people is one of the 11 principles to which Canada is committed under the NAFTA. Child labour has been specifically identified as one of the issues on which Canada, the U.S. and Mexico undertake cooperative activities.

Failure to enforce child labour legislation is also one of the issues subject to a full range of procedures under the North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation. Specifically, this is cooperative consultation by ministers, comparative evaluation by independent experts and full dispute resolution measures in the case of a complaint about government practices.

[Translation]

As you may know, we do not have accurate figures on child labour in Canada. Most labour standards are under provincial and territorial jurisdiction. So it is mainly at this level of government that data collection, follow-up and enforcement activities take place.

That is not to say there are no cases in Canada where children and young people are working outside legal conditions, i.e. working too many hours, working during school hours and working at jobs that are inappropriate for children. However, we need information about which situations may exist outside school hours and in what specific informal settings children may be working.

In this regard, we are working with our provincial counterparts to attempt to get an accurate picture of the situation in Canada.

[English]

Next February we will participate in a conference on child labour organized by the Cooperative Work Program of the North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation. We are confident this conference will contribute to a better understanding of these issues and generate new research initiatives in Canada and in the other NAFTA countries.

.1545

I am sometimes asked why we have not ratified ILO Convention 138, which deals with domestic laws on the minimum age at which children can be employed. There is already considerable domestic compliance with the underlying principles of Convention 138, although its ratification would require agreement and compliance of federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions and there are some discrepancies between the requirements of Convention 138 and the situation in Canada.

Indeed, no jurisdictions in Canada prohibit all work, including light work for children under the age of 13. Our overall approach is that light work outside school hours can be a valuable learning and socializing experience.

The new ILO convention on child labour, due to be discussed in 1998, will more directly than Convention 138 address the issue of child labour. It will target the most exploitative forms of child labour: bonded or slave labour, work in unsafe conditions, child prostitution and child pornography. Once the new convention has been adopted, we will examine the potential for its ratification by Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, like my colleagues, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of International Cooperation, I believe we must use our limited resources in the most effective way possible.

I am happy that the Labour Program is a participant in the government's $700,000 contribution to the ILO's International Program for the elimination of child labour.

It is a project to develop guidelines for policy makers and practitioners on sustainable action against child labour.

The analysis will focus on six selected countries: Brazil, Kenya, the Philippines, Tanzania, Thailand and Turkey. Lessons learned will facilitate further program development and form the basis for a best practices guide for policy makers in other countries including governments, employers and workers organizations, and other NGOs.

Experience has demonstrated that the impetus for abolishing child labour can only come through a broad social consensus that emerges within the individual countries. Effective actions are implemented through a phased, comprehensive, holistic approach involving all components in a society.

It is clear that we must spare no effort to put an end to exploitative child labour. In consultation with all parties concerned by this issue, the government of Canada is committed to do its part, without restriction, towards achieving that goal.

Again, thank you very much for your invitation. I am ready to answer all your questions,Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you. Do you have a question, madame Debien?

Mrs. Debien (Laval-East): Good day, Mr. Minister and welcome to the committee. Thank you also for agreeing to take part in our work.

You said on page 1 of your document, with regard to child labour and the exploitation of the labour of children, that it is ``an extremely complex issue, one that is rooted largely in poverty and influenced by cultural and traditional social practices''.

I want to state outright that never will members of the Bloc Québécois accept that culture, social practices, traditions and poverty can be an excuse for making children work. This has to be clear right from the start.

.1550

The other question I wanted to ask has to do with NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. We know that Mexico is a country where child labour and exploitation of child labour are very widespread.

I would like to know if in the discussions you have had on NAFTA or that you will have in relation to trade with Mexico, this issue has been raised with the Mexican government.

On page 6 of your document, paragraph 3, you say there will be a study under the auspices of ILO that will focus on six countries: Brazil, Kenya, the Philippines, etc.

Do you know why India was not included in this list of countries? Most witnesses who came here told us that this country is one of the worst as far as exploitative child labour is concerned. They also mentioned Pakistan and China, countries with which Canada has an increasingly close trading relationship.

I would like you to answer these questions, at least the two last ones, the first being mainly a comment on the Bloc's position that poverty and culture can under no circumstances be an excuse for child labour.

Mr. Gagliano: In my statement, I was trying to explain why this situation exists, but I fully agree that poverty is not an excuse. There is no justification whatsoever for this.

I went to Mexico in May for the meeting of the Labour Ministers of the three NAFTA countries. We held our annual meeting and discussed the whole labour situation. Indeed, we have underway a comparative study of labour practices in our three countries in order to do a follow-up and develop policies common to these three NAFTA countries.

Toward the end of February next, there will be a conference on child labour and youth. We will be there and we will have discussions directly with the American and Mexican delegates. We will raise this subject and we want to ensure, as a member of NAFTA, that this very difficult issue will be tackled and that, in each of our countries, children will be protected and not be made to work illegally.

We have contributed $700,000 to add more countries to the list. I will ask my assistant deputy-minister to elaborate, but I believe that there are 24 countries on the list, including India. Mrs. Sénécal.

Mrs. Nicole Senécal (Assistant Deputy-Minister, Labour, Department of Human Resources Development): The number of contributors keeps increasing, because all large countries want to contribute. Our contribution is $700,000. ILO, in its consultations with us, selected these countries. However, this does not mean that guidelines are required only for these countries. There will be others.

Our $700,000 contribution is specifically for these countries but ILO, as an organization, deals with all countries where child labour is a big issue.

.1555

Mr. Gagliano: We are informed about the measures the government of India is in the process of taking, measures we approve of for they go in the right direction. The government is concerned with the situation in India. The government of India has projects that we support and which consist in making public the names of businesses that encourage child labour or that employ children. Together with ILO, we encourage these measures to denounce those who abuse children.

[English]

Mr. Martin (Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca): Mr. Minister, thank you. Deputy Minister and colleagues, you've come here today in front of us to hear about this very important issue.

I think you hit the nail on the head in saying basically child prostitution, bonded labour and slave labour are symptoms of the larger problem of poverty in these developing nations. Also, in these countries - you know very well from Kenya and a number of others - the rate of increase in populations is extraordinary, with growth rates going above 3.4% in some of these nations.

It's very difficult to deal with. Exactly how do we attempt to improve the socio-economic conditions of these people in the lower socio-economic groups when their rate of population is increasing so quickly?

I have two questions for you. The first one is this. I'm wondering if you're working with the ILO, the World Bank and these countries to set up green bank sorts of institutions, where you can get micro-loans to the people so they can actually help themselves. This has proven to be quite effective in a number of countries all over the world.

Second, are you working with CIDA and the ILO to also deal with the problem of the rapid increase in population growth rates by providing safe, effective and available birth control in these nations? It doesn't seem to me we're going to really win in the long term with the population growing so rapidly. I know it is politically a very difficult subject to deal with, but I think it is one we ought to look at.

Mr. Gagliano: My colleague, the Minister for International Cooperation, is responsible for CIDA, which deals with the issues you mentioned.

As the Minister of Labour, I'm responsible for the ILO operation. The labour branch and human resources in my department have been very active in working with other countries to organize a new convention on child labour for the meeting in 1998. This is my involvement since I'm responsible for the operation of the ILO.

As I also said in my statement, we bring the parallel arguments and propositions through the NAFTA since we have a labour side agreement in the NAFTA countries. Therefore, we bring up the same subjects with those countries. We're working with the ILO and NAFTA, the North American free trade partners.

Mr. Martin: Is there coordination?

Mr. Gagliano: Yes. As I said, we're working toward having a new convention in 1998. At the ILO annual meeting, all the efforts will be on child labour. In the meantime, we're doing something in the NAFTA. At the end of February, we'll have a conference on child labour and youth labour in general.

Mr. Martin: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. Godfrey (Don Valley West): I'd like to come back to the whole issue of Convention 138. I guess as I read what you have said - this is really for my edification - I'm a little confused about the principal reason we didn't sign 138. Was it because of the problem of getting the federal governments, the provinces and territories on side? Or was it because, as suggested in the next paragraph, children do certain kinds of light work under the age of 13?

I was trying to dredge up a copy of Convention 138. My understanding was that it essentially referred to exploitative labour anyway. It didn't refer to all labour. So I'm not sure we would really be affected by this, but perhaps you can elaborate.

.1600

Related to this, were we in on the development of Convention 138 in the first place? Did we participate in the development of Convention 138 as we seem to be participating in the development of the subsequent convention? Do we have a better chance of passing the subsequent convention than the previous convention, or do we just go around developing conventions and then not signing them?

Mr. Gagliano: Let me say first of all the problem we have in Canada with 138 is the minimum age. We have been working on the new convention from the beginning. We were very involved in getting a meeting on exploitative forms of child labour and we're also working very hard on this in preparation for the convention.

I'll give you an example here. Are we going to contend that a young person who in the morning delivers a newspaper is experiencing a form of exploitation? This is a problem. The convention talks about minimum ages, and I gave you an example I think everybody can understand. What we want to make sure we address in the new convention is the problem of exploitative forms of labour.

As I said in my statement, we believe certain forms of labour such as jobs after school hours could sometimes help some young people socialize and also get some experience that will be useful in future years.

Mr. Godfrey: Well, if the new convention is going to deal primarily with exploitative forms of child labour such as bonded or slave labour, work in unsafe conditions, child prostitution and child pornography, why is there the slightest doubt we would ratify it?

Are there parts of the country where this is defensible by provincial governments? Wouldn't this almost occur automatically? What does the last sentence mean when it says ``Once the new Convention is adopted, we will examine the potential for its ratification by Canada?''

Mr. Gagliano: Our wish is to have the convention adopted. But we don't know what the form will be in 1998. There are a number of countries that participate in ILO, and we don't know the final form. If the final form is the one we are hoping for and we wish to have adopted, we will adopt it. We are participating. We are part of the organization committee. We're pushing for this meeting and we voted for it. We're working on drafting the convention.

I think it would be irresponsible for me as the Minister of Labour to announce we will be ratifying the convention without knowing what the final form of the convention will be.

Let's not forget our federal system. Before we ratify as a country, I must have the agreement of my provincial colleagues. If I make such a statement, they would accuse me of making a decision for them too. So I want to respect provincial jurisdictions.

Mr. Godfrey: This is my final question. Will the new convention, either in law or in effect, supersede 138? Does it effectively become a dead letter because it covers in more detail what was previously discussed?

Mr. Gagliano: Convention 138 will remain there. The new convention is a new convention and it will have a life of its own.

Mr. Godfrey: Thank you.

Mr. Gagliano: You're welcome.

