EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 3, 1996

.0915

[English]

The Chairman: I'd like to call this meeting to order. This is the Sub-Committee on Sustainable Human Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Today we're following on yesterday's testimony, from the minister and several others, on the subjects of child labour and Canada's policies towards international standards.

We're pleased to have several witnesses here today. With us are, from the Steelworkers Humanity Fund, Gerry Barr; from Save the Children-Canada, Girish Godbole; from the Canadian Labour Congress, Stephen Benedict; Mr. John Harker, who has had a lot of experience with the ILO and labour questions generally; and from the international relations branch of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, Louise Lavallée, secretary, and Marie Pépin. Bienvenue.

I will be chairing this meeting for ten minutes, but unfortunately I have to leave to chair another meeting at 9:30 a.m. Someone else will take the chair at that point. I therefore apologize now for my departure, because it may occur when you are in full flight.

I think what we'll do is take the witnesses in the order in which they are listed on the sheet, beginning with Mr. Barr. If possible, it would be best if the witnesses could speak for approximately ten minutes. I won't hold you to the minute, but if we could aim for that, it would allow time for questioning afterwards.

So if you could, please begin, Mr. Barr.

Mr. Gerry Barr (Treasurer, Steelworker Staff Representative, Steelworkers Humanity Fund): Thank you very much. It's really a pleasure to be here. I'm happy to have the opportunity to sit with you and to participate in the round table discussion.

I work with the Steelworkers Humanity Fund, which is a labour-based, non-governmental organization housed within the institutional framework of the United Steelworkers of America in Canada. Our NGO is supported by the negotiated contributions of members, and we support projects and development work in thirteen countries and five regions of the world, including some countries where child labour is a prominent question and others in which it is not so prominent.

As a labour-based, non-governmental organization, this is a particularly interesting question for us, both at a policy level and at a practical level. We see the question as naturally involving important development elements and labour rights elements, so it is for us a fairly fortuitous combination and one that interests us a great deal.

I'll just say a word about the notes I sent along to the committee clerk before I came. I did have some discussion notes. I took it that the notes were important for the translators, but I want to forewarn them that I'll perhaps wander a little bit.

The notes themselves are really just discussion notes. They're not, in their entirety, our recommendations to the committee. Some of the positions that are advanced in the notes are there simply in order to portray voices on this question. They are respectable voices and need to be thought about, but they're not necessarily the voices we've adopted. There are some recommendations, however. In particular, there is a criterion that we offer up through which one might be able to look at initiatives in the area of child labour. We would certainly recommend those, and we would do so pretty unequivocally.

To get to the question, I think the image I'd like to start with is one that a colleague of mine came up with and that, for me, has been quite a striking one. The more one looks at child labour, the more one pays attention to it, to the twists and turns of the question, the more one feels as though they're in a hall of mirrors. You begin to appreciate the complexity, the lamination, and the difficulties associated with this question, and situating yourself becomes a real chore, a real challenge. If there is one thing that you can finally come back to with real certainty, it's that, at the end of the day, the exploitation of children is wrong and has to be stopped.

.0920

This is not easy territory. I'm sure the committee members already know this, but I say it only to express our own difficulty as we travel along this road.

There are some voices that say the approach ought to be one of immediate abolition, of tough enforcement regimes, of prodding for the development of political will in countries where child labour is a persistent and inescapable problem, of providing assistance where it's needed - but get rid of it. Get rid of it now, get rid of it energetically, without delay and without equivocation.

On the other hand, there is just no denying that this is a profoundly persistent problem. There is a resources problem. Developing countries have few resources - and are not likely to have more in the future - with which to address the problems of enforcement and of making effective regulatory regimes. Development assistance is in decline, as I'm sure you have heard. I understand Betty Plewes was hear yesterday and spoke energetically to that. The abandonment of the south by the international community is just breathtaking. Unhappily, there appears not to be any sign of a shift in aid patterns. The aid patterns are one of diminishing assistance.

In all of that, with all of those factors, there are some who say, with a lot of weight attached to it, that child labour is not just one thing. There are different forms of child labour. There are some that are more egregious than others. There are some that are more dangerous than others. There are some that are clearly more exploitative than others. It may be that in addressing the immensity of this problem it would be worth paying attention to some of these kinds of commanding depths and to select and target the worst forms of exploitation.

Another important issue is that of using trade tools to come to grips with this problem. There are those who say you can't get at child labour through trade measures, that less than 5% of kids are working in export manufacturing industries or in mining for export, and that the overwhelming reality in child labour is in non-export industries. They say that when you simply try to put the pressure on the export side by using export instruments and regulation, you redeploy kids into the domestic economy, where they find other, perhaps less advantageous jobs. These are painful thoughts and difficult problems, but I think they need to be considered seriously. On the other hand, even 5% of child labour is, globally, a huge number of people and is not to be set aside. On top of that, you could say that the export-driven model that's being pedalled so vigorously internationally may well prompt the emergence of increased child labour in export industries.

.0925

Although these are difficult problems, it's clear that inaction will raise credibility problems for governments that want to be understood as being concerned about child labour. It's possible to say that notwithstanding the fact that export is a relatively small sector relevant to this problem, work here could set a standard for other action domestically. It's probably true that Canadians and citizens in other countries in the developed world, and in other countries involved in international trade broadly, could fairly wonder whether their political leadership is in earnest about this question if they remain inactive. So there is that credibility problem.

Then there is the credibility problem associated with poorly thought out action and poor strategies. A lot of international credibility could be lost with initiatives that fall easily into the many traps in this discourse - thinly veiled protectionist initiatives and that sort of thing. So I think that needs to be thought about.

The probable best result, in our view, is a kind of mixture of development assistance, trade-related measures, and the targeting of the worst forms of child labour. There are a bunch of ways of getting at that.

I'm worried about time here, but I'd like to get to the centre of gravity of the comments I have to offer today. That is, we have thought in our own discussions at the Steelworkers Humanity Fund and with some members of the NGO community of a number of criteria that might be used to look at measures - it would be our view that it's important - and there are five of those.

First, it's important that the rules for developing countries should also be the rules for Canada or for any country wanting to address this question. In that regard, for example - and only for example; there are other ways of talking about this - there is the problem of convention 138 to which neither Canada nor the United States are signatories. I'm sure you're aware of that, and there are substantial worries about the adequacy of convention 138. That kind of thing, I think, has to be borne in mind.

Secondly, the monitoring of adherence, the development of programs, and the targeting of aid to address the core problems of child labour ought to and, in our view, must involve workers and other groups in civil society; otherwise it's very unlikely that effective regimes or programs will be developed.

For example, I think it's fair to say that at a moment in time such as the one we are in, when government resources in particular are in decline and there is not much appetite for accretion in government services and roles, and in fact the direction is the other way, it's increasingly important to find ways to involve civil society and, in this question of child labour, trade unions. In the matter of enforcement and development of criteria, standards and programs, trade union organizations and workers organizations have a strong and positive interest in this question, both in the north and in the south, and are an extraordinarily cost-effective vehicle through which to look at the question of child labour.

With respect to programs that are choices that might be made, it's our view that enforcement approaches are much less desirable than incentive approaches. We think - this goes a little to the second point I made, but for the sake of force, I guess - government and private sector initiatives have to be mixed in this. It is just not going to work to rely entirely on government initiatives, nor on business or industry initiatives. It will not work at all. There has to be a mixture of these things. The private sector needs to be redefined a bit, as I said before, to include organizations like trade unions, workers organizations, who are a valid and important part of the private sector, not just an input for a product.

.0930

Lastly, with respect to unilateral action, which is one that I think the committee has in front of it, I think the policy question of the committee is, does Canada use trade instruments to act here? Are they prepared to do it or do they want to do it? Do they want to do it unilaterally? We think creative unilateralism is a real option if other things have been explored.

First we think there needs to be a full effort to look at multilateral strategies, multilateral agreements.

Secondly, there need to be - and I guess the minister was talking yesterday about it - bilateral negotiations for the countries. That's an interesting idea and one that might be moved forward a bit: efforts to negotiate with problem countries, if you could put it that way, or, to put it a better way, countries in which child labour is a striking and persistent problem. Those negotiations need to include a diagnosis of needs and offers of support for initiatives that are concrete.

Finally, I think Canada cannot benefit and cannot be seen to benefit from actions in this area, and to the extent that it does benefit from any trade initiative per se, it will be exposed in a worrying way to the charges that valid and important voices will raise in the south about questions of protectionism.

I note that I'm through my time. Maybe in the round table we can get into a few of the tools.

Thanks, John, for your generosity.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): You're welcome, Gerry. We have to declare a conflict of friendship here.

Mr. Godbole, I gather you have just returned from India, so you have fresh information for us. Welcome.

Mr. Girish Godbole (Country Director, India, Save the Children-Canada): First of all, I would like to thank all of you for giving me an opportunity to come here and present my views in front of this committee. I'm really grateful to you.

I am country director of Save the Children-Canada in India. Save the Children-Canada is a member of the International Save the Children Alliance, and it's an organization that is about 75 years old. It's dedicated to the attainment of the objectives of the United Nations declarations on the rights of the child and to the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We work jointly with community-based organizations and grassroots groups. We have about 100 projects in 10 countries, including Canada.

To start, I would like to give you a brief overview of the child labour situation in South Asia, because we work with child labour ourselves.

I'd like to give a few definitions of child labour, because the debate currently going on is, what do you call child labour and what is child work? People are trying to differentiate between the different forms of child labour and child work.

The definition we agreed with is that child labour is that form of work a child is engaged in that is detrimental to the growth and development of the child. Family labour that interferes with the child's education, recreation, physical or moral health would also be considered child labour.