The Chairman: Oui, certainement.

Mr. Gagliano: I forgot to apologize for not introducing my officials. I take them for granted because they're always with me. My assistant deputy minister is Nicole Senécal and my director general for policy is Yves Poisson.

Mr. Yves Poisson (Director General, Strategic Policy and Partnerships, Department of Human Resources Development): I just wanted to add that ILO is in the process of reviewing all the conventions. It is going to be a fairly long process, so 138 would be part of this exercise. Considering the topic covered by 138, it would probably stay there. But the new convention would be a different type of instrument. It would be written in a different way. It would be more modern in its approach.

.1605

Mr. Godfrey: Just to follow up, has the experience of the ILO been that Convention 138 has been particularly effective in any country, or what's the take on it?

Mr. Poisson: I don't know the exact number of countries that are ratified. I think it's probably less than 50, but it's not 49. It's not a very large number. There are 174 countries that are members of ILO. The problem here, as the minister explained, is the very specific issue that the convention attempts to address.

Ms Senécal: I'll just add that 56 countries have ratified.

[Translation]

Mr. Godfrey: It is on the rise.

Mr. Gagliano: It is like the temperature.

Mr. Godfrey: But not in Ottawa.

[English]

The Chairman: If I could ask a question as chair, to what extent do the provinces become involved in negotiation and consideration of this proposed convention and at what stage?

Mr. Gagliano: My officials and the officials of the provinces are working together. We hope at the beginning of the year to have a meeting with all the ministers of labour from Canada, and we will definitely be discussing the International Labour Organisation and the signing of the NAFTA agreement by the provinces.

This is one of the problems we have to address with my colleagues, although the international agreement could be signed so we can as a country enforce it and proceed with it.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Paré.

[Translation]

Mr. Paré (Louis-Hébert): I want to follow up on the question raised by Mr. Godfrey. I understood the explanation you gave as to why Canada did not ratify Convention 138. Since Canada signed the parallel agreements, the North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation, does it mean that we are not expecting very much from the parallel agreements to NAFTA since you did not hesitate in signing those?

Mr. Gagliano: I am trying to see the link with your question. Sorry.

Mr. Paré: Since you did not ratify Convention 138 because it is partly of provincial jurisdiction and since, on the other hand, you ratified the North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation...

Mr. Gagliano: I understand now.

Mr. Paré: I understand it is a... [Inaudible - Editor].

Mr. Gagliano: No, not quite. Besides, we signed NAFTA and, as of now, the province of Alberta is also a signatory. The agreement says that there have to be 25% Canadian workers for us to intervene in a case of conflict. This is why I am working very hard with my colleagues.

According to my information, Quebec should sign soon and I hope other provinces will follow suit in order to have this representation of 25% of workers who have signed NAFTA, even though we are presently full partners. Nevertheless, in case of a conflict, we could still be representing less than 25% of workers since the federal government represents only approximately 10% of the Canadian labour force.

Everybody has to sign Convention 138 before we can ratify it as a country.

Mr. Paré: On page 4 of your statement, you say:

In February, we will be a participant at the conference on child labour in North America...

I would like to know who is ``we''. Is it only the government?

Mr. Gagliano: It is a NAFTA conference. So, it will be the United States, Canada and Mexico.

.1610

I say ``we'' because I am responsible for the Labour Program of the department and I intend to be there in person.

Mr. Paré: Will your delegation include any business or labour organizations?

Mr. Gagliano: Yes. Indeed, we set up working groups and there will be a full delegation. Provinces are also invited.

Mr. Paré: At the time when the free trade agreements were signed, labour had hoped to have some minimum labour standards included in those agreements. Is there still any hope this might happen or has this been excluded from the neo-liberal mould, which has nothing to do with the Liberal Party?

Mr. Gagliano: Do you mean labour in general or children's rights specifically?

Mr. Paré: I mean general standards, but if we manage to agree on provisions protecting social standards and labour standards, it might be easier to introduce provisions protecting children.

Mr. Gagliano: If you refer to the international trade agreement, the position of the Canadian government is that, for the time being, since there is not a consensus of all countries, it is through ILO that we should deal with workers' rights and the whole matter of social standards. At some point in the future, if there is a consensus, we might make such a move, but for the time being our position is that we should deal with this at the ILO. In my view, it is the best way to make progress.

Mr. Paré: I have just a small final question, if I may.

The Canadian Exporters Association has already proposed to put in place a voluntary code of conduct in the area of human rights. So I would like to ask the Minister of Labour how he, personally, would react to a code of conduct that would include children's rights?

Mr. Gagliano: Actually, we have accepted the protection of children's rights and of all related principles, but I would like to see the code before expressing an opinion. All our policy is based on voluntary agreement of the parties. In my view, this is how we are going to achieve real progress. We will not achieve our objectives by using compulsion. If there are voluntary agreements, we will obviously be willing to support them, but I would like to see this code before expressing an opinion.

Mr. Paré: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mrs. Gaffney.

Mrs. Gaffney (Nepean): Thank you very much.

Welcome, Mr. Minister. Just to quickly refer to the ILO study, Child Labour: Targeting the intolerable if it's not too large a document, could I get a copy of it?

Mr. Gagliano: Yes.

Mrs. Gaffney: That's great.

Mr. Gagliano: We'll take note and see if we have or can get a copy. We'll distribute it to the clerk. We have a summary of the document we can leave right away.

The Chairman: It's already been circulated.

Mr. Gaffney: Has it been circulated? I have it somewhere, do I? Now I'm really embarrassed. Thank you very much.

Mr. Gagliano: It's okay. We all have that problem in this place.

Mrs. Gaffney: We get a lot of reading material.

Mr. Gagliano: We receive too much material sometimes.

Mrs. Gaffney: I want to congratulate you for the ILO taking the position it has. I think it's the item in the world today that everybody seems to be zeroing in on.

.1615

I just returned from being at the UN Monday and Tuesday of last week. In one of its programs, UNICEF is paying through CIDA the amount of money a child would earn in carpet-making, for example, to that child and the family to enable the child to go to school rather than work. So that is with our Canadian dollar, and it's pretty impressive as far as I'm concerned.

But the whole thing is very sensitive. I assume these countries you're working with must be very agreeable to our working with them. Is that why you chose those five countries?

Mr. Gagliano: Let me clarify, it's the ILO.

Mrs. Gaffney: ILO. Again I'm sorry.

Mr. Gagliano: We're participating in funding research and studies that will help to prepare some models, some standards, that will help those countries and other countries that have child labour problems.

Mrs. Gaffney: To move away from the ILO and closer to home, we as parliamentarians are involved in many world organizations such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union or the Canada Friendship Group. I think the prime opportunity is there for those organizations to work together, especially the CPA, where they're all Commonwealth organizations.

I have raised it twice with the executive committee of CPA and I know there is a reluctance for Canada to spearhead it. I don't know how you would suggest that Canada would go ahead and do it within these organizations. Do you have any ideas on that?

Mr. Gagliano: My statement is not necessarily as the Minister of Labour. I have nothing to do with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, but I can put on my hat as a deputy House leader.

We believe it's important that a parliamentary delegation travel across the country to meet with other parliamentary delegations and study this issue. I think that's a role for a member of Parliament we encourage. Naturally, we have to do it within our means. We are in financial stress, and the Minister of Finance has been trying to put our financial house in order; therefore we had to make some cuts. But I think the parliamentary delegation should be continued.

You mentioned some international organizations such as the IPU and others. It's important. I attended a couple of those meetings myself in my 12 years in this place. I found them very educational, and we could exchange with other colleagues.

Sometimes international affairs don't work as fast as we would like them to work. It takes time. But I think in past years all our predecessors that had the opportunity to travel across the world in the parliamentary delegations definitely did a good job. That's why today Canada is what it is. Internationally, we are respected and we are invited to participate in everything because they know our position. They know how we share and how we believe in human rights issues. I think it's our trademark, if I can use that word - Canadian - because we are strong on human rights issues. Every time I travel, whether as a member of Parliament or as a minister, those statements are made to us. I think we should continue. I will do whatever I can do, but I'm not opening the door, the budget -

Mrs. Gaffney: No. It could probably be part of our recommendations as a subcommittee. To get the benefit of the maximum use of what our parliamentary associations are doing, since we are in a position of meeting parliamentarians from every country in the world practically, we should put that down as one of our suggestions or recommendations to the standing committee.

Where's the conference being held? Is it being held here in Canada?

Mr. Gagliano: It's being held the last weekend of February in San Diego, U.S.A.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mrs. Gaffney. Mr. Flis.

Mr. Flis (Parkdale - High Park): I need your guidance, Mr. Chairman, because I notice this is a round table. Will the minister be present for the other presentations or will he have to leave?

Mr. Gagliano: Unfortunately, I can't. I'm scheduled to be elsewhere.

.1620

Mr. Flis: What brings me here is a constituent of mine who got me very interested and involved in the untouchables under India's caste system, where young girls of age 6 are assigned to ``their gods'' or whatever and then passed on for prostitution and child labour.

The number is 51 million, I see here - I'm looking at the next witness's presentation, which will be made by Yogesh Varhade from the Ambedkar Centre for Justice and Peace - and, Minister, you said that we are aware of the Government of India's plans as far as trying to reduce and eliminate child labour. In India's plans, are they addressing the 3,000-year-old caste system and what they're doing to the untouchables, or is it surface planning and hiding the real issue, which we'll be hearing from our next witness?

I think it's shocking that the world has sat by for these many years and no one has been raising a voice. I'm pleased that this next witness has been raising his voice. He's one of them.

But what are we doing in our bilateral relations with India in trying to get them to change their ways? That's not easy, because we will hear from the next witness where he quotes our Prime Minister when he visited India in January and said ``they have the laws in place, but because of variations in the society they are not where they would like to be.''

I don't know what is meant by ``variations in society,'' but I don't think we can cover those kinds of child exploitations because of some system that has existed for 3,000 years.

Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Chairman, as the Minister of Labour, I can't speak for my colleagues. I can say that as the Government of Canada, whether it's the Prime Minister or other ministers, every time we have the opportunity we speak, at every bilateral meeting. But maybe the best answer I can give is what we know through our diplomatic channels about what the Government of India is doing or what in the region they are doing.

According to a recent news report, for example, the labour minister of India reportedly published a list of enterprises that employed children illegally. That's what I was referring to earlier in a previous question.

The South Asia Association of Regional Corporations, comprised of seven nations - Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka - had a ministerial meeting in August of this year and unanimously adopted a resolution committing them to eliminating all forms of child labour by the year 2010 and to end child labour in hazardous occupations.