.0935

To understand this problem, we also have to understand the magnitude of the problem. India has probably the largest child labour force in the world, and of course the South Asia region also has the largest. In India the number of child labourers varies between 11 million and 44 million, and another research organization in the Philippines, the Balai data bank, has estimated that there are about 100 million children working in India.

If we look at the South Asia region as a whole, we see the magnitude of the problem. There are around 3 million children working in Nepal, 19 million in Pakistan, around 1 million in Sri Lanka, and around 12 million in Bangladesh. The reason for giving you these statistics is to let you see the child labour problem in its magnitude. It's quite large. Intervention at the level of the international community will be required to solve this problem. It's not possible for one single country or a couple of organizations to tackle this problem, as you can see by the magnitude of the problem.

Before we go further, it's also important to understand the causes of child labour. Normally we start thinking in one direction and just say that poverty is the cause of child labour, but there are a host of other factors. Poverty is one, of course, as are social customs, values and attitudes, shortcomings in the educational system, lack of access to education, migration from rural to urban areas, family disharmony and lack of family support, a cheap and vulnerable labour force, poor implementation of laws, and gender discrimination.

A plethora of factors are causes of child labour, and in order to really understand this issue and take steps to address it, we need to understand the variety of the causes in a holistic manner.

Children are engaged in a plethora of things. They are engaged in mining, carpet-making, glass factories, shops and restaurants. Some are self-employed, like shoeshine boys, ragpickers and small vendors. There is another sector, which is domestic and non-domestic and non-monetary. For example, in a majority of these cases, girls stay at home to look after younger siblings so their mothers can work outside the home. This girl is responsible for taking care of the children and managing the home. She cooks, she fetches water, she fetches firewood, and so on and so forth. We also consider this form of work child labour. It is non-monetary and detrimental to the growth of the child. And of course, there is the sex trade. Now more and more young boys and girls are being taken up by what we call the sex industry.

I really appreciated listening to Mr. Gerry Barr, because we must have an integrated approach for addressing this problem, and there is no one single strategy that we can confidently say would address the problem of child labour. It has to be an integrated approach.

The list I have is certainly not exhaustive. It could vary from place to place. But we have tried to provide a comprehensive list that suggests what needs to be done. The strategies are: free and compulsory quality primary education; support for an economic environment that enables the provision of full-time employment; successful tackling of parental and inter-generational poverty; provision and enforcement of minimum wages; an emphasis on rural development; enforcement of child labour laws; advocacy; support for income-generating opportunities; increased opportunities for flexible, informal educational and apprenticeship-types of training; and, the major thing, the rehabilitation of existing child labour.

.0940

Today one of the major concerns or debates is about the enforcement of laws and whether it's total elimination of child labour at this stage or a progressive elimination. It's such a difficult question, because if you say you must have policies that address the progressive elimination of child labour, then at one level, willy-nilly, you are supporting child labour. But on the other hand, if you say it has to be total elimination, the abolishment of child labour at one go, what happens to this large magnitude of children? Where will they go? We've just seen the underlying causes and the reasons why the children work.

It's difficult to comprehend. The ideal situation is no child labour. We agree with that. Everyone agrees with that. But looking at the reality, we ask if we are really in a state to enforce that as of today. If not, then we have to aim at the progressive elimination of child labour.

One of the things being thought of internationally is trade sanctions. I'm afraid this is not really going to address the cause, because, as Mr. Gerry Barr said, the total earnings of the children in the sports sector are barely 5% of the total economy. Studies have shown and experience has shown that banning child labour in one industry does not necessarily eliminate child labour. They just switch work situations, and sometimes the children might find themselves in worse situations.

I have a small document with me, which is an ILO study done by some researchers for the ILO in Bangladesh. When the trade sanctions were imposed upon the garment manufacturers of Bangladesh, the majority of the children who were thought to be in school were not in school. Some of the girls found themselves in the sex trade. Some of the girls went to work as domestic servants. Another problem was that the older boys who used to work in these garment factories could not go back to school because they were either over age or there were no educational facilities. Though it was a fine set-up, it didn't work.

Unilateral trade sanctions are not going to solve this problem because, as I was saying, as in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, any action we take as adults should be in the best interests of the child. My submission is that whatever action we take, we should examine what is in the best interests of the child. That should be the only consideration.

Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Thank you, Mr. Godbole.

The next speaker is Mr. Benedict from the Canadian Labour Congress. Welcome.

Mr. Stephen Benedict (National Director, International Department, Canadian Labour Congress): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I represent the Canadian Labour Congress, an organization of some 2.3 million Canadian workers. As I heard the previous speaker talk about the magnitude of the problem, something came to mind. Not only is it a huge problem that is gaining public attention today, and correctly so, but it is a quickly growing problem.

There are estimates that tens of thousands of children, possibly as many as 80,000, join the ranks of child labourers every day. That's not every year, not every month; it's every day. This is a reality that can't be escaped.

.0945

There are particular areas of the world where this seems to be an increasing problem - for example, central and eastern Europe, where we see the rise of child labour in countries like Russia and Romania, and increased mistreatment of children in a whole range of central European countries.

Child labour is not a new issue for the labour movement. It was an issue in industrialized countries like Canada over 100 years ago, and the debate and positions taken by the labour movement were in many ways similar to those taken today. The arguments against doing anything about child labour were some of the same arguments we hear today.

[Translation]

On the whole, child labour is used to undermine children's and adults' most basic human rights as well as workers' union rights. It is used to diminish the value of adult labour and reduce the value of products produced by adults throughout the world. Today, no one can ignore the working conditions suffered by some 200 million children in the world.

The CLC and the international union movement believe that more than poverty, although this is a considerable problem, and more than illiteracy, although this is a fundamental problem as well, the real problem stems from an economic system that enables and encourages the unbridled exploitation of the defenceless.

I would like to take this opportunity to talk about some recent, successful negotiations between the International Federation of Football Association and international union organizations.

The agreement reached is not based on a code of ethics, but is in fact a code of labour practices by which the International Federation of Football Association would refuse to give its seal of approval to manufacturers who resort to child labour or who violate workers' rights. Eighty percent of the 360 million footballs manufactured annually come from Pakistan. According to a union investigation, it is estimated that one out of five people who sews these footballs is a child.

[English]

I want to emphasize the positive nature of this agreement between the ICFTU, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, an international labour umbrella organization of some 194 trade union national centres around the world in 130-some countries; the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers' Federation; and FIET, the international trade secretariat representing commercial workers. They have signed this agreement with FIFA.

There are a number of elements to the agreement that bear some reflection. The first element is the very active participation of the International Labour Organization in the set of negotiations, and the recognition by FIFA of the core labour standards that everyone recognizes as fundamental rights for workers: conventions 29, 87 and 98 on the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining, the freedom from discrimination in employment, the freedom from forced labour, and the one my friend Gerry mentioned, convention 138, which we would love to hear the Canadian government ratify, if only for symbolic reasons.

.0950

The second aspect of this agreement is the recognition by FIFA of its responsibilities - first, vis-à-vis child labourers employed in the production of soccer balls and those balls that bear the seal of approval of FIFA, and also its responsibility within the sporting goods industry and the business community at large. That is an extremely positive step for us. As a matter of fact, at an international meeting of the sporting goods industry in November, the industry is going to hold a special conference on child labour aiming to get the endorsement and cooperation of the industry to eliminate child labour completely from the industry.

The other important aspect of this set of negotiations is that it underlines the importance of independent monitoring. Trade unions, as important social actors within civil society, have a crucial role to play in the monitoring and enforcement of these labour standards. This is something that is still being discussed between FIFA and the labour movement. Everybody recognizes the complexity of these issues. The ICFTU recognizes it. The international labour movement recognizes the complexity of these mechanisms, of the answers we are trying to bring to the problem of child labour.

Finally, the agreement provides for sanctions when all other measures have failed. The focus is not on the sanctions; the focus is on finding accompanying remedial solutions. It's difficult but not impossible, and it is happening in the sporting goods industry. It is happening in some ways in the carpet industry. Minister Axworthy said yesterday it's not a major item in Canada, but it is an important item in terms of the number of children involved in the production of those carpets. Whether or not it is a major trade issue for Canada, it is an equally important moral issue for Canada, and in terms of policy it should be reflected.

Let me turn to some priorities for the CLC. The CLC campaign against child labour integrates itself within the framework of the ICFTU campaign on child labour - aiming to raise awareness, a lot of which is done in the labour movement and a lot of which is done by a whole range of other social actors and by young people in Canada today, with an extremely successful approach to raising awareness. We welcome that.

The other is the collection of information. I mentioned central and eastern Europe. It seems to me that some research should be carried out on an example by which we can see how the economic changes and economies in transition are encountering a growing problem with child labour.

Finally comes the lobby aspect of our campaign. It includes things like advertising and encouraging negotiations between labour bodies and industries at an international level, and with companies at the national level and the plant level. An example is negotiating language on retail. Some manuals are being prepared today by the international trade secretariat for leather and garment workers and for commercial workers, together with the ICFTU, to be distributed widely for use in negotiations. That is one aspect.

Of course, there is the question of the inclusion of these core labour standards in all trade agreements and the WTO. There is a whole range of countries that have taken the position that these minimum labour standards should be included in all trade agreements.

.0955

If I understood Minister Axworthy correctly yesterday, he is not recognizing this approach. He is instead suggesting a series of annual meetings between the ILO, which would monitor labour standards, and the WTO, which would monitor trade standards, with the two meeting once a year or so to discuss how one impacts on the other.

When an issue like the violation of intellectual property rights appeared, governments and business alike rushed to protect these intellectual property rights. Our position is, why wouldn't governments also rush to protect basic trade union rights? It's really as simple as that, in many ways.

Of course, nobody - not the CLC, not the international labour movement - believes that in terms of child labour, it will be eradicated today. Nor will the inclusion of a social clause in trade agreements be the ultimate answer to the problem of child labour. But certainly it is one in a battery of measures, of policies, that will help to eliminate it.

I mentioned negotiations sector by sector because child labour will not be beaten all at once - not tomorrow, probably not even the day after tomorrow. But, industry by industry, progress can be made. The issue can become a focus of policy.

The other important aspect that has not been referred to much, and that I think is crucial to dealing with child labour, is the replacement of child labourers by unemployed adults. In virtually every country where there is child labour, there are more unemployed adults than there are children labouring. So part of the solution has to be that child labourers who earn on average half of what the adults earn are replaced by, in many cases, family members who are unemployed. To me it seems so simple that I sometimes wonder whether I'm on the right planet.

Part of a policy on child labour has to include the replacement of children and has to have accompanying measures on what to do with the children. Of course, the first answer is they have to be put into an educational system.

Unfortunately, structural adjustment programs today are having the exact opposite result. The privatization of education systems in Africa, in central Europe, and a whole range of countries is leading to an increase in child labour, prostitution, and street children, etc.

Clearly - and I agree with the two previous speakers on this - it's not about finding one magic solution to child labour. It's about setting a policy framework in which a whole series of avenues are explored and pushed, including a social clause in all trade agreements.

Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Thank you, Mr. Benedict.

I must say that the suggestion that we monitor or have a look at conditions in eastern Europe, and particularly Russia, is a very fascinating one - to see how in fact societies can go backwards on this issue. That's something we might want to ask Mr. Schmidt to take a look at for future sessions.

Thank you again for your presentation.

We now move on to John Harker, who was for a long time associated with the International Labour Organization, here in Canada. Mr. Harker.

Mr. John Harker (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to thank the committee for inviting me.

.1000

As you've indicated, I'm an individual; I don't represent an institution. In what I have to say I do want to draw on my experience with international labour issues, particularly with the International Labour Organization. It's that experience that drew me to the very last point made in the briefing note that was circulated to us. The question was asked of us really apropos the standards-based approach to combating child labour: are there positive development alternatives that would be more effective?

As has been said by, for example, Gerry Barr, standards approaches are not necessarily negative, and in fact a lot can be done through encouragement rather than the imposition of sanctions. Secondly, it's quite clear that this issue cannot be approached on an either/or basis. You can't say a standards-based approach is the answer or development is the answer. As Mr. Godbole said, all measures have to be assessed and attempted in overcoming what really is a major and complex scourge - this denial of the rights of children to a childhood.

In fact, it has been said that this isn't simply a matter of children working in export industries. Gerry pointed to the fact that more children will work in domestic production, for example. Reference has been made to an ILO study of child labour in Bangladesh. The ILO has carried out a number of these studies; one in Sri Lanka is useful in that it gives a picture of what really goes into comprising child labour - not just export production or domestic production. Certainly prostitution, certainly drug trafficking - children being used to carry narcotics to other countries and then on to the west. Not just drug trafficking, but child trafficking. As bizarre as it may seem, children in Sri Lanka have been sold to Abu Dhabi in order to ride camels for the entertainment of the rich people in that country. Then of course there are child combatants. Young children have been abducted to fight for the Tamil Tigers. In fact, in 1994-95 there were children as combatants in 32 conflicts around the world, so this is not a simple problem; it is a very major one.

In fact it does have echoes of a past. As the chairman has just said about a country going backwards, it's salutary to realize that slavery is still around today in quite horrific proportions, not to mention its kissing cousin, bonded labour.

In the notes I've left for the committee, I've made the point that perhaps Canada, in terms of focusing its efforts, ought to look hard at bonded labour, which results in so many children being in effect slaves to the rich and the powerful in many developing countries, and should try to assault it in any way it can.

These are phenomena that many people, through unawareness, would think were in fact 19th century phenomena. The ILO of course was created at the end of that century and the war that followed it in order to get rid of such things. It has been around since 1919 and its first standard on child labour was passed in that year.

So a standards-based approach has been around a long time. So have the problems. It's not as if any one way of dealing with any of these problems can offer an instant solution.

The point I wanted to make was that any standards approach has to be embedded in the use of both trade.... The Economist magazine last year held up that critics of NAFTA were saying that 5 to 10 million children were working in Mexico and saying that this was a way of undermining respect for that particular trade agreement. It's interesting to me that the labour side deal, which was arrived at, I guess, to sell NAFTA, was drawn up after heavy consultation with the ILO. Yet I, as a fairly compulsive media follower in this country, have never heard one thing about the application of that side deal, whereas periodically we hear about the similar side deal on the environment and how use of that is being made to try to achieve progress.

.1005

So if there are times when, in a very mild form, some kind of trading agreement has a relationship to standards, it would be a very good thing if we could hear about how it's being used. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Nonetheless, any standards approach has to be related both to aid and, wherever appropriate, to trade. In this, of course, we always run into the question of whether or not this is simply protectionist thinking. In Canada we have to decide on what it is we are protecting. Is it the right of a child to a childhood? Is it our own standard of living? Is it possible to attempt to do both? I think it is, but what we really have to focus on more often than we do in the application of our foreign policy is the avoidance of unintended consequences of our actions.

I mentioned The Economist. An issue some weeks ago drew my attention to something of which I wasn't aware. It said that in the early 1970s the Shah of Iran, another complex figure, banned child labour in the carpet industry. What that quickly did was create an upsurge of child labour in the carpet industries in Nepal and Pakistan - and that's something that should be mentioned today. According to The Economist, because the ground there was fertile through the existence of bonded labour, the Shah's actions really led to a very strong upsurge in bonded labour throughout Asia and South Asia, although I'm quite sure it was not an intended consequence.

Certainly, a standards-based approach can help. Yes, it can create public awareness. It can sometimes utilize moral suasion. Sanctions are involved in the one comprehensive standards system that exists today, that of the International Labour Organization. But clearly, any standards-based approach has to have a supervisory system. It has to be built around enforcement and encouragement, and the point has been made by the previous speakers that this has to bring in all of society.

I think one of your sessions is with business. Most of the people here have a connection with trade unions. I think Canada really ought to be focusing on involving all of Canadian society in this struggle. I've laid down a number of points of departure for this in my notes.

The first one that has appeal to me is this question of monitoring. Yes, it's all very well to rely on international organizations to do this. It's all very well to say that people should, in a voluntary fashion, agree to respect a standard. But I'd like to think that Canada could really focus on how it could bring business and unions together to utilize ODA. Many NGOs in this country have good, strong track records of delivering official development assistance. Have them focus on how to train and deploy locally recruited people in developing countries to act as monitors of the child labour situation. That will, I think, also lead us to consider just how we could do more to involve Canadian youth in an enterprise of this kind.

I have made mention in my notes of the fact that the press carried a report just recently that Human Resources Development Canada is scrambling in wonder on how to spend $65 million on youth employment. I would have thought there are a number of readily available alternatives, but one already touched on by a task force of MPs that looked into youth employment this summer was to spend some money on having young Canadians work abroad with Canadian industry. What a very nice thing it would be if that was used as a way of helping to get at child labour and to help increase the understanding in Canada of child labour and what we all must do about it.

The second notion is that one can't escape mention of CIDA as the primary vehicle for official development assistance. I remember the days when the idea of women in development was introduced. You weren't supposed to have a CIDA project unless it could be guaranteed to be furthering women in development.

.1010

More recently - I think it was last year - CIDA projects were meant to show respect for environmental assessment.

But what about a third feature? What about ensuring that all CIDA projects are certifiably child-labour-free and ensuring that process of attestation got right down to the grass roots, just to see how well CIDA can play a role in all of this?

Finally, this child labour issue is coming to the fore now, thank goodness. I recall that when Canada focused a lot of energy on fighting apartheid, realizing it had to involve all of society, one of the things it did was to create a trust fund that brought together a number of people from across Canada, with the mandate of using official development assistance to embrace and engage Canadian society - teachers, lawyers, trade unionists, women's rights activists, businessmen, businesswomen - in fighting apartheid. I think the government ought to look for a similar mechanism to fight child labour.

That's all I have to say. I'll be glad to take part in the discussion. Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Thank you, Mr. Harker. We will be coming back for our panel discussion.

[Translation]

We will now hear from the representatives of the Confederation of National Trade Unions, Ms Lavallée and Ms Pépin.

Ms Marie Pépin (Lawyer, Confederation of National Trade Unions): Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for giving us this opportunity to speak and for inviting us to participate in this round table. I have the impression that I will be repeating what some of my colleagues have said. I will, therefore, perhaps be a bit briefer.

I would like to point out that the Confederation of National Trade Unions, which I represent, is quite aware of the problem that would result from a ban on child labour in the world at the present time. We acknowledge that a problem exists and that trade sanctions alone may have a negative impact. We have already pointed this out and we are aware of the problem.

However, when it was a question of protecting intellectual property rights, countries were in fact very quick to react and to impose trade sanctions. My colleague from the CLC pointed this out and we feel that if intellectual property is given such priority, we should be able to give just as much priority to children's rights.

In our opinion, the addition of a social clause to the treaties would be beneficial, at the present time, although this is nothing new, and this is not the first time that we have discussed such a possibility. We realize that it will not resolve every problem, but at least it would be an attempt to find a solution to this problem, perhaps a partial solution, but at least a starting point. This social clause could include the various conventions of the International Labour Organization with respect to labour, which would include child labour and union freedom because, as the ILO pointed out as well, unions have a role to play in the area of child labour, but these unions must be able to act freely in these countries.