Recently the India commerce minister made the Kaleen label compulsory from September 1, 1996.

I think our bilateral talks during the last few years expressing this problem have moved somewhat. Is that enough? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

You have mentioned your constituents and the next witness. They will present you with actual facts or cases that happen. I think in these cases, as with other countries - every country has its own sovereignty - the best practice at this time is to expose them. You will see even in a country where the problem is accentuated that they're starting to expose their own people who perform those unlawful practices.

.1625

So I think our diplomatic efforts - our policy of talking instead of just putting walls between one country and another because we don't agree with what they do - are starting to bring positive results. I hope this will continue and, of course, the results materialize and we have a better world to live in.

Mr. Flis: In Mr. Varhade's presentation, which I read ahead of time, he makes some excellent recommendations as to what can Canada do. One of the recommendations he makes is that Canadian and foreign companies working in India, Nepal, and so on should be prohibited from using any form of child labour and held responsible at home.

Do we have any legislation in Canada that prohibits Canadian companies from exploiting or using child labour abroad?

Mr. Gagliano: What I can say, and I'm not an expert on international law, is that I know when Canadian companies do business abroad they have to respect the law that exists in the countries where they're doing business. So I hope they do, and if they don't, they should be denounced.

Mr. Flis: Let me be very clear here, Minister, because this is a recommendation that the subcommittee could make. At present we have no legislation forbidding Canadian companies from using child labour abroad.

Mr. Gagliano: I don't think such legislation exists.

Mr. Flis: I think we have some concrete recommendations to make to our government.

The Chairman: We have had quite a bit of testimony on that.

Mr. Flis: Because of time, I'm just using one example there. There are other recommendations that will be tabled before the minister.

The Chairman: Minister, did you want to comment further?

Mr. Gagliano: I think somewhere in the government we're working toward a prostitution law, but I cannot give you a complete answer. I think we have to verify exactly what is being done. But definitely we want our companies that do business outside to.... Should that recommendation come from the committee, we'll be looking at that.

Mr. Flis: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Minister. If there are no further questions, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you, et aussi Madame Senécal et Monsieur Poisson, for this valuable testimony. This will assist our work greatly.

You will have noticed that we brought in no coffee today. That's because I saw you making cappuccino on television on the weekend. We realized that our coffee would not be nearly a match for your cappuccino, but I hope when we ask you back we will have a cappuccino machine and you will be able to exhibit your skills. But thank you very much for coming today and making some very valuable comments.

Mr. Gagliano: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe the next time you invite me, I'll bring some cappuccino.

The Chairman: Well, you're more likely to be invited back very soon! Thank you.

We'll take a brief adjournment before the next witness.

.1628

.1636

The Chairman: I call the meeting to order again and welcome our witnesses. I open with an apology. We will have to leave to vote. The bell is at 5:15 p.m. and the vote at 5:30.

Mrs. Gaffney: Can we come back if we aren't finished?

The Chairman: We'll come back if we aren't finished. I encourage the speakers to be as brief as they can. Then we will move to questions.

Perhaps I should introduce the speakers first: Dr. Yogesh Varhade, who's been introduced in part by Mr. Flis, from the Ambedkar Centre for Justice and Peace, of which he is the president; from the Canadian Anti-Slavery Group, Kathleen Ruff; from Fair TradeMark Canada, Bob Thomson, managing director; from World Vision Canada, Linda Tripp, vice-president, and Matthew Scott, public policy officer. I welcome you all to the committee hearings today.

Christopher Lowry is at another committee, so Street Kids International may be represented later.

So with that comment, to be as brief as one can be given the importance of the testimony,Mr. Varhade, could you begin.

Dr. Yogesh Varhade (President, Ambedkar Centre for Justice and Peace): Thank you,Mr. Chairman.

On September 16, 1996, Human Rights Watch, a think-tank in Washington, D.C., published a report on child labour in India.

Their statistic is that there are about 110 million to 125 million child labourers in India. Of that, about 15 million to 20 million are bonded labour. Just so we understand the significance of this issue, the number of these children in bondage nearly equals the population of North America.

A question arises. This system been going on for the last 3,000 years. Why is it continuing? How can the people be so lacking in compassion? How can they be so cruel to the children of their own people?

The root cause of child labour and bonded labour is the 3,000-year-old caste system and the practice of untouchability.

According to Hindu religious beliefs, all human beings are not born equal. The creation of this caste system and of the lowest of the low, the outcasts of the Hindu caste system, has been responsible for the treatment of this whole population, nearly the size of North America, as 250 million slaves of the Hindu caste system. These people and their children are like non-entities, non-human beings, human dirt. Cats and dogs are treated better.

Understand this. It's like official licence in practice and in beliefs, so that they can rape, kill, burn and kick these children and their parents and the naked parts of the women. And they can punish in every possible way to show that the caste system...they get delight from the caste system.

Less than 15% of the high caste in the population control 85% of the nation's wealth, money, media, power, bureaucracy, police and judiciary. Because of that, even though the Indian constitution provides the solutions.... The practice of untouchability is a communal offence. The practice of child labour is a communal offence. The practice of sanctified child prostitution is a communal offence. But the practice is still flourishing. It is not changing because the will of the government has not changed much in the last fifty years.

.1640

I also don't think it will change that easily even though the present government might have a more sincere desire to bring about change in the Indian system. I do respect that.

But unless the international pressure mounts, I don't think this will change. Human Rights Watch reports that poverty and caste-bound traditions continue to strike rural India. As many as50 million children, some as young as 6, continue to work as bonded labourers in violation of national and international law, largely due to economic necessity. Children either work along side their bonded families or are sold individually into what amounts to slavery.

The ILO report says:

Whether they are sweating in the heat of stone quarries, working in the fields 16 hours a day, picking rags in city streets, or hidden away as domestic servants, these children endure miserable and difficult lives. They earn little and are abused much.

The problem is big. It's challenging for every civil society in the world. This is why we are talking about how we can bring about the healing of the society.

In 1993, I attended a world conference on human rights in Vienna, where Canada played a leading role in helping us. The MPs from Canada, with the Canadian government, were trying to have the practice of untouchability declared a communal offence in the draft declarations. The Indian government, with the help of the Chinese government, succeeded in defeating it.

I would like to let the members know that we certainly appreciated all their help. We have to continue to work.

In the recent report of the CERD committee in 1996, in August.... We participated there and India submitted its periodic report for the first time in ten years. It was inadequate and unsatisfactory and the CERD committee remarked about it very strongly in their disapproval of India's incomplete report. With our submission, they found that the protection given to our people in India is inadequate, the number of human rights violations according to even India's records is very high, and the marginalized people have absolutely no chance of survival.

They wrote strong recommendations in their concluding report on August 22. First, they said India has failed to protect its marginalized people. Second, they said the guilty ones who violate human rights must be punished. Third, they said satisfactory reparations have not been made. This all needs to be done.

In addition to that, they have to start educating the whole nation and must do so for a long period of time in order to dismantle and eliminate the institutionalized thinking of high caste and low caste, the mentality that has been responsible for creating child labour. Child labour is not a poverty problem. It is a result of the institutionalized thinking of the low caste and high caste mentality of the masses.

They also asked the Indian government to publicize the reports in all its major newspapers. I would be glad to circulate copies of that document. The Indian government has not circulated copies in the Indian newspapers as per the concluding observations of the committee. It is necessary for Canada to press India to publicize this report.

Let us see what can be done in the light of these facts.

Canada played a very important role in dismantling the apartheid of South Africa. This is the much more cruel apartheid of South Asia. Looking at that factor, Canada can play the same important role in helping our people to get liberated. We are talking about the millions of lives that are at stake. Even with all of the constitutional provisions, the will has been missing. The will could be forced with international pressure.

What we are asking for here is specific recommendations. First, ask India and South Asian countries where the Hindu population lives and the caste system exists to implement their constitutional provisions to guarantee human rights to the fullest extent. They can implement them to the fullest extent.

Second, CIDA programs, along with the G-7 countries, can look into the release, re-education and rehabilitation of these child labourers in this continent through financing micro-projects in a very concrete way. Going into the projects does not bring about real change in poverty elimination programs.

.1645

Third is that for the products manufactured with child labour there should be a monitoring system by the G-7 countries, with Canada leading the G-7 countries in this matter. They have to be monitored in India as well as in western countries. The foreign companies, as our friend Jesse Flis mentioned, any companies working in India, have to be controlled also - those which have a base in western countries. If they employ child labour, they need to be punished according to the law.

Canada can also help in starting the human rights education and monitoring system. What we're asking for from Canada - looking at its image as a peacemaker in the world, it's in an ideal position to bring change to society - is to help India start a committee, with the help of the G-7 countries, to attach conditions of international aid, laws, financing, to human rights to the fullest extent.

It is the one important factor that happened in 1993, that in the World Conference on Human Rights, with 1,000 NGOs, we succeeded in passing a resolution that the UN should look into the eradication of the practice of untouchability by 2000 or the country should face sanctions. I think there is a need for a clear message to India and the South Asian countries that this will not be tolerated any further by the civil society of which India claims to be a member, and this dishonouring, dehumanizing system has to go.

They can control it through international financing systems. The United Nations can send all the special reports to us, including the report on racism and the report on child labour. It can study the system, bring it to the UN, and discuss it at the civil level in the United Nations. During the last six years we have focused our attention on bringing this issue to the United Nations, and we're continuing our struggle. As Canada's goodwill ambassador Mr. Maurice Strong once remarked, Canada needs to be proactive rather than reactive in the 21st century.

There is a need for strengthening the NGOs who are from marginalized people and the international NGOs that work in that field so they can help CIDA function to the fullest extent in bringing about change in society. It can improve the communication links between the different NGOs of the marginalized people and the international community. The network that is already established by the IDRC-India link needs to be broadened.

There is also a need for imparting health education to marginalized people, the women and children, on a broader scale.

We can look into these recommendations at great length. In every one of them there is room for Canada to act. All that is required is the serious interest of Canada, which I think is one of the most respected members in civil society in today's western world. Canada also has a moral obligation. As Dr. Ambedkar, who was India's first law minister and India's constitution maker, said, the world has a duty to break the shackles and set free all the people who are enslaved in society around the world.

The present reference the honourable minister has made on this issue is that the India government is showing interest. This interest will continue for another fifty years, and thousands and millions of poor children will continue to die in child labour and bonded labour. There has to be a solution. Western society has to help us. It has to help us in this liberation movement. Since there is already a precedent for Canada to play a very leading role, I think it can do a great job in moving in this direction.

What happened in the India government's past we are not commenting on. We are talking about from here onwards. This is the right moment. The present Indian government is a bit pro on change. They need the push. They need the help. They need the international community to know it is very serious about their intention to destroy this dehumanizing, demoralizing system, as is long overdue. It should have been dead a long time back, but it's still on the books in practice. Not only that, it needs to go. It's the life of millions of children.

I thank you for your time.

.1650

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Varhade.

I'd like to welcome as well Christopher Lowry, who has arrived from Street Kids International via the justice committee, I gather. You've been busy at committees today.

The next speaker is Kathleen Ruff, who is the spokesperson for the Canadian Anti-Slavery Group. Ms Ruff.

Ms Kathleen Ruff (Spokesperson, Canadian Anti-Slavery Group): I'd like to thank the committee for the important work you're doing in holding hearings on child labour. The Canadian Anti-Slavery Group is a grassroots group with supporters across the country, and we are affiliated with Anti-Slavery International in the United Kingdom, which is a leading world organization campaigning against bonded child labour.

In particular, I would like to congratulate the committee for indicating that you will give a particular priority to the most extreme examples of child exploitation, such as bonded labour, child prostitution, and children working in hazardous areas. I think this approach is very much to be supported. It's an area in which the committee can do the most good and have the most practical effect.

First of all, I'd like to outline the kinds of circumstances that give rise to bonded child labour. I would then like to talk particularly about the practical action that Canada could take in this area - how Canada could really make a difference if it decided to adopt some practical areas of change.

Anti-Slavery International reports that many millions of men, women, and children are working today as bonded labourers, particularly in Asia, but also in Central and South America and Africa. The just released report from Human Rights Watch indicates that 15 million children in India work as bonded labourers. The United Nations recognizes bonded labour as in fact being slave labour.

The United Nations committee - the working group on contemporary forms of slavery - has hearings on this issue every year, but until now this issue has received shamefully little attention internationally. Perhaps now it is finally beginning to surface and get the attention it should have.

Bonded labour is slave labour, and the children have no rights and no protection whatsoever against abuse. Some are born into bonded labour, others are brought in at as young an age as six years, and others are tricked into bonded labour. They live under appalling conditions, are subjected to extreme physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, and suffer from malnutrition and many diseases. They are punished if they make a mistake in their work or if they try to escape. Medical experts in Pakistan speak of the captive child syndrome, which kills large numbers of these children.

We're therefore talking about a widespread problem that affects millions of child workers around the world. I think the committee's concern for the most exploitative areas of child labour means that it should give particular attention to the issue of bonded child labour. Until that issue is addressed, it is unlikely that it will be possible to make any headway in other areas of exploitative child labour, because in the globalized marketplace, if this is tolerated for millions of children, other children will also have their working conditions brought downward to the same level.

I'd like to speak of circumstances that give rise to bonded labour. Extreme poverty within a country is a major factor contributing to bonded labour. It is not, however, the only or the most important factor. The key issue is political will. I think it's very important that the committee take note of this, because poverty is an issue that must be addressed and changed. But it does not excuse or justify bonded labour or exploitative child labour. I think the committee must be very careful not to use that as an excuse to allow this practice to continue and be tolerated.

Bonded labour flourishes unabated where business and financial elite have excessive power over political, legal, and police systems; where there is insufficient commitment to meeting basic needs such as universal free education for all, health care, and social services; where there are gross social and economic inequalities; and where certain groups are marginalized and discriminated against because they are members of low castes, indigenous peoples, or religious minorities.

.1655

A recent United Nations study shows that some countries that are extremely poor have nevertheless made greater headway than other richer countries in reducing exploitative child labour, in providing primary and secondary education, in achieving gender equality in education and health and in high adult literacy.

As you know, a high level of school attendance is one of the most positive and effective ways of ending exploitative child labour. When children are in school, they're not being exploited in the workplace. When children are in school, they have an opportunity and a hope for having a decent life.

One example in the United Nations report is Kerala, India, a state of 29 million people that, in spite of being extremely poor, has virtually eliminated bonded and exploitative child labour. The primary school attendance rate is 100%. In India as a whole, the rate is 62%. In Pakistan it's 37%. Adult literacy also is high in Kerala, as are equality ratios for men and women.

In other words, I think it's very important for all of us to realize that bonded labour, exploitative child labour, is not tolerable. Let us not use the excuse of poverty or culture or any other rationalization to allow it to continue.

Second, on international circumstances that give rise to bonded labour, the problem of bonded and exploitative child labour has not been helped by the enormous stress on the ideology of globalization and its emphasis on and obsession with commercial profits to the exclusion of human need, the public interest and the environment. Globalization has eroded the priority of the public good and required countries to cut back on public programs such as education and health. Children are now being turned away from schools, and the poor are paying a very heavy price for this.

As UNICEF's 1995 State of the World's Children report stated:

No social progress can be sustained, no human development can be anticipated, if social and economic exclusion continues to be the chief characteristic of national and global economic systems.

UNICEF calls for ``development with a human face''.

At the international level, when we're pursuing trade and economic development - which is fine - I think Canada must keep some balance and not let human rights and human issues be thrown aside.

What can Canada do to help end bonded labour? We believe there are a number of very practical things Canada can do. We believe Canada can take a strong, constructive, positive approach that rewards well-doing rather than punishes. This is reflected in our recommendations.

Our first recommendation is that at the international level - at the G-7, the IMF, the World Bank, the World Trading Organization, as well as in its own aid programs - Canada place priority on meeting basic human needs; that Canada insist that before any measures are adopted, their impact on the poor, especially children, be assessed; and that such measures only be adopted once it is assured that they will help lessen the poverty gap and assist persons living in poverty.

In other words, we recommend that Canada support people-centred development; that Canada support more equitable trading rules for the Third World that will benefit their populations, not harm them; and that Canada use its trading rules to provide extra incentives and rewards for those industries and those countries that make demonstrable progress in eradicating bonded labour.

Our second recommendation is that Canada speak up loud and clear here at home and around the world, at every opportunity, that bonded labour is wrong and must be ended immediately. Please have no tolerance for slavery. It is a crime against humanity. It is totally unacceptable that millions of children are abused as slave labour at the end of the 20th century and that slave labour products are filtering into the Canadian market.

This abuse has continued so long because it has been tolerated. The world has stayed silent. It will not end until there is public momentum both within a country and internationally against it, until there is real pressure on governments to take action and enforce their own laws that forbid bonded labour.

.1700

Our group constantly receives appeals from children's rights groups in Asia and central and South America asking that Canadians and the Canadian government speak up against child bonded labour and exploitation and make it an international issue. They believe that only with the support of the international community will they be able to make progress.

Canadians were very proud when Lloyd Axworthy spoke up strongly at the world conference on child prostitution and said Canada would take a leadership role. He said that now the time has come to deal with child slavery and prostitution, and that the world community must signify that it will not tolerate such exploitation of children.

Please do your part to end the silence and complacency towards the evil of bonded labour. Please put the issue high on the agenda of government, UN, and Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meetings. It is extremely important that this committee speak out and call unequivocally for a speedy end to bonded labour.

Recommendation three is that Canada fund community organizations fighting bonded labour. Canada does not have the funds to eliminate poverty in the third world, to bring today's millions of bonded children out of slavery and to stop millions more from being enslaved tomorrow. In order for Canada to have an impact, which is what we all want, it is crucial that the committee be focused and strategic in your recommendations.

In countries such as India and Pakistan, bonded labour is forbidden by the constitution and by specific laws. The laws spell out very clear, practical and effective measures that must be immediately taken. They are that every bonded labourer must be immediately set free, all free bonded labourers are entitled to rehabilitation funds to assist them to establish themselves, anyone using bonded labourers must be charged and punished, information on the right of bonded labourers to be freed must be widely disseminated, local vigilance committees must be established to monitor and assist with the enforcement of the law, etc.

These laws would end bonded labour overnight if they were enforced. They are not enforced. Police, government and court officials are often in collusion with wealthy business people and farmers using bonded labourers. Indeed, bonded labourers who have escaped and gone to the police for help have sometimes been returned by the police to their former owners. Bonded labour liberation organizations and human rights groups that try to use the law to help free bonded labourers are often subjected to persecution, prison, violence and threats.

In this tradition and climate of non-enforcement and violence, it is unrealistic at this time to count on government enforcement of the law through a system of inspectors. It is unrealistic to count on a voluntary approach.

What would make an important difference would be for Canada to support civil society, NGOs, in their catalyst role of monitoring, publicizing, taking cases to court and forcing authorities to implement the rights in the law. The South Asia Coalition Against Child Servitude, for example, represents 250 groups that are active in freeing bonded children and running schools and shelters to help them. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan has likewise been active in freeing bonded labourers. Canada could provide funding to allow these groups to take such cases to court, to monitor, report and publicize on how much or how little progress is being made in enforcing the law.

The Chairman: Excuse me a moment, Ms Ruff. As you probably have seen by this flashing light, we're going to have a vote in about 25 minutes. I was looking at your testimony and there's quite a bit of material. Could you abbreviate it?

Ms Ruff: Okay.

So please support the groups that are challenging bonded labour. Support the catalyst groups that are really working for a change.

The fourth recommendation is that I ask that the committee support the Rugmark campaign. The Rugmark campaign has been very effective in bringing the issue of bonded labour to the surface. It gives companies a positive alternative that consumers can support and the public can support, and they have made a big impact. I ask that Canada at least give its moral support to this campaign. One company in Canada now is supporting the Rugmark campaign. The government could support this initiative and encourage employers to take a responsible attitude towards bonded labour.

.1705

Last, I ask Canada to support, in terms of any projects funded by Canada or international agencies such as the World Bank or UN agencies, a requirement for a binding, formal commitment to not involve bonded labour. Also, projects must agree to independent monitoring. If bonded labour is found to be used, then international funding would cease. Canada can use its ability at the international level to make bonded child labour an issue.

I would like to leave this with you. I will leave it with the clerk. I've done an analysis of the report you've received from UNICEF Canada. I would like to point out that the UNICEF Canada report represents their views; it does not represent the views of UNICEF International in New York or UNICEF in India.

I think the report is extremely inadequate. Out of fairness, it's very important for you to look at the criticisms of that report.

UNICEF International is coming out with a report on child labour in a few weeks. I think it's extremely important for the committee to look at this report that's coming down.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you. That was very helpful, and you were very good at being concise. I wish MPs were as efficient as that.

Mr. Thomson, I'm sorry, but we probably don't have too much time. We have to leave in about ten minutes. Could you possibly work within that framework? Thank you very much.