The international agreement on the recognition of the equality of women and on the absence of discrimination against women are also important issues to be introduced into a social clause eventually.

.1015

As mentioned earlier, the ban on forced labour is part of this.

We feel that the addition of a social clause which would cover all of these agreements would be a good starting point, but would not in itself be adequate if not accompanied by sanctions. We feel that we must be a little bit more circumspect with respect to these sanctions. We must not immediately sanction countries that do not comply with these agreements.

We talked about taking proactive steps. The NGOs are really in favour or taking proactive measures in the ban on child labour. We have no other choice but to adopt these proactive measures and to try to eliminate poverty. However, a quick fix is a tall order and unrealistic. There are, however, measures that can be taken quite quickly over the next few years, measures to promote education and alternatives to replace the income that the children contribute to the families. I won't go into the details, but we do understand that it is not simply a matter of money, that alone does not suffice. These measures may involve paying or compensating in kind the work performed by children so that it is not strictly a matter of money; we also have to ensure that the children attend school.

As for sanctions in trade treaties, right now we think that some countries that do not want to put a stop to child labour and who are not at all open to this idea, may be subject to trade sanctions. This does not hold true for most countries, but some countries are opposed to this ban. We will be less indulgent with such countries than we would be to those who are open to a ban on child labour.

We do not think that countries that are open to a ban on child labour should be subject to trade sanctions until a few years have elapsed. We could provide them with some assistance that would enable them to ban child labour and, if trade sanctions were to be imposed, this would not occur until much later. We would adopt an entirely different position with respect to countries that do not want to put a stop to child labour.

Finally, some may tell us that it would take a great deal of time to renegotiate trade treaties; we are aware of this. However, since Canada is now part of NAFTA and since there is talk of Chile becoming part of this agreement - Canada will be beginning negotiations shortly - it would be possible, at this time, to integrate or at least to begin, in America, to introduce this type of provision within NAFTA. I know that there is already a provision on child labour, but it is not accompanied by any sanctions or aid measures, and appears to have little effect. We have to give some thought to this type of provision and to include assistance measures right now.

Canada may also have an opportunity to intervene on this issue during the negotiation process for an Americas' treaty, which will be struck over the next few years. Taking such a step would, I feel, have a ripple effect on a larger scale, at the international level. We think that Canada's intervention with respect to the Americas' treaty would be an interesting starting point and that the whole issue could then be discussed and perhaps included in other trade agreements.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms Pépin. I believe that we are now at the point where we can ask questions and make comments. I will begin with our colleagues from the Bloc québécois. Ms Debien will begin.

Ms Debien (Laval East): I would like to welcome you all to our committee and I would like to thank you for agreeing to participate.

.1020

I would also like to thank you for the many concrete solutions you have suggested with respect to child labour. The intervention made by Mr. Barr comes to mind in particular, when he spoke, at the beginning, saying that solutions could be found at three levels in his opinion. He talked about a mixture of trade and regulatory measures that countries should adopt and he also referred to development aid measures. These three things pretty well summarize all of the interventions that we have heard here.

First of all, I would like to talk about the mixture of trade measures. Two or three people affirmed that trade sanctions were not the solution because approximately 5% of the children are involved in export-related trade. If 200 million children are working, 5% of these 200 million would represent 10 million children. If we were able, through positive trade measures, to eliminate the work done by 10 million children, this alone would be no mean feat.

On the other hand, in the area of trade measures, we know that there is presently a formula for development pacts, in other words a way of tying in trade, aid and labour rights. In some development pacts, there are three major measures proposed and I would like to have your opinion on that. Of course, there are bilateral measures. It's clear that presently, in its foreign policy, Canada prefers to act multilaterally even within the context of child labour.

But Canada could also possibly act bilaterally within the framework of a development pact, that is it could grant preferential treatment to those countries taking measures to settle the problem of child labour, provide for supplementary trade incentives for those countries which have eliminated child labour and also grant special development aid measures to countries making efforts to eliminate child labour. These are positive trade measures that could easily be implemented by Canada immediately and bilaterally. I'd like to know what you think about this development pact that we could implement here, in Canada.

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): It's like Reach for the Top. I saw Mr. Barr first.

Mr. Barr: I'm really pleased to hear the member speak about development taxes, because I think they actually are one of the real opportunities in this area of child labour, and in other areas as well. They're characterized, as the member said, by a degree of mutuality, which is really helpful when we're dealing with questions such as child labour and when you're trying to address some of the pitfalls associated with other trade-related measures that could be put into play. They're also characterized by policy reciprocity, so that countries would typically agree to attend to a range of problems.

For example, in the context of a development pact that goes specifically to child labour, Canada might undertake to address the question of its ratification of the convention. It might undertake to look at the problems of home work and the involvement of children in home labour.

There are mixtures of trade incentives, development assistance, and core labour rights that could be put together in quite creative ways. The interesting thing about the development pact is that it does afford Canada an opportunity to move forward, and it really, apparently, as well as actually progressing, uses some creative unilateralism to build a template for agreements, which could encourage the signing-on of others and set up the basis of a multilateral strategy. I think those things can go together quite well.

.1025

Development pacts are, of course, quite often multilateral. The Lomé Convention is probably the best example I could come up with of a very expensive and important development pact, but there are other interesting development pacts that have been developed. I think Holland has been involved in a number of attempts to do good work here, and I think this is a direction that is really worth encouraging.

[Translation]

Ms Debien: There are two people before who pointed out that Canada had not signed the ILO convention 138. Is this the one that deals with minimum age? Why hasn't Canada signed it yet?

Mr. Benedict: I imagine the answer should be coming from that side of the table rather than this one, but I can tell you that convention 138 does deal with the minimum working age. Canada has not signed it because of a jurisdictional problem with the provinces.

Ms Debien: Because labour law falls under provincial jurisdiction. Agreed. I understand.

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Wouldn't you know it.

[Translation]

A comment, Mr. Harker?

[English]

You're still coming back, aren't you?

Mr. Harker: Yes. I'd like to comment on two of the issues just raised. One is this question of Canadian ratification. Certainly, it's always an enigma wrapped in the middle of a mystery to find out why Canada does or does not seek to have the strength to overcome that kind of provincial hesitation. It did when it was a matter of the use of asbestos because there were real reasons for why that seemed to be much more pressing.

What I don't want to do is dwell on 138, but this summer I believe Canada took part in discussions at the ILO that aimed at talking about a new convention that would deal only with the most abusive situations. It's agreed that this process will start next year, and I'd just like to argue that Canada now ought to be trying to take a lead in ensuring that there is a new convention on the worst types of exploitation and abuse. By taking such a lead, it could commit itself to ratification.

On the question that was raised about development pacts and positive trade promotion, I think there are some very useful ideas there on how far Canada can go. I guess it has the right to do whatever it pleases in terms of withdrawing assistance to Canadian businesses where there is child labour involved and so forth. The point I want everyone to understand, however, is that even in those countries where child labour is prevalent, they dare not be seen to be totally closed to the enormity of this problem. They have voluntarily and determinedly asked for international assistance in overcoming child labour. Canada contributed $700,000 this year to the ILO's program on this subject, but that program only operates in countries that have come to the ILO to ask for help with the problem.

So I think we ought to be more active in making use of the fact that lots of these countries, although they don't like other countries interfering, are sometimes a little bit reluctant to be totally tarred as beyond the pale of redemption. We should try to build on that to engage with them.

Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): I'll go to Mr. Godbole for a quick one.

Mr. Godbole: I would like to comment on what has just been said.

I believe I understood that if the trade measures could release 5% of 200 million, that would come to 10 million children. I'm afraid that's not always the case. As I've pointed out, a study conducted by the ILO in Bangladesh found that two things normally happen. First, the children usually find different workplaces. They do not necessarily go back to school, nor do they have access to education and development. Second, what also happens is that because of a lot of pressure on one industry, there are chances that these children are hidden. What might happen then is that they find themselves in situations in which they are worse off. So there is some research that proves this, and it's been done by the ILO in our various countries.

.1030

Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Mr. Benedict.

Mr. Benedict: I agree with the previous speaker. This is why it's important to tackle some of these issues sector by sector, to make sure we understand what we're doing in a particular sector.

In terms of the carpet industry, for example, the first thing is that the elimination of child labour is not going to wipe out the carpet industry - not in India, not in Pakistan, not in Nepal, and not in China. There was actually a study conducted that estimated the increase in the price of production that would be experienced through the elimination of child labour in the carpet industry. It would increase the costs by all of 8%. Given the market shares of those four countries in terms of sales to the industrialized world, 8% is not going to wipe out those industries. It's not going to affect their market shares in the carpet retail sector. I think some of these things have to be made clear. This is also why we have to make sure we understand the industries and the economic factors involved in some of these sectors. We can then move to eliminate child labour from some of these particular sectors.

If I may make a brief statement in regard to development pacts, I agree completely. I think it was Senator Pearson who mentioned yesterday the initiative that Brazil has taken to contribute $25 to families who took these positive steps. I think it should be our responsibility to help build on that. By the way, President Cardoso of Brazil has recently gone on record to say that he certainly would not be opposed to the inclusion of minimum labour standards in trade agreements. So I think these things have to work within the synergy....

[Translation]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): You got a whole lot of answers there, Madam. Ms Pépin, you have the floor.

Ms Pépin: Maybe during some future federal-provincial conference, provinces could agree on ratifying convention 138. For once, we could be unanimous.

All kidding aside, concerning Ms Debien's question, to go in the same direction as my colleagues, unless I am mistaken, it's after a US threat concerning the use of children in the industry, that the children had been evacuated, fired and laid off and it had quickly been noticed they had not gone back to school. That's what Mr. Godbole was saying.