Mr. Bob Thomson (Managing Director, Fair TradeMark Canada): Fair TradeMark Canada is a non-profit company. We're not a charity, and we're not a business. We don't trade, but we do sell licences for a consumer logo - that's the logo that should be in the material you have - to Canadian companies that are buying coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar and honey under what we call fairly traded conditions.

I'm not going to address directly the issue of child labour. There are many people who have made presentations to you who know far more about it than I do.

Our tea criteria do specifically include a reference to child labour, because it is a problem in Asia, where most of the tea that we license comes from. The essence of those criteria is that companies that purchase tea must do so under conditions with respect to national laws and the ILO conventions on child labour. There are a number of other criteria as well.

I wanted to address the committee briefly about the fair trade label as a mechanism, since you heard about the Rugmark, which is a consumer label. This is recognized by consumers as certifying certain qualities, just as the Woolmark or an EcoLogo certifies certain qualities.

As a non-profit company, we have a membership base in Canada that includes the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace, the United Church of Canada, World Vision Canada, the Canadian Auto Workers' Social Justice Fund, the Steelworkers Humanity Fund, the CUSO enterprise, and a number of other non-governmental organizations.

We license a logo to Canadian companies that we hope consumers will see on supermarket shelves in the next year. It'll be on packages of coffee initially, which will certify that the coffee has been fairly traded. We are in a position to license tea as well, because we're part of an international federation. We're essentially a franchise-type of operation.

The European branches - these are national initiatives of the Fair TradeMark movement - have been extremely successful. Fairly traded coffee is selling in 35,000 European supermarkets under 130 brand names. In 1995, we licensed 24 million pounds of green coffee beans through the label, which was on those 130 brands in those 35,000 supermarkets. That represents, depending on the national market involved, between 1% and 5% of those national coffee markets.

Between 60% and 80% of Canadians, and of consumers generally everywhere, say that they would purchase an environmentally friendly or fairly traded product if it were available.

Our market experience in Europe has been that only 1% to 5% actually do so, and only under a number of conditions, one of which is that the product has to be of good quality. People aren't going to buy it simply because it tugs at their heartstrings. It has to be good value for their money.

.1710

It also has to be easily available, which means that you shouldn't have to go to special stores to get it. It should be available at most supermarkets.

Third, and most important, the marketing claims of fairness or environmental friendliness have to be certified by an independent body as not being just marketing hype. Consumers have become quite skeptical about environmental claims in particular: if the package is green, then it must be eco-friendly.

We have set up a mechanism to certify child-labour-free rugs. Rugmark is attempting to do this, with some success and some difficulties. We have a fair amount of experience in Europe now with coffee, tea, cocoa and sugar - when combined, they make chocolate - and honey.

We have a mechanism whereby we have a registry of producer groups that are democratically organized and can ensure that the extra money paid by the consumer actually goes back to the individual farmers.

We license importers who are brokers. We license roasters to use the logo on their packages. We have contracts that we can monitor. We have access to corporate records and books so we can ensure that claims being made about how much coffee is bought is actually the same amount that's sold. We have a registered trademark, which cannot be infringed. It has been registered in Canada in all consumer markets. We have databases of commodity purchase and sale transactions so that we can follow through on this.

The entire mechanism is self-financing. It comes out of licence fees. It's a market mechanism. It's not aid per se.

I gave material out yesterday that included our campaign kit and pamphlets. I see some of you have that. In addition to that, I gave the clerk a brief note a few minutes ago saying that fairly traded coffee is served in the European Parliament. I was tempted to ask the minister if he was using fairly traded cappuccino.

We do not yet, unfortunately, have Canadian coffee companies that have taken out a licence to sell some of their coffee under these conditions, but we are in the process of mounting a consumer campaign that will show that people want to support what we call ``buycotts'', not boycotts.

We're promoting a positive consumer option. We believe this is something that has received quite a bit of attention at the local level in church groups.

We hope, over the coming few months, to mail several thousands of letters from Canadian consumers to coffee companies to show them that there are people ready to buy a product if it is fairly traded, and that as a market mechanism, it can be used to develop partnerships between farmers, coffee and tea brokers, roasters, tea packagers, consumers and supermarkets so as to make a positive impact on the market. In other words, it will reward companies for doing something positive, as opposed to punishing them for doing something negative.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. You were remarkably within the time limits.

Mr. Lowry, could you do this in five minutes?

Mr. Christopher Lowry (Director of Educational Media, Street Kids International): Yes.

The Chairman: If we hear your testimony now, we'll then take a break and come back. Go ahead, Mr. Lowry.

Mr. Lowry: Yes. Certainly I'll reduce my printed piece somewhat.

I'm here to give you a bit of perspective from the point of view of an agency that works with children who work in the informal sector. We work with organizations around the world that work with working children. These are not children who are involved in bonded labour or working in factories or agriculture, but street children, who often by their own choice are out there on the streets making money in cities.

The mandate of Street Kids International is to promote independence and self-respect among street children around the world. This means that we try to be on the side of street children and working children. We champion the rights and needs of those young people and help with their lack of access to basic services and their struggle for justice.

Before we look at the programs we do, it may be helpful to look at the reality these kids face. The street is a very complex environment for young people. It's fascinating. It's full of adventure and opportunity, but it's also full of danger. It's a school of constant experiential learning, where you don't simply pass or fail but perhaps you're allowed to survive.

.1715

It may mean you manage to stay out of jail. Involvement in the justice system is often more dangerous for children than the street. The best youth workers have an abiding respect for the street kids' love of freedom as well as compassion for their suffering.

Street Kids International chooses very deliberately to be a small organization based in Toronto. We don't have country offices and we're not a funding agency. Our work has grown out of respect for the independent struggle of street children themselves, therefore we try to respect the autonomy of local agencies working on the street. We don't land on their doorstep with an agenda that comes from the north. We try to work with local partners according to their priorities and respect and strengthen what is there, knowing that sustainable work in this field, whether it has to do with improving the education system or access to education or whatever, has to happen locally and has to be done by people who are willing to stay there in their homeland and make it happen.

Right now we're involved in community-based partnerships in Tanzania with a group called Kuleana, which means ``to nurture'' in Swahili; in Zambia with the YWCA; in Ecuador with the Program for Working Children. Our community-based partnerships may involve different kinds of activities, determined by the local agency. Our menu of potential cooperation includes small business skills training and micro-credit, staff training, administrative capacity building, consulting on fund-raising, and production of educational materials.

We have produced animated films dealing with drugs and AIDS, which we use to educate street children in many countries. Our newest project is called the Street Business Toolkit. I mention it because it's the other positive side of this issue. If we acknowledge that kids are out there working, maybe we have to acknowledge that the people who work with them should understand a little better the reality of their daily lives and engage with them on the level of what they consider to be their needs and choices.

The tool kit will include an animated video and a handbook with stories and games and exercises that can carry street business information and skills to working children and help them improve their situation by working effectively with others. Often kids work alone and they tend to be in more danger in that situation.

The irony is that we agree with the convention that children have the right not to work, the right to learn and to play, yet we're experimenting with ways to improve their ability to learn skills and to take care of themselves. In the best of all possible worlds children don't work, but today we need to meet them on the street and meet the working children where they are, in their reality, and help them improve their well-being.

The exploitation and abuse of children in rural agriculture, in brick kilns, in bonded labour, mines, and factories, in brothels, in sweatshops, and in domestic servitude, which in many parts of the world is huge and completely untouched by this kind of legislation, are the focus of an international movement against child labour. Our work is on a continuum with the efforts of the ILO and the anti-slavery society and many regional groups to demand the enforcement of international child labour laws and universal access to formal education. It's also on a continuum with the struggle for child workers' rights, as exemplified by groups such as the Movement for Working Children and Adolescents in Nicaragua.

Children have the right to play and learn, on the one hand, and the right to work with dignity, health, and full free access to primary education on the other. Within this context, we operate from the premise that child centre services for street and working children must first of all respect the choices of the children; second, help them to reject exploitation and abuse; and third, provide them with appropriate opportunities for learning.

.1720

The young people on the street who manage to avoid exploiting others or selling their bodies or doing harm to themselves or committing serious crimes are the ones who figure out how to make difficult transitions in the harsh reality of the street. How they do that and what skills to offer them at each step along the way are the focus of my current project. I think it is an important dimension to realize that there are millions of children out there who are not working for big employers and who would like to be part of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as they have the right -

The Chairman: The bells have stopped. They're telling us that the members should be on their way to the House. We will be back.

.1721

.1831

The Chairman: We will commence again. Our collective apologies for what happened. It was a bit of confusion in the House. Consequently, rather than taking twenty minutes, as I think I indicated to one of you, it ended up taking us an hour and fifteen minutes. Thank you very much for staying.

Mr. Lowry was in the middle of his testimony. I gather he's ended his testimony.

Now Ms Tripp and Mr. Scott could present their testimony.

Ms Linda Tripp (Vice-President, International and Government Relations, World Vision Canada): You thanked us for staying. I want to thank you for returning.

Mr. Chairman, hon. committee members, ladies and gentlemen, World Vision Canada considers it a privilege to participate in this ever-growing-smaller round table discussion on child labour. This is a topic with which we have considerable experience. It's also a privilege for us to appear with these other organizations, with whom our World Vision staff collaborate or cooperate in many countries and for whom we have a great deal of respect.

World Vision Canada is an international Christian humanitarian relief and development organization, with over 45 years of experience in fighting poverty and injustice in over 100 countries. Our programs target sustainable community-based development, focused particularly on building opportunities for the world's children. We work in partnership with NGOs worldwide and we are supported privately by over 350,000 Canadians nationwide.

Our report condemns exploitive child labour in the strongest possible terms as it is manifested in the form of child sexual exploitation, child indentured servitude, and child military service, or combinations thereof. The awful complexity of the global child labour problem dictates that no single solution is effective. A holistic approach to the problem of child labour in the developing world can be the only successful one. Unfortunately, such solutions are complex and require the coordinated efforts of governments, NGOs, and the private sector. In formulating solutions we must consider the impact the child's family environment and the economic conditions of the larger society have on the child's potential for a balanced, healthy development. Thus the need for a holistic approach.

First the issue of child prostitution or, as we would prefer to call it, sex slavery. Many others today...and I'm sure you've heard a lot of details in your rounds, so in the interest of time I'll abbreviate my comments here. Simply, we recommend that the Canadian government, and in particular trade missions such as Team Canada, must make human rights concerns, especially those related to child sexual exploitation, a major factor in the Asian trade negotiating table.