If we take that path, we have to find a solution to help those children now and not 10 years down the road. We shouldn't be implementing a very broad social measure the results of which will be very slow in coming. We have to think about it quickly. If we apply it to any given industry, we'll have to help the children very quickly.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): I now give the floor to Ms Gaffney.

[English]

Mrs. Gaffney (Nepean): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome. I found that your presentations this morning were very interesting and very helpful. My concern arises when I try to sort out in my own mind how we should go and where we should go.

Obviously, some of you heard the testimony yesterday. I've heard Mr. Benedict refer to it on a couple of occasions. Maybe you were here or saw it on television. My questions and comments are really going to be similar to what I said yesterday.

As legislators, I think there are many vehicles that we in this country can approach in terms of how we're going to solve this problem worldwide. I don't think any one approach is going to be the single way to do this. There are going to be many different types of approaches, depending upon where we are going.

.1035

I mentioned yesterday that we as Canadian parliamentarians meet with parliamentarians from all over the world through different organizations. I mentioned a couple yesterday, the Inter-Parliamentary Union - there are usually 115 countries in the world represented at the international conference, and all legislators - or the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

My question is, what approach could I take, as a current director on the Canadian Commonwealth Parliamentary Association board? What can I do? How can I take something to that board that Canada wants agreement on or something they could start the process on, in the Commonwealth initially? It should be something where I can say, ``This is Canada's position on this; could we have some kind of an agreement on it?'' Should I start a motion that's very small and simple? How would I get the wheels in motion? I need your help.

Mr. Harker: Actually, in the notes I've prepared I have suggested that Canada, bearing in mind it can't do everything at once, really look hard at two areas - I was about to say geographic areas. One is the Americas, where we've got a new rush towards trade relationships, but the other is the Commonwealth, in which there are to be found most of the countries that have the child labour problem and want to do something about it.

One of the thoughts I have had, which parliamentarians could take up at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, is that periodically the Commonwealth establishes - as it did in the case of youth unemployment ten years ago - an expert group of people from around the Commonwealth to carry out a major examination of how in the Commonwealth a problem can be addressed. It did this with respect to South Africa in 1990-91. I think it would be a timely thing for the Commonwealth to want to set up one of these expert group studies of the problem of child labour, right now. I think it would be entirely appropriate for Commonwealth parliamentary people to think hard about that and perhaps move it forward.

Mrs. Gaffney: Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Did you have a follow-up, Mrs. Gaffney, or was that it for the time being?

Mrs. Gaffney: I was hoping I could get a wide range of opinions here. We've got one.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Gerry, or Mr. Benedict?

Mr. Barr: Quite simply, I think development with parliamentarians is like development with all others. The sharing of experiences and the putting together of a group to canvas the experience of parliamentarians in facing this problem would probably be very helpful indeed, and very welcomed, not only among parliamentarians, but also those of us who are watching state initiatives and hoping for state initiatives. It would be quite interesting to see what the results of that kind of discussion and interaction might be. I would recommend you might consider that.

The other thing is, there are quite interesting experiences in some jurisdictions. Kerala state in India is a state in which there has been a quite interesting experience with child labour. I think that Girish might be able to speak more effectively to this, but parliamentarians' site visits might be helpful to gain some insight into how these objectives can be cost-effectively achieved where there's a will and some skill.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Mr. Benedict, and then we'll move to Mr. Paré.

Mr. Benedict: If I can offer a concrete suggestion, the Norwegian government, under public pressure and under pressure from its labour organizations, set up a committee - not a parliamentary committee, a national committee. That committee set itself a number of tasks, the first of which was to monitor the import of goods produced by children and to establish an actual situation for Norway, of where these goods were going.

.1040

The government funded the work of this committee. It then also proceeded to develop a whole range of concrete steps, including things as simple as essay-writing contests or the production of a CD by prominent Norwegian artists, and promoted that and use of these materials in the schools. That might be something you may wish to explore further.

[Translation]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Mr. Paré.

Mr. Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Benedict, I'd like clarification on two questions. At the beginning of your presentation, you said that in some countries the problem of child labour was increasing and you gave the example of Russia and the Central European countries. Is it simply coincidence that this increase is happening at a point when those countries are opening their borders to the free market?

You also said that in certain countries fewer adults than children are working. I must say I'm surprised. Could you confirm that I did not misunderstand? Is that really what you said? Is that so because it's cheaper to hire the children or because children don't have the same rights as a "normal" person?

Mr. Benedict: If you don't mind, I'll start by answering your second question and clarifying that what I did say was that in most countries where there's a high proportion of child labour, there's an even higher proportion of unemployed adults.

You could lay off all the children who work and replace them by adults and you still wouldn't totally solve the problem of child labour in those countries.

Your first question concerned the increase in the number of children working in Central Europe. My comments were general in nature. It's a fact that the number of working children is increasing everywhere in the world, especially in the Central European and Eastern European countries since 1990-91, but also in other parts of the world since 1991.

I can give you a concrete example. In Malawi, a structural adjustment plan was introduced in 1991. Statistics show that between 1991 and 1995, with the privatization of the school system, the number of children leaving school before 14 years of age has more than doubled. Where do those children go? Into the street, in the informal sector, into prostitution. With a bit of luck, in a manner of speaking, they wind up in the factories.

That's the direct result of the agreements that countries must agree to with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In Central Europe and in Russia, there are agreements with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and certain measures are accepted by the governments. Amendments to legislation mean that the children are not supervised or watched like they used to be. So they wind up on the labour market.

.1045

Mr. Paré: Mr. Barr, you said that we had to have all groups of society intervening; I suppose that's as true for developed countries as for developing countries.

You probably know that in the wake of the financial restrictions imposed by the Department of Foreign Affairs to the official aid to development program, all the subsidies the NGOs were receiving to sensitize the Canadian public to the importance of international co-operation were eliminated.

On the other hand, I come to the conclusion that, at home, this involvement of society was perhaps an instrument to do it, but it was decided to set it aside by cutting off the NGOs who were doing it. Also, in those developing countries getting Canadian public aid, it is apparent that less than 10 per cent of Canadian aid goes through the NGOs. Now I think that we're all agreed that non-government organizations, whether here or in developing countries, are those most likely to involve local populations in their own development.

When you said that you needed the involvement of all groups, I quite agree, but I get the impression that this message is not being heard by the Canadian government. The Canadian government is probably not unique; all the other industrialized countries are probably just as guilty as our government. I'd like to have a comment on that.

[English]

Mr. Barr: From a public policy point of view, one of the problems with inclusive strategies, notwithstanding their great merit, is that they can sometimes be hard to achieve. You may find that people involved in regulatory systems will be strong on the state side and weak on the civil society side. Having said that, though, it remains true that civil society has a crucial role to play, as you point out.

I'd like to take your question as an opportunity to reinforce what is really a kind of structural observation. In the kind of moment that we seem to be in globally, with respect to governments and the development of regulatory, monitoring and implementation systems, there is not much money around. In developing countries there is less likely to be money around to create effective monitoring programs and good regulatory systems around child labour. There is less likely to be aid for countries. So how can we address the problem of child labour in the context of limited and diminishing resources on the government side?

Here, I think we can become focused in an important way on the role of civil society, on the inherent capacity of organizations such as workers' organizations, to effectively address some of the questions that are associated with child labour. A good enabling environment for labour organizations will go a long way toward helping to address questions associated with child labour in the south and in the north. You rightly say that there is an important role for civil society organizations and non-governmental organizations to play in the south, and I think it's true that NGOs are very cost-efficient delivery instruments for responses not only to questions of child labour, but to other questions of underdevelopment.

.1050

An interesting example is the BGMEA agreement in Bangladesh. This is an agreement that has some aspects of a development pact actually, but it has been criticized by important observers who are being insufficiently inclusive and, partly for that result, insufficiently effective. So it remains to be seen where that will go and what the future of that agreement will be, but certainly some of our partners in Bangladesh have raised the question of inclusivity in strategies like that and really highlighted the importance of having people other than governments and UNICEF. UNICEF, though, is an important and useful actor in this process, but the BGMEA agreement was pretty much limited to UNICEF, in terms of the manufacturers and legislators.

Mr. Harker: I think there is a point that must be made here concerning the thrust of your remarks. Yes, civil society has to be engaged.

It would be very early days, though, to conclude that the Canadian government - I've never been a spokesman or an apologist for it - has missed the boat.

I recall trying to get the Government of Canada to make a contribution to ILO's program on the elimination of child labour ten years ago and got absolutely nowhere. I later realized I should have used my 13-year-old son more effectively than I did.

I have a long-term perspective. The problem is horrendous. I'd like to see progress made quickly. The fact is that it was only in February that the government in the throne speech had the goal of building a consensus on the elimination of child labour. There was a consultation to which we were invited in March. There is this now.

I hope this is a sign that things are going forward and that we are on track to making a major contribution. As far as I understand, there are efforts going on inside government to fashion policies to ensure that this isn't just a lot of talk that we're all engaged in, but that there will be programmatic changes made.

What I would like to do, though, is say that yes, you're right, people should now be re-examining earlier decisions. Was cutting down on public participation programming a bad thing? Can it be reversed?

I think, in my opinion anyway, I'm not ready to start saying that the government has missed the boat. What child labour in this current raft of interventions suggests is that it's time now to look at a lot of our aid programming, either for internal awareness-building in Canada or on the ground in other countries, through the lens of what it can do for child labour and how it can help the fight against child labour. If that can be reinforced by your subcommittee, then maybe things will go forward.

I'm not ready yet to conclude that because there has been a decline in CIDA aid and this has impacted on NGOs it would be impossible for us to make a good contribution against child labour. I think child labour might turn out to be one of the ways to get a little bit more attention paid to going back to a higher contribution of our GNP being devoted to aid. No one is in favour any more, I think, of just aid for aid's sake, but where it can be seen to be doing a very useful thing, i.e. combating child labour, then maybe there would be public agreement to build up the amount spent on aid.

Mr. Godbole: I just want to make one clarification to what Stephen said. It's about the relationship between child employment and adult employment and that if children are no longer in the work force, then adults would get employment.

.1055

Again, I will quote from an ILO study, which says that another common argument used to justify the elimination of child labour is that its use increases adult unemployment. Therefore, if child labour were abolished, it is generally assumed that adult employment would drop more or less on a one-to-one basis.

However, when one analyses this argument from the point of view of different types of child labour, such as family-based enterprises, unpaid household activities, street children and wage levels, etc., one comes to the conclusion that the usual assumption of child labour increasing adult unemployment on a one-to-one basis is an oversimplification of a complex set of relationships between these two phenomena.

So there is no guarantee that it would happen, and there is no relationship, as this study shows.

What is needed is further research on this issue. I would request, as it was previously pointed out, that aid should be directed toward this issue. All the steps we take today, all the efforts that governments all over the world take today, will affect future generations of children. There will be measures preventing children from coming into the workforce.

But today the question is, what happens to the existing children? As I just mentioned, in South Asia, you have over 100 million child labourers. What happens to them? My request is that aid should be directed toward the rehabilitation of child labour. I fully agree that lots of institutions in the civil society, like NGOs, labour organizations, and trade unions, should be involved in this issue. Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): I know that Mr. Benedict is just itching to get into this, but I'm going to ask him to hold for a minute so I can turn to Mrs. Bakopanos.

Mrs. Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for all the presentations.

I have a couple of questions for different people. I'll start with Mr. Harker.

As for your suggestion about youth employment and having our young people going overseas to work with Canadian industries, I find it very important to sensitize our own youth to the problem and use them in terms of role models. One example is Craig Kielburger, who brought forward on Canadian TV the plight of some of the children in India's carpet industry. I especially remember the portrayal on TV of the young girl with the needle. But he's one person.

How can we, as a government, considering the fact that the federal government is not responsible for education - it's a provincial jurisdiction, so keep that in mind - do more in terms of sensitizing our young people to the plight? I think it's one way of beginning to effect a change.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Are you talking about what we can do in Canada?

Mrs. Bakopanos: First.

Mr. Harker: The question was addressed to me. I'll offer a very partial response. Yes, education is a provincial responsibility, but I'll go back to the suggestion I made - it isn't an original thought of mine - to use programs that are already actually in place now to send young Canadian youth abroad.If they were to gain experiences that were part of a national effort against child labour, they could be utilized on their return.

Many of the NGOs that are increasing their efforts on child labour are masters at cross-country sensitization tours. They could share their experiences with people at home here. It's only a very partial thing, but the more children and youth are engaged in seeing it for themselves, the more they'll find ways - maybe with others' help - to sensitize their peers. The more they're just told about it by old guys like me, the less interest they're going to take.

Mrs. Bakopanos: I agree.

I believe one crucial factor in eliminating child labour is eliminating poverty. I believe that's where our efforts should be: the distribution of wealth in certain parts of the world where there's an unequal distribution.

There was a movement in some countries to set up a type of - as with the caisses populaires we have in Canada - bank for women. I forgot the name.

.1100

A voice: Grameen Bank.

Mrs. Bakopanos: Thank you.

Anybody can take the question. How valid would it be to think of setting that type of caisse populaire or bank that is run by locals, but that is focused on funds going toward education and literacy programs, and also replacing revenue that the child would lose for the family? The question is open -

Mr. Harker: I think the first idea of focusing on the accumulation of capital in some way is essential. I mentioned bonded labour. Very often, children are literally used to pay off a debt that some local landowner has foisted on that child's parents.

Trade union organizations in Asia now have shown that, with $25, they can buy a child out of bonded labour. If somehow we could help people develop their own accumulation of capital - we're not talking about big sums here - we'd have an amazing impact on the whole political and social structure in many of these places.

I think that Canada has had terrific lessons now from the caisses populaires, on the one hand, and the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec, the Working Ventures Canadian Fund, and union pension funds.

We could do far more to share with those who developed the Grameen Bank and others elsewhere just how we can undermine the grip of the people who actually cause child labour.

I don't know if the government can get into that very easily. It has in the past done so indirectly by funding the development work of unions, for example. There's always a kind of plausible deniability available to it. I think if you strike hard at this capital system that leads to bonded labour, it would have an enormous braking effect on the whole child labour phenomenon.

If you use the gathered funds to then focus on education, that might be nice, but ambitious. I'd rather see other funds go into education. For me, education and literacy, all of these things are really empowering, and we ought to be doing far more of that.

Mr. Benedict: I'm going to use the question to get back at the issue of replacement. You were expecting that.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): I knew you would, yes.

Mr. Benedict: The All-Pakistan Federation of Labour conducted an investigation in the brick kilns in Pakistan. There were 40 children working there, who were all sold to the brick kiln owners to pay back debts. I can make that information available if it's of particular interest. In all cases, after a number of years of labouring, the children owed more than they did when they began working.

The purpose of the project was then to take these children out of the workplace, pay off their debts and put them into an educational program with the understanding with the owners that they would hire the parents of these children who were unemployed.

So now the parents are working and earning somewhat more decent wages than were their children. For one thing, they're not paying the interest on the debt of their children. So therefore, it is hoped - this seems to be what is happening - that they are able to afford schooling for their other children, as well. This goes back to these development pacts. These things then build on themselves.

I think it is a legitimate approach. I and the ICFTU understand the complexities of dealing with these projects. It's one example. Of course, it doesn't eliminate the problem of child labour, but if we're looking for ways to make a dent in this problem, I think this is an avenue worth exploring.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): It's the multiplier effect, such as that it just goes every which way for relatively few dollars.

Mr. Benedict: That's right.

Mrs. Bakopanos: If understand well, you all agree that we have to start with the elimination of poverty first, and some type of project that would lead to that before you can even solve the problem of child labour in some of the Third World countries.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Is that a fair summary of what you said?

Mr. Benedict: Not exactly, for me.

.1105

Mrs. Bakopanos: I wanted a dialogue.

Mr. Benedict: I understand the importance of the problem of poverty and its negative impact on development and society, but the same argument can be made for literacy. They're linked, as is rural migration. As people migrate from rural areas into the cities, the destruction of the social fabric is also a major component.

In terms of child labour, what is at the heart of it is that usually it's a relatively limited number of unscrupulous employers who are making a huge profit on the backs of children, and in a number of cases, unscrupulous officials who are turning a blind eye to it. That's how legislation is not enforced and that's how the problem stays. So for us, I think that's the important way to tackle it.

Mr. Godbole: I also have a quick response to what you said. One major factor, as I said, is that a fund could be set up for rehabilitation of existing child labour. There is no single strategy to employ that fund because of regional diversity. You could involve local NGOs and trade unions and government and what have you to formulate strategies. It would work.

Some type of capital accumulation is required for rehabilitation of existing child labour, and then the strategies could be interventions and activities in health, education, etc.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez (Bourassa): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence and generosity. Thank you for giving me the floor even though I'm not a member of the committee.

I'm very interested in child labour and I really wanted to hear my friends from the Quebec and Canadian trade union movements. You know that I worked 19 years within the Quebec union movement before being elected to Parliament. One always appreciates hearing suggestions, information, demands and it is also interesting to hear about the pressure brought to bear by the union movement to advance the cause of workers, children and human rights.

I have already tabled petitions in the House concerning child labour. I find the explanation given by the government about convention 138 of the ILO is not valid; they have the same problem in the U.S. where their labour legislation is also shared by the States. Canada and the U.S.A. have come up with that excuse not to sign many ILO conventions. On the other hand, Canada did sign an international convention on the rights of the child. But children also fall under provincial jurisdiction.

What I really want to talk about is NAFTA. In Latin America, where I'm from, child labour is a very serious problem, in particular in Guatemala, Bolivia, Chile, Peru, and Central America as a whole. I believe that the side agreement on labour should be part of all future agreements until the year 2005 when, according to some heads of state, economic integration throughout the Americas will be complete. NAFTA should devise a side agreement on labour with specific clauses on child labour.

Even this side agreement on labour, which is extremely weak, is continuously disputed by the United States and even by Canada, which is rather lukewarm when negotiating with Chile. What could be done within NAFTA, the name of which is eventually going to change since it will encompass South America, and areas as far as Antarctica. Mr. Benedict, Mr. Barr or Ms Pépin?

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Madam Pépin.

Ms Pépin: Mr. Nunez, this is more or less what we have been saying.

.1110

We were proposing to include in the agreement the seven ILO conventions on labour, but these would be augmented by sanctions or proactive measures to make them enforceable.

As you have underlined, there is already one in place, but it is hardly enforceable because no sanctions have been provided. In these circumstances, we must conclude that the possibility of trade sanctions cannot be discounted. At the same time, I repeat that to our way of thinking proactive measures must be included in order to help countries that are open to this problem and are seeking solutions. These measures should be part of the treaty.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Mr. Benedict.

Mr. Benedict: This brings us back to the social clause and the statement made by Minister Axworthy yesterday. What he said seems rather timid considering that we have here a unique opportunity - in particular in negotiations with Chile - to integrate in the agreement the ILO minimum standards. The same opportunity will arise again in December in Singapore where several countries in favour of a social clause are meeting.