Yesterday Matt and I appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on Bill C-27. At that time we commented on the fact that we felt Canada had to strengthen extraterritorial legislation concerning child prostitution. We elaborate on this in our brief, especially in a proposed amendment to proposed subsection 212(4).

Third is to toughen disciplinary measures and raise awareness within the world's militaries, and especially Canadian troops in relief missions, to ensure soldiers do not continue to go unpunished if they participate in the sexual exploitation of children.

.1836

We are not suggesting that Canadian troops are currently doing this. We have no documented evidence, but we do have information that where there are UN forces deployed, child prostitution goes up at the same rate. This was true in Cambodia when the forces were there for the free elections. We think it is despicable when forces under the UN flag participate in this. So our recommendation is really in the context of prevention, to ensure that Canadian forces never participate in this kind of heinous activity.

Under the issue of child bonded labour or indentured servitude, World Vision Canada accepts that for many of the world's poorest people, the employment of children represents the only means by which these children and their families can survive. But we add the important caveat that child labour should only be permitted under the following specific conditions, often called light work conditions: first, when a child's immediate health, personal safety and long-term development become a priority for their employers; and second, when a child's learning and advancement are emphasized equally or more than their potential for maximum manufacturing output.

We want to emphasize that these conditions must be there, equally available to girls and boys. As we all know, girls are even more vulnerable and often more exploited than boys, especially when it comes to access to health and educational opportunities.

Our report contains heavy emphasis on the conduct and standards of Canadian international trade and commerce. This is because our indigenous World Vision offices, located in some of the most well-known world centres of child labour, highlighted the trade concerns as high on the list of priority actions for child labour. According to our local experts in the field, one of the major reasons child labour exists on such an increasingly large scale today is commercial. The child labour supply is cheap and plentiful, and northern and western demand for cheap goods is just as high. As a result, any solution to the problem must incorporate and address the economic forces that create the phenomenon in the first place. This means, among other things, regulation of the industry.

From a Canadian perspective, trying to influence child labour practices overseas means bringing child labour into the international trade lexicon. The challenge is to keep child labour in the regulated zone. Blanket embargoes or restrictions on child-produced goods threaten to push children into the unregulated zones. Our fear is that across-the-board bans on child labour will not only push children into more hazardous work, but will not recognize those employers who are creating safer, healthier, more equitable work environments.

Regulation of vast industries in countries with little or no government oversight is extremely difficult. However, because external governments, like the Canadian government, and NGOs have little opportunity to oversee to ensure enforcement, any regulations concerning exploitative child labour must be sufficiently related to economic incentives so as to be self-enforcing. By whatever means, whether penalties for intransigence or rewards for progressive policies and practices, employers, businesses and corporations have to see clearly that the elimination of exploitative child labour is in their best interests and constitutes the best investment of their resources.

Therefore, World Vision Canada urges the Canadian government to couple trade and tied-aid levels to the performance of historically exploitative nations, especially in South Asia. World Vision Canada also urges the Canadian government not to impose those blanket embargoes on child-produced goods, but rather to seek cooperation with NGOs and the private sector to set standards for healthy child working conditions, the so-called light work practices I've already alluded to.

The third area we have mentioned in our brief deals with child soldiers. The reason we brought this under the child labour banner is that we deal on the ground with children who have been kidnapped and forced into labour, whether that's labour in terms of carrying supplies and arms, or sexual labour wherein young girls have been forced to provide sexual services for soldiers.

Granted, these are often informal armies like the Lord's Resistence Army up in northern Uganda, where we have programs right now in Gulu with children, both boys and girls, who have been rescued from this.

.1840

We also recognize that there is a UN working group currently drafting an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, hopefully for approval at the final session in January. They have recognized that currently, with the minimum age for recruitment and participation being only 15, this is a failure. It has to be raised to 18. At the time we were researching and preparing our brief, Canada was not willing to support the age of 18. Subsequent to that, I have received a letter from Minister Axworthy, who said Canada is already committed not to conscript persons under the age of 18.

We were grateful to hear that, but we do hope Canada will use all of its international influence at various international round tables to ensure that children are not conscripted, children are not used, and children are not kidnapped into hostile situations.

Again, World Vision urges a holistic development approach to the problem of child labour. We realize we can't just say to governments that it's their job. We need to deal at the macro level and we need to deal at the micro level.

Just as a tangible example of what World Vision is doing, in one particular region in India - and this is one region alone - we have actually freed 203 bonded child labourers by paying off the loans of the families and clearing that debt. But then we have to deal with root causes. We involve these families in vocational training so that the parents gain greater skills to give them perhaps more control and access to more income generation. We put the children into our child sponsorship program, where their school fees are paid and their books are bought. This allows the children to be freed and to attend school so that children can enjoy their childhood instead of ``slaving'' through it.

We feel our sponsorship program is just one example of how families and communities can again take control and become masters of their own destinies. Child sponsorship isn't focused just on the child but on the whole community. It addresses health and sanitation and also gives people skills to move beyond whatever circumstances are keeping them in the poverty cycle. So we feel we have to do our part at the local level as well.

World Vision's commitment to children through our history offers a wealth of experience, information and hindsight that we are particularly grateful to be able to share in this forum. We have many additional resources we would be happy to make available to committee members at any time.

Ladies and gentlemen, as I shared yesterday with the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, child exploitation in any form is heinous. We applaud and support Canada's efforts to address child exploitation. The problem is enormous, and it will take all of us - governments, NGOs, the corporate sector, community leaders, families and law enforcers - to put an end to this blight. At the end of the day, however, this is not about statistics; it is about children who are being brutally robbed of innocence, of their hope and of a future. It is a privilege today for us to be able, in this brief period, to be a voice for those who are often voiceless.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Tripp.

Mr. Scott, do you have anything to add?

Mr. Matthew Scott (Public Policy Officer, World Vision Canada): I would simply add that our brief yesterday on Bill C-27 to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is available to members of the committee or other witnesses who may want to see it.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, and thank you for the many valuable suggestions. We will take them all into account.

Before I open it up to questions, I should make one comment that two guests we had intended to invite were not able to come. They were two guests from Développement et Paix. Madame Lachance, who was going to come, unfortunately had an accident, and fell. I gather she is hospitalized now.

In the case of the other individual, Mr. Bertrand, we apparently inadvertently called the wrong Mr. Bertrand. We've asked him if he could appear next week. Unfortunately - and understandably - he was unable to make it at such short notice, but he has indicated that he will send a written brief to this subcommittee.

.1845

So we send our condolences, of course, to Madame Lachance, and we'll be looking forward to receiving Mr. Bertrand's written brief. But in the case of those two participants, in the one case the accident and the other case a misunderstanding has led to their absence today.

With that comment, I'd like to open it for some questioning. I think we've had a lot of very valuable suggestions.

[Translation]

Madam Debien.

Ms Debien: I wish to first of all thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for having come here to participate in our study. I would also like to thank you for the very concrete solutions that you have presented to the sub-committee regarding the exploitation of child workers and various ways of dealing with the problem. I agree with the majority of your recommendations.

Most of you underlined the absence of any political will within the countries where the exploitation of children is a problem. Mr. Varhade, in particular, really put his finger on the problem as it exists in India.

Despite the legislation in place, there is no obvious political will to resolve these problems, and this is not the only Asian country where such is the case.

At the same time, you are asking that Canada's political will be expressed in various ways, particularly in Asia where these forms of exploitation are particularly common. This also occurs in Latin America and in Africa, but most of the witnesses we have heard have talked about the problem as it exists in Asia and South- East Asia.

You must be aware that one of the main recommendations you are making does not fit in at all with the goals of Canada's trade policy.

You are very much aware of the fact that the Canadian government does not wish to tie all trade matters to human rights issues. I believe you were aware of that before coming here.

However, a certain number of suggestions have been made to us, by Quebec, by the United Steelworkers of America and by various unions, among others. They all talked about development pacts. I believe you have already heard about this.

I share your opinion completely regarding the ties that should exist between trade and the respect of human rights and, obviously, the rights of children. We are well aware that the Canadian government is very much concerned about its trade relations with the tigers and lions of Asia and South-East Asia.

I would like to know what you think of these development pacts. Do you consider that this might be an avenue through which the Canadian government might entertain committing itself, given the fact that we all know that it will never consider tying human rights, trade and international assistance?

[English]

Dr. Varhade: Thank you, madame, for showing that understanding of the sufferings of millions of children.

.1850

The Canadian government has officially stated its policy. In one of his speeches in the month of February, the Hon. Minister Axworthy had an opening remark that Canada can do international trade and human rights together. He said his government's policies would be going in that direction, in practice.

We are sure the Canadian government is going to follow on its promise, and what we recommended here was studying the issue and creating a system to monitor the developments in South Asia, where millions of children are trapped in this caste system.

The starting point is the study of the system by creating a committee of the G-7 countries, chaired by Canada. They can do a lot of justice in just bringing the issue to the national and international levels and to the United Nations, and inviting special reports to study the system in India and South Asia. They can start discussing this issue as a part of the civil society members committee.

In gradually asking India nothing different from implementing its own constitutional provisions - this is not even interfering in India - they can start bringing change in human rights education, in punishing the guilty ones who do the human rights violations of the laws in India, in implementing the laws on child labour that are already in existence in India; and by pushing the South Asian governments, Canada can certainly do its responsibility to its citizens, that what they promise they are delivering. I hope it continues.

Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Mrs. Gaffney): Does anybody else wish to respond to that?Mrs. Tripp?

[Translation]

Ms Debien: Ms Tripp could perhaps...

[English]

Ms Tripp: I inadvertently crashed a meeting a year or so ago when Minister Ouellet was the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and it was with business people. I got there early and thought it was the NGO meeting already started.

It was a very interesting conversation I was in, because they were debating China and Canada's trade relations with China. I heard business person after business person comment that they were in favour of Canada's position on human rights, and they were saying that without being at the table we can't influence anything. I have to say that for at least those people at that table - these were the business people - they did not seem to think it was impossible to have human rights linked somehow.

I think, at the very least, we have to have tied-in human rights as it relates to children. It may not be the ultimate; it may not be all human rights violations. But I think, as a minimum, we have to have human rights as it relates to children.

We saw the tremendous response that Craig Kielburger got. The Prime Minister changed his agenda and met with him.

Part of it is bringing these issues before the Canadian public. That's a challenge to us as NGOs in terms of awareness. I think it's also a challenge to the government to be able to stand up and take responsibility.

We've heard time and time again about Canada's influence on the international scene. Surely Canada can continue working with ``the more developed nations'' in terms of maybe more of a joint approach on this so Canada isn't standing alone. I don't think we're prepared to take the answer that because they're not linked, therefore they can't be. We need to start somewhere.