This being said, the International Confederation of Tree Trade Unions is pushing for a complete mechanism to help countries which are in trouble implement these standards. The first phase would make available to them some technical expertise through ILO. In a second phase, the countries would be asked to explain why they haven't implemented certain measures and legislations. And finally, at the end of a long process, sanctions would be considered in the case of countries refusing to abide by these standards. Therefore, it would never be a matter of arbitrarily applying sanctions for the sake of protecting economies.

Very often, in these countries, a few employers who are making astronomical profits are being protected. It is not a matter of protectionism on the part of the countries.

We are surprised to see that Canada doesn't seem to be very interested in playing a leadership role in these matters.

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Might I just tag on to that question? I think I heard Mr. Harker say that according to The Economist, it's estimated that between 5 and 10 million children in Mexico are child labourers. Here's a country that is already in NAFTA, and it would seem like an obvious place to start, it being a large country with a large number of children.

I also noticed - and I'm not quite sure how this works with the ILO - that there is this IPEC, the International Program on the Elimination of Child Labour. I'm assuming that it is the country itself that signs on. That is to say, it's a voluntary action.

I notice that while there are a number of countries in South Asia and in Latin America - 11 countries in Latin America and a number of other countries in Africa - one of the countries conspicuous by its absence is Mexico. We should presumably start with the NAFTA we have. I'm wondering how one overcomes that little problem - or is it a little problem?

.1115

Mr. Benedict: On a point of information, the NAALC office is organizing a conference in San Diego, I think next February, on the issue of child labour within the three NAFTA countries.

So I believe there is an awareness of the problem, raised primarily, as was mentioned earlier, by the Americans, who realize that Mexican child labourers, who come into the United States, are threatening their NAFTA.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Mr. Schmidt points out that actually Mexico has a better record of signing ILO conventions than either Canada or the United States.

Mr. Benedict: Oh, absolutely.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): I'm just curious about this particular one that they don't seem to have signed yet. Do you have any information on that, Mr. Harker, or Mr. Barr?

Mr. Harker: What they haven't done is ask the ILO to use its technical assistance to help them respect conventions that.... Yes, Mexico signs; it's a kind of congenital condition with the Mexicans. They will sign an undertaking. I don't know if they go out of their way to respect it. There is often a gulf between signing and respecting. This is where aid has to be used. Maybe, yes, some form of sanction is appropriate or necessary. It depends on the circumstances.

I don't quite know how one really encourages Mexicans to do anything they don't want to do. That is also a very intractable proposition. I'm glad this conference is going to be held, for whatever the motivation. It's the kind of thing people should be able to use to get things into the public eye. I can't really go beyond that.

Mr. Barr: In terms of NAFTA and the side agreements, the prohibition against child labour in the side agreements is one of three labour rights to which there is some enforceability attached in the side agreements.

I think the difficulty with the side agreements, on which many of my colleagues will have had a chance to exercise, is that the side agreement process - the process of complaint, adjudication, exposition - is incredibly long and incredibly complex. At the end of the day, even a sanction - it would be an exaggeration to describe it as anything but modest.

Mr. Nunez raises a really important point, which is that this question of going to the trade side for a look at some of the development aspects of these problems is really quite important.

As aid is diminished, as the flow from north to south decreases, surely there is an increasing obligation for us to look to the trade side for some effective responses to development questions, perhaps in ways in which we haven't in the past, and to look for accountability to the trade side with respect to the consequences of trade decisions, and for trade negotiators to seek development benefits in trade negotiations.

That was really the intent of the attachment of the environmental components and the labour components, in the ideal, I think. There was also a liberal amount of salesmanship associated with it. The worry is that we're getting pretty thin gruel; there's not much effect. Though the themes are surfacing, there's very little in the way of efficacy, enforceability, that kind of thing.

I would say it's an interesting moment. The Brazilians, for example, have indicated, I think at the ministerial level, that they would be very interested, as negotiations in the hemisphere move forward, in provisions in multilateral trade agreements, in the extension of the free trade agreement, in having substantive language on the environment and on core labour rights, which, of course, would include child labour matters. So this is a really important area to think about.

.1120

Mr. Harker: My information is dated and this may be incorrect, and if so I hope someone can correct me, but many of the countries of the southern cone of Latin America, in creating this mercosur, developed a relationship between the trade and customs relations and the respect for labour standards that goes quite some distance beyond the NAFTA side deal. Maybe in terms of expanding NAFTA, people ought to be looking hard at what's been accomplished already in the mercosur. I don't think that has yet been done, and it should be.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): I'd like to ask a couple of questions here.

One of the fascinating things about these exercises is you develop a working hypothesis, which, as people talk to you, you revise and amend. I'm going to try my latest working hypothesis, which may not survive the next ten minutes.

There is, on the one hand, a kind of horizontal approach, which one can take sort of multilaterally, to deal with something like carpets or soccer balls, or Norwegians trying to figure out the component of exports that is made up by child labour. I don't deny the utility of that approach, but another approach that seems to be more useful is to take a kind of vertical approach, which is to say this activity actually takes place in real countries, in real societies.

I should say that everyone has said to us that it's multi-layered in its complexity - you just can't do a one-shot deal, be it micro credit, or just looking at poverty, or whatever else it is. You have to take it right from the top, from the most formal of governments right down through state government, through municipal governments, through labour, through the NGO sector. You then have a very complete sense of a vertical column in one country - of all of the sectors that have to be dealt with, and presumably there's a vertical column in this country, which is the corresponding part.

I note that Mr. Harker has made some reference to trying to figure out the way of rallying all of the elements in Canada that would deal with all of the elements in whatever country or countries you chose. It seems to me what's being called for, if I hear you right, is almost a, dare I say, Team Canada approach in which someone calls the meeting and says, ``What are the various ways in which we interact with whatever country we choose?''

I also think it's self-evident that we've got to choose a limited number of countries where we're going to have a maximum impact - that choice being where there are large numbers of children at risk and where we have strong contacts with the country and presumably some leverage. Yesterday I was thinking India would be a great place to start - we've got all kinds of contacts, there are good examples of progress within the country, it's a democratic society - and now I am thinking of Mexico. We should have some clout. We actually have some formal mechanisms for dealing with that.

The way to come at it would be to call a meeting with everybody on our side who has an interest in this, which would include not less than four government departments. It would be International Development, with which I have some association, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Department of Labour, plus the NGO community, plus the churches, plus the media. One can come up with quite a large list of people, not all of whom are governmental, which would presumably attempt to come up with some kind of an integrated approach on a selected country or two.

I noticed that Mr. Harker called for some kind of a grouping in Canada, which sounded a little like that. Does it make sense to pick a couple of key countries and then figure out all the contacts we could possibly have with that country, formal and informal, and try to integrate our approach to those countries, with of course the agreement and involvement of those other countries as sovereign governments? This isn't something you'd impose on them.

Mr. Harker, am I crazy?

Mr. Harker: No more than I am.

I think the idea has a lot of merit, and I'm not going to say anything negative about it, apart from one note of caution. It would be well, when picking the places to work with, to add another criterion. It would be a tragedy to embark on something that had really no substantial prospect of success, because then there would be people who wanted to wash their hands of the whole struggle. That's not to say you pick an easy place, because we can all manufacture success. It's got to be something real but doable. The trouble is, though, that maybe by having such a tight focus, you're open to the feeling that there are things going on elsewhere, and why aren't you doing anything about it?

.1125

That being said, your idea probably is a valid one, and I think it would have to be done in more than one place. Picking something out of an area where we've got growing trade relationships and another where there's a sort of traditional problem is probably a good way to go. I have nothing negative to say about your idea.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): I have just a quick question. Do you think India and Mexico are doable, from our perspective? I mean, not ``we're going to do it'', but would we get some results?

Mr. Harker: In the case of India, Gerry and I were at a consultation in March where people talked about what has been accomplished in Kerala and what's going on elsewhere. There are major NGOs anxious now to work on child labour in India.

Indian child labour organizations are playing a lead role in sensitizing the world about child labour, so I think probably something very valid and useful could be done there, partly also because India is...I think half of the scientists alive in the world today live in India. It isn't just a matter of child labour in jute factories. It's got the whole gamut of activity, and I think it would be very valid to actually focus on it.

As for Mexico, as I said, dealing with Mexico is never easy for anyone. If they were keen on embracing this kind of approach, why not? But otherwise, it might be as well to look at some other Latin American partner.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Mr. Benedict, Mr. Barr, and then Madame Debien or Monsieur Paré.

Mr. Benedict: Certainly what you're laying out does seem to offer some potential. Like John, I'm not going to enter into a criticism of it.

I would probably have a caution, and that is regarding the comment that John made earlier about dealing with, for example, child labour in Iran, where the carpet industry ended up moving to Nepal and India.

Dealing with one country might have some advantages in terms of seeming to do some very concrete things. If it results in moving the problem on to the neighbouring country, we haven't achieved all that much. I'd like to suggest that you may need to have some kind of proper balance between your vertical and horizontal approaches.

Mr. Barr: I think the interesting thing about the approach, though, is that it brings onto the horizon the idea of the development pact that Madame Debien was speaking about. If I hear correctly, the minister appears yesterday to have spoken about the possibility of bilateral negotiations with some countries. That, too, suggests the idea of a development pact sort of approach.

That's very encouraging, if it is the case, because I think there is a lot of very progressive work being done in this area. It's not easy, and it involves all of the complexities the chairman has referred to, in engaging all sorts of elements of the community. But it's a very interesting way to go and I think well worth some attention.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): I'm glad that hypothesis survived the ten minutes.

[Translation]

Ms Debien.