The Acting Chairman (Mrs. Gaffney): Is there anything further, Madame Debien?

Mrs. Debien: No.

The Acting Chairman (Mrs. Gaffney): Ms Ruff.

Ms Ruff: If I could add a point, I think really it's an excellent opportunity right now for Canada to show leadership in development pacts and by putting human rights issues on the agenda. I think there is beginning to be a willingness on the part of exporting corporations to recognize they need to address the human rights issue because consumers are taking this more and more into account.

There's a press release that just came out from Reebok, and they are saying that because of the success of the Rugmark campaign, they are modelling an initiative of the same kind to deal with the sports goods that have made by exploited and bonded child labour in Pakistan. They are implementing a commitment to not use exploitative child labour and to allow monitoring of their workplaces.

.1855

I think we're beginning to see responsible corporations say, yes, we recognize that there should not be a conflict between doing business and human rights; we can do both together.

But I think there needs to be leadership from the Canadian government. A crucial element is independent monitoring. We've seen the success of the Gap campaign, where again there was massive concern from consumers. This put pressure on the company, and they agreed to independent monitoring to make sure they lived up to their own code of conduct. I think the more we can do it in a positive way and reward employers and countries that are making substantial progress and making goodwill efforts.... I think Canada could play a very strategic role in this internationally. And this committee, by making recommendations along this line, could play an extremely positive role.

The Acting Chairman (Mrs. Gaffney): I think, Mr. Thomson, this is where you fit in also in terms of firms. Do you have anything to add to that?

Mr. Thomson: Perhaps the committee could recommend to your colleagues in the House that you emulate the European Parliament and ask your cafeteria to serve fairly traded coffee and tea.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Thomson: Just make a contribution to the sales of coffee so that farmers get a fair price for their coffee and tea and have an income as small family farmers that will then allow them to educate their children, to work as adults, and to prepare their children for work and not have to sell them into slavery.

The Acting Chairman (Mrs. Gaffney): Madame Debien, you have something further?

[Translation]

Ms Debien: I would like to ask Mr. Thomson a question.

In your experiment with the coffee sector, what monitoring mechanisms are in place to ensure that coffee producers are not exploiting children?

We have been talking about the situation as regards coffee in particular, but you are aware that in Asia and in the Asia-Pacific region, most exploited children do not work in plants.

Ms Ruff spoke earlier about the Reebok experience. This company has monitoring mechanisms in the plants situated in major cities. But most working children are to be found in rural areas, in very small villages, where it is virtually impossible to do any monitoring whatsoever.

There could be an awful lot of people, and in my view there already are, who might use special labelling in order to try and sell their products. We all know that these labels can be imitated, forged. We also know that there is no monitoring mechanism that would enable us to say that, yes, this rug was not made using slave or child labour. In my view, that is the problem. It is with the monitoring mechanisms, and you have exactly the same problem in India. Despite the existence of laws prohibiting the exploitation of children, the government has no way of controlling the situation. Since there is no political will, there is no control mechanism either.

As for the people who trade the goods, their main problem is the absence of control and monitoring systems. As long as the problem remains and until control mechanisms are put in place, we can do all the labelling we want, but child slavery will continue to exist.

Mr. Thomson: Please accept my apologies. I understood your question in French, but I will answer in English.

Ms Debien: Please go ahead.

Mr. Thomson: I know that we have interpretation.

.1900

[English]

The international fair trade labelling movement licenses coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar and honey. Coffee is by far and away the largest commodity that is labelled this way. That coffee comes largely from Latin America and Africa.

We work with half a million family farmers. We don't work with large plantations. Child labour probably does exist within the coffee sector in Latin America and Africa, but it is not a major problem, certainly not the same problem that it is, for example, in agriculture in Asia.

We do license tea. And tea is a different circumstance because we do license tea from plantations in India, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Our monitoring mechanisms have been set up such that one of the conditions under which a tea packager or a tea importer can use our trademark label is that they purchase only from sources that we have accredited as fair trade sources.

In the case of tea, we select plantations where there is either a trade union or where the management of the plantation has agreed to work jointly with a representative workers' committee that decides how the money from the fair trade premium will be spent.

We also require the plantations to respect local laws. In all cases, in all of the countries where we are certifying plantations as fair trade sources, there has to be schooling for children. There have to be assurances that the children are attending school if they are working part-time, for example, in tea plucking.

We visit each plantation. A member of the international tea register committee, who might be a European, would travel to India or Sri Lanka or Bangladesh or Nepal and would actually...a plantation has to be visited and the conditions asserted as being what they are beforehand. We have a number of consultants in each country who speak the local language who also visit on a regular basis. They make surprise visits.

We have questionnaires. When a plantation requests registration, they have to fill out a questionnaire outlining how many child labourers work on that plantation and what schooling facilities exist. Our visits ascertain whether that is in fact the case.

Each plantation has to be visited at least once a year. We also monitor tea importing and the tea sales process through contracts with licensed importers and exporters. We have access to their books and we have databases. For example, when an importer tells us he has purchased so many tonnes of tea from a certain plantation at a certain price, he has to send us a copy of the contract.

We fax or send by post a copy of that contract to the workers' committee and to the management of the plantation. They have to send proof to us through photocopies of bank statements that they have indeed received the premium. Then they have to account for how they spent the money from that premium.

Again, when we make our visits, we verify that what they said is indeed the way the money has been spent by talking to the tea plantation workers themselves. As you say, it's not always completely foolproof. There is quite a complete monitoring and certification mechanism in place that allows us to independently determine whether there are any flagrant violations or not.

In the case of tea, the money is actually deposited into a special trust account, over which both the management and the workers have control. If there's a union on a plantation, in many cases the union is actually the group that makes the decision on behalf of the workers as to how the money will be spent.

Then they let us know how it is spent, whether they use it to build latrines or whatever. We do not allow the money to be spent on education or on housing or on improvements in working conditions that the laws of India and Sri Lanka statutorily require the plantation owners to provide for the workers. So we're not allowing the management of the plantations to get out of making those legally required expenditures on working conditions. They can't do that from the fair trade premium. They have to do it out of their own costs of production. So in that sense, there are a number of requirements that we use to assure....

.1905

We ourselves are independent associations of churches, trade unions and non-governmental organizations. We have no interest in the tea or coffee trade and we're not benefiting from it, so we are independent in that sense as well.

The Acting Chairman (Mrs. Gaffney): Thank you very much, Mr. Thomson.

Since only Madame Debien and I are here, you're going to have to allow the chair to ask some questions. Mr. English apologized because he had to go to give a speech somewhere.

Ms Ruff, we kind of cut you short on your comments. If I remember correctly, you were quite critical with regard to the Canadian UNICEF report on Rugmark. That surprised me, so I wonder if you could explain a bit more and tell me why.

Ms Ruff: I've given a written analysis that details all of the reasons, but I could explain very quickly.

In comparing what strategies Canada should take, I think it's important that there be an analysis of the different choices and strategies. The report does not do an analysis or compare what the different strategies can obtain. For example, it recommends that Canada continue its traditional practices in funding overseas development projects, but without analysing whether those practices have had a significant impact or whether they have been successful. It recommends that Canada transfer part of its development funding for children over to primary education. Obviously everyone would agree with funding for primary education, but the funding that Canada provides only covers a tiny percentage of the children of India who are not going to school and gives them that chance to go to school. So although everyone would agree with funding schools, it doesn't significantly challenge the problem or address the underlying causes of the problem.

The Acting Chairman (Mrs. Gaffney): And here I was expounding that as being a very positive thing. It was one of the things that UNICEF mentioned to me at the United Nations in New York - what they were doing through CIDA.

Ms Ruff: There's no question that any project that provides funding for development for children is a good thing. What the UNICEF Canada report does is to ask whether an approach has a significant impact in dealing with the underlying problems of exploitative child labour, whether it's going to make a major change in addressing those issues. For example, it says that because only a small percentage of exploitative child labour is in the carpet industry, this is therefore a reason not to support that strategy. But if you take the same yardstick and apply it to the funding of a primary school program, you could say the same thing. So if you have a yardstick, what we're saying is that you should apply across the board to all strategies, and that schools funded by Canada reach only a tiny percentage of children.

The fact that something reaches a tiny percentage of children doesn't mean that, in and of itself, it's not good as a strategy. You have to look at whether or not it is being effective when compared with other strategies, at whether or not it is getting the issue out into the open, at whether or not it is bringing pressure to bear on the governments of those countries to implement their own laws on the issue.

In the report, it applies a yardstick to Rugmark and says that Rugmark is not going to deal with the whole widespread issue of child exploitative labour. This is true, but I don't think any one approach will deal with the whole overriding problem, and the policies followed to date certainly haven't significantly changed the overall problem. So the criticism was that if a yardstick is to be used, you have to use it across the board and analyse and compare the different approaches, but the report doesn't do that.

Another major concern is that the carpet industry is an area that is notorious for child bonded labour. The UNICEF Canada report itself agrees that 50% of the children are bonded labourers. There are so many reports of the seriousness of the situation for bonded child labour in the carpet industry, but the report starts out with a quote that paints a very positive picture of working in the carpet industry. We feel the effort should be to prioritize children in the most extremely difficult circumstances - the bonded labourers in the carpet industry. So to privilege a quotation that gives a glowingly positive picture of children working in the carpet industry gives us some concern, because we think the priorities should be on the exploitative situation that is the experience of up to half the children in that industry.

.1910

The report then agrees that bonded labour is an appalling circumstance, but it says that because only a small number of children are in bonded labour it therefore doesn't deal with that issue. It makes no recommendations on dealing with bonded child labour, and this concerns us. The only report on bonded child labour is at the conclusion of the report, on page 21 -

The Acting Chairman (Mrs. Gaffney): I've just been told - pardon me for interrupting - that apparently there is another report coming out that is much more favourable.

Ms Ruff: This gives us concern. We have a letter from UNICEF India that speaks about the enormous success the Rugmark campaign has had in raising the issue. This letter from UNICEF India also refers to -

The Acting Chairman (Mrs. Gaffney): Could you make your answers a little bit shorter? I want Dr. Varhade to speak to this too, and I have another question for Ms Tripp.

Ms Ruff: Okay.

It talks about the recent assessment carried out by Mr. Fuad Kronfol on behalf of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of the Government of Canada. Mr. Kronfol has not yet been released by the government; however, I am attaching a letter written by Mr. Kronfol to the editor of Oriental Rug Magazine, which conveys his positive impressions of the Rugmark initiative. We would like to request that a copy of that report be tabled for the committee members.

The Acting Chairman (Mrs. Gaffney): Thank you.

Dr. Varhade, I have a feeling that you know first-hand what has happened in India for a good many years - certainly in your lifetime - what is happening today, and what we should be doing about it. I'd like to hear your comments a bit more.

Dr. Varhade: Thank you, madam. I'd like to bring a little more light, since the time was too short to present the situation earlier.

The Acting Chairman (Mrs. Gaffney): Yes, it was, and I apologize for that.

Dr. Varhade: Before I can suggest a solution, it is necessary to understand the system a little bit. In light of those facts, I'd like to bring certain information that is very relevant in this matter.

The background is a history of about 3,000 years. According to Indologists, about 1500 BC, the Indo-Aryan race invaded India from the northwestern part of India and defeated the local indigenous people. They destroyed the civilization and started their religious beliefs in order to use these people, broken men, as the slaves of the system. They then invented a caste system to make this a permanent system for their privileges - and this is just in short reference.

What happened over the years is that it became the psyche of the masses that these outcasts are untouchable people who, according to Hindu religious beliefs, have no rights. They are bound for slavery under the high-caste Hindu masters. It is written in the religious beliefs, in what is known as the Manu code of laws. It is the book of Hindu religious beliefs in which the laws of the Hindu religion are stated. It states in writing that as a part of the religion, the high-caste Hindu Brahmans, a priestly caste, can use the untouchables of the low caste for all the slavery they can impose on them. The untouchable is supposed to have torn clothes and no wealth, and his job is to serve his master. He is supposed to survive on the thrown-away food.

.1915

This mentality in the religion has been propagated over the years. People started to believe so formally in this entrenched thinking that the solution is not coming even after India's independence, and even though the system has been abolished.

What was really required was brought in as a part of the constitutional provisions for these marginalized people. It is known as the Untouchability Act, it makes practising untouchability a criminal offence according to the the Indian constitution, and it has a very strong notion of punishing the people who are guilty of it. But what is happening in reality is that these people who control the system are less than 15% of the high caste in the population, and it is very convenient for them to use these slaves for centuries more. They are directly against the system being changed, and it is these same people ruling the nation.

The Acting Chairman (Mrs. Gaffney): I think we understand that, but what I think we're faced with now is that the world is slowly coming to light on this. We're saying that this is no longer acceptable and we want to have change. How do we convince the people of India? How can we work with India to make that change within India?

Dr. Varhade: In fact, the solution lies within India as well as outside India.

Not too long ago, the Indian Parliament put more teeth in the laws that severely punish the practice of untouchability. They brought in some more modifications in 1989, and the Indian government recently declared that they will put in place serious implementing machinery for those particular laws.

The same thing can happen with the child labour. What the Canadian government can do in this matter is ask India to implement its own constitutional machinery in a very serious way because you are interested in the human rights of such a big population. That's number one.

The Acting Chairman (Mrs. Gaffney): But Canada is such a small nation compared to India. What process can Canada use to convince India to do this? How do we go about doing it? One person has suggested the G-7 nations, that we use that process. But what would you suggest?

Dr. Varhade: In fact, I'm very much for the recent report of the CERD committee in the UN. This committee has given a judgment - the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination - and Canada can uphold it in principle because it's a report of a committee that gives concluding observations from a very highly respected UN senior body. India is a signatory to the convention on the elimination of racism, so that's a starting point. India is also a signatory on the abolition of child labour. India also is a signatory of abolition of sanctified prostitution of children.

So what it boils down to is that each of these things has been discussed as it has been brought into the United Nations. Because of that, India is now a little bit worried that its image is getting tarnished as a great democracy - so-called - for a few people, and not the masses. This is perfect timing, because the left-wing government that has now come to power is more prone to change, but their focus is on running the country day to day and on its day-to-day problems. Unless their focus changes, the changes will not take place.

Canada, with the help of the G-7 countries, can start monitoring the system by first creating a discussion with its G-7 partners, who are in a consortium to fund India in its loans and in its different financing systems. Start monitoring to see that India is implementing its own laws.

Second, India is right now discussing national human rights education. It is already in the discussion stage with the minority human rights commission in India. So this is also the perfect time to push India and to indicate to India that you are interested in helping a system that will really supply the education. But we need a system to monitor their progress and the implementation of what they say they will do.

I think the timing couldn't be any better than this time, because this government may only last another year or year and a half. If the fundamentalist government comes to power once again, the whole thing will be thrown apart. So this is where we need the help.

Finally, it can tie the aid that G-7 countries fund every year to the implementation of liberation of these millions of slaves.

.1920

The Acting Chairman (Mrs. Gaffney): We met with many high-level people at the United Nations last week. With every person we met we were talking about the rights of the child and the countries that are signatory to that charter.

If ever a vehicle was there to do something, it is through the rights of the child, through the UN. The feeling I was certainly getting was that the time is right. It's the ``sexy'' issue - pardon me for using that word - today in the world, that we need to stop the terrible things that are happening to children around the world.

Brazil is an example where they shoot their street children in the streets. I hope that in our report we take these tremendous recommendations in every one of the briefs you've given to us today, work with them and hopefully come up with some kind of solution to present to our standing committee on it. So I thank you for that.

Ms Tripp, in your presentation you were critical of the U.S. congressional committee with regard to how it was dealing with child labour. Maybe you could expand upon that and tell us what we as a Canadian government should do differently from what it was doing.

Ms Tripp: I started out my comments by saying the situation is complex and therefore the solutions are going to be complex. We need a holistic approach.

Experience has shown us that with these sorts of across-the-board sweeping embargos or bans on anything having to do with child labour, the immediate reaction is okay, great, all of these companies let all their child labourers go. But what happens to them? Where do they go?

They don't have a little pot of money. They're there working to survive. It's not because necessarily their parents are unemployed. Their parents may be employed, sick or whatever, but they don't have enough to survive. So they're forced into other forms of labour. Unless there's an alternative such as funds to put them into school or whatever, they drop down the ladder and go into....

There was one study Oxfam did after the Harkin bill, I think. There was this reaction to let all these child labourers go, but there are indications that up to 30,000 of them ended up in the sex trade. So that's why we're against these sweeping things.

We recognize in the best of all possible worlds there wouldn't be child labour. Children would all be in school. But we're not in the best of all possible worlds, so we're saying, work with companies where children are employed to ensure these light work criteria are implemented.

The Acting Chairman (Mrs. Gaffney): The policy of the Canadian government right now is that it feels it can do international trade and at the same time work with human rights. Do you agree with that?

Ms Tripp: Yes, as long as it has some teeth to it and doesn't just sort of sound nice.

The Acting Chairman (Mrs. Gaffney): Window dressing.

Ms Tripp: I think Mr. Gagliano earlier this afternoon said he was not aware of any Canadian legislation that links exploitative child labour with trade. This is an indictment on Canada as one of the leading humanitarian nations. You can't just have the statement; you have to have steps for implementation and monitoring, as we've all been talking about.

The Acting Chairman (Mrs. Gaffney): A few weeks ago, representatives of the business community were here telling us what they were doing with regard to making sure their companies were not using child labour in their businesses. Levi Strauss had a wonderful program. The Alexanian Carpet company is making sure it's not bringing carpets into the country from sources that have used child labour to make them. So I think we can do some education with regard to Canadian industry and how it's handling it in those countries.

Ms Tripp: Yes, and this is where we said nobody can do it alone, whether it's the Gap or Reebok. Businesses appreciate that their bottom line is profit, but I don't care whether they do it for altruistic reasons or whatever. But a domino effect will start, and Levi Strauss, the GAP and all these others could do it. You have to seize the moment and use the opportunity to educate them in the long term and not just the short term.

.1925

The Acting Chairman (Mrs. Gaffney): We have major players. Nortel is working around the world - in China and in Korea now, I believe. Mitel, Newbridge and those high-tech companies are all established in those other nations. It's something we'll have to learn to work with those people on. We don't expect them to hire cheap labour.

Ms Tripp: There also have to be times when we take a stand and say no. Reward good performance, but also indict poor performance. We have to show we're serious about it, too, and say no. It might cost Canada something at times, but you have to put your money where your mouth is.

The Acting Chairman (Mrs. Gaffney): I'm not too sure the government's prepared to go that far, but I might.

Ms Tripp: We are the government, right?

The Acting Chairman (Mrs. Gaffney): I happen to be on that side of the House, but....

Dr. Varhade.

Dr. Varhade: I just want to make one small comment. Kathleen brought this UNICEF report, and we discussed it earlier with her. It is pathetic that an organization like UNICEF should be bringing its report and mentioning that weaving a carpet is such fun for a child. This report should go into the basket without even being looked at.

The Acting Chairman (Mrs. Gaffney): I haven't read it.

Dr. Varhade: I was stunned when she brought to my attention how bad it could be. There is no way. Thousands of our children are locked up in India in this bonded labour, and they are suffocating. They're dying in there. How could that be a pleasant experience? That is one point.

Second, I mentioned in my comments that there is a need for CIDA projects to be directed towards two types of projects.

One is release, rehabilitation and re-education of the child labour, totally. I see a lot of consensus when I talk to many western governments through my United Nations conferences; they are also interested in many projects in that line. The committee could help by encouraging the major institutions to direct many projects in that direction, and the funding could come from other G-7 countries as well as Canada, with Canada taking the lead.

The second thing is that the human rights education of the nation, which is being discussed in India, should be pushed very seriously. The CERD report published serious comments on India's human rights record and what India should do. They're supposed to submit another report by January 1998. It's a very important, powerful tool to start with, because it says, you have violated the basic human rights and dignity of these people for hundreds of years; you have to change it, and you have to make the proper reparations to the victims.

Give them the privileges of human rights education as well as economic rehabilitation and national education. And publicize this report nationally in all the major newspapers. My request to the committee is to start with asking India to publicize the report. I will be glad to give a copy to the clerk of the committee. Ask them if they can do that according to the CERD convention. That's a starting point.

The rest of the things they can build by creating a committee of G-7 countries that is the controlling power for India's economic development. I see 80% of the solution in that. For the last 30 years I've been an activist, since my school life, and I see this as the solution. Unless the international pressure mounts, India will not listen. India definitely will not listen. Its focus will not change.

These are the lives of billions of children. We need your help.

The Acting Chairman (Mrs. Gaffney): Thank you very much.

I want to thank each and every one of you. You've been a very patient group of people. We apologize for keeping you here so late. No one's had supper, but I'm used to this.

Your briefs have been outstanding, absolutely outstanding. I thank you again. Enjoy the rest of your evening.

I adjourn this meeting.

Return to Committee Home Page