Ms Debien: I have a short remark to make. It ties in with the question asked by Mr. Paré earlier following another intervention concerning the fact that nowadays child labour is on the rise in developing countries. Mr. Paré was asking about the cause of this within the context of market globalization. I think that Mr. Benedict gave the best answer. His answer was the more philosophical one and this is fundamental to our debate.

.1130

To get back to what Mr. Benedict was saying, the true problem nowadays is more a matter of wildcat economic development than a matter of poverty or illiteracy. Unfortunately, we now have market economy societies geared exclusively to competitiveness, and this model is an easy fit for developing countries.

I believe this is the fundamental question which must be raised at a time when the practice of child labour that we are trying to eliminate is actually on the rise. It is obvious that there is no miracle remedy or miracle solution. Before discussing the solutions and the means, I believe that we should reflect about the principle or the philosophy that we want to apply. That is my observation. I'm not necessarily asking for feedback, but this is what I believe. I will now give the floor to Philippe.

Mr. Paré: I should have spoken before Ms Debien since what she said is precisely what I was going to say. Let me start with a preliminary question. As recently as yesterday, we were discussing the economic growth of some countries, the so-called tigers of Southeast Asia. I will ask a specific question, then come back later with something more fundamental.

Compared to regular workers, what is the situation of child labourers with regard to working standards? What was the situation before the boom, and has it changed since?

Mr. Benedict: We don't have a lot of information on this. In a number of cases, labour movements have researched this and revealed that in certain respects, the situation has grown worse. It is rather difficult to determine what can be ascribed to economic development or the non-enforcement of labour standards.

According to what we gather from the labour movement, it would appear that over the years the situation has grown worse in Indonesia and the Philippines, for example.

[English]

Mr. Harker: I don't know what countries we now regard as ``tigers'', but I think the economic growth in South Korea was built on the exploitation of women workers; it wasn't built on the exploitation of children. I think probably in a number of places - Thailand, Honk Kong and elsewhere - yes, exploitation of labour has been a key factor in economic growth, but I don't think it has been the child labour phenomenon quite so starkly as might be the case in places such as Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan. That's the only comment I can offer.

Mr. Godbole: I have a study that was done by one researcher from the University of Delhi. It doesn't say whether it has increased or decreased, but what it does say is that tackling the problem cannot wait until the trickle-down effect of growth makes it possible to dispense with child labour. Growth by itself does not do away with the problems of child labour, as is shown by the case of Latin American countries, as well as Hong Kong.

In summary, economic growth by itself will not tackle this problem of child labour.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Are there any other comments?

[Translation]

Mr. Paré: I have a question for Ms Pépin concerning what has just been said. During your presentation, you said that you would like to see Canada take advantage of the negotiations with Chile to introduce standards concerning child labour in this free trade agreement. It could even be more global and include labour standards and social standards.

.1135

I am linking this to Mr. Godfrey's question when he asked whether a limited number of countries couldn't agree to jumpstart this whole thing. Personally, I think that this is doomed to failure. The fact that neither Canada nor Chile are really interested in this matter should tell us something. The great rationale of competition and globalization will undoubtedly resurface at that point. We would not want to render ourselves vulnerable compared to others.

As to the negotiation of standards, I believe that it is only possible in a multilateral environment. If there is any future in this, it will have to be in a much wider context and it will have to include a far greater number of countries. We have put in place a tool, the WTO, but that organization doesn't have the heart to intervene in this matter. That was more of a comment, but you may want to react.

I now come to a more substantive question. In light of the answer I was given concerning the Asian tigers, and given what we have heard, I understand - here, I am echoing what Ms Debien said - that globalization, the free circulation of goods, and free markets have probably (I am being cautious) increased child labour and contributed to the erosion of social standards and labour standards.

In these conditions, it is not very realistic to think that trade relations could lead to a solution for child labour. I want to come back to what are, according to me, the true solutions. The problem of child labour will not be solved unless the solution involves sustainable human development in developing countries. I would then add something that might contradict, somewhat, what Mr. Harker was saying earlier.

We must go back to basic education. The thing to do is to work harder than ever to democratize these countries. Basic health services must be implemented, as well as drinking water programs; girls must be educated, human rights promoted; everything has to be done to promote the importance of civil society in developing countries and the involvement of non-government organizations, unions, human rights advocacy groups and community organizations.

This is where we will find a solution, first and foremost. In its last foreign policy announcement, Canada in the World, Canada resolved to spend only 25% of its official development aid on basic human development. Therefore, in spite of what Mr. Harker was saying earlier, I believe that Canada is about to bypass the true solutions. We do not expect sustainable human development to come out of bilateral aid.

Governments that are very often dictatorships will not champion democracy or try to build civil societies. Nor will they believe that the international financial institutions that have introduced structural adjustment programs are very interested in such matters. Therefore, I believe this is the crux of the question. This is where the work has to be done. What do you think?

The Chairman: Ms Pépin.

Ms Pépin: Mr. Paré, I have a few things to say. First of all, concerning your remark about Chile, I did not say that we should start to negotiate with Chile bilaterally or that we should discuss labour standards only in the case of Chile. This is not what I meant. I meant, rather, that we should take advantage of these negotiations to introduce such standards for all the member countries of NAFTA and that we should do so within the framework of a Pan-American treaty. Since this is coming in the near future, acting at that level seems realistic.

.1140

On the other hand, the WTO negotiations are rather protracted. We believe that it is important to act within the WTO, but at the same time, we can do something immediately in the Americas, which would not preclude intervening at the WTO. This is an opportunity. So, let's take advantage of it, but let's do it globally, and not only for Chile. As to the bilateral question, I don't believe that it is enough. You are right when you say that there are problems of competitiveness.

As did Ms Debien before you, you said that the problem of child labour would not be solved exclusively through trade relations. I believe that we need a multiple strategy to tackle child labour, and even if trade relations as such do not appear to be a sufficient means, we should certainly not discount the possibilities that they offer.

Of course, growing poverty is responsible for an increase in child labour, even in the United States. Nobody talks about it, because the situation is not as serious as in Asia, in Africa or in Latin America. Nevertheless, there are more children working today in the United States, and there is undoubtedly a link with growing poverty. Therefore, yes, of course, sustainable development would be an ideal solution, but the whole thing has to be part of a strategy. Within this strategy, we propose the introduction of this social clause that would be compulsory for the countries involved.

[English]

Mr. Harker: I think, Monsieur Paré, you've contradicted what you thought I said rather than what I said. I don't profess to know Canada's exact current position on the use of its instruments, especially human development assistance, to deal with child labour. I have made the point that it's too early to say they have missed the right kind of approach or target. I hope they find it. But certainly, I don't think anyone has ever heard me back away from advocating the use of assistance to result in human resource development and democratization. I think those things should be ever more clearly a feature of our aid and trade relationships with almost anyone.

I do feel it's important to deal with something you said about competitiveness. You said that to deal with a relationship between, say, Canada and Chile, they wouldn't do it, because both countries would be worried about their competitiveness. They'd be vulnerable in the globalization.

It seems to me that if we come to the conclusion that our well-being is threatened by 12-year-old jute pickers in Bangladesh, in that sense, then we have lost a total grip on our future. We ought to be much more concerned about the fact that 25% of Canadian adults are illiterate.

Virtually nothing is known in Canada about the state of training offered by the private sector, and virtually nothing is being done yet to relate our progress as an information technology-oriented country to the reskilling of our workforce. That's where our competition and competitiveness in the globalized world has to be focused.

I think we have to focus on child labour, but I don't see it in terms of dealing with our competitiveness as a country. That's the wrong-headed approach to take.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Mr. Barr.

Mr. Barr: I have just a small point about multilateral and unilateral. I think it's really worth noting that a number of things are pretty much in the hands of the government now - things that could be done.

Mr. Harker talked earlier about the possibility of taking a child labour or core labour rights grid and looking at CIDA projects through that grid. That would be very salutary, very useful, quite functional, and quite easy to do at a low cost. Something could be achieved right away.

In the U.S., requirements placed on corporations use the equivalent of our export development credits. There have to be undertakings about core labour rights in order to be able to utilize those services. That kind of thing could be done in Canada quite readily.

.1145

There are some incentive opportunities that would be available to Canada through the provision of GPT benefits. I think this was mentioned yesterday, and not in an encouraging way, but it's worth paying attention to and thinking about. The opportunity to provide special incentives to countries that make undertakings in respect to...and maybe an element like that could be part of a negotiation in a development package.

So those things are available and very much at hand, I think, for a country like Canada, and they need to be thought about. Without a doubt, the multilateral strategy Canada has become so practised at is the way to go. It's the optimum circumstance. But given the constraints of time and the length of talks required, it may well be worth Canada thinking about its own approaches, which can be emulated, or they can contribute to later multilateral discussions.

The Chairman: Mr. Benedict.

Mr. Benedict: I have two quick points. One of the features of the social clause - and I guess I'm being repetitive here - is to remove this unfair competition when you have this famous level playing field established. The WTO has a committee set up to deal with environmental issues. It's not that the environment is not an essential issue for all of us, but how does the environment somehow have a bigger impact on trade than those who work and produce? There seems to be some kind of major inconsistency there. We're saying that the environment is important enough for business people to deal with, but somehow labour issues are not. There's something wrong there. This is why the international labour movement has been calling for some space to discuss labour issues within the WTO.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. Godfrey (Don Valley West): I just have a very quick question to close the loop on something Mr. Benedict said at the beginning. He came up with a fascinating statistic that 36 million soccer balls are manufactured yearly. I found that extraordinary. I wonder how many baseballs or footballs there are.

What I was interested in was the end of the story - that is, how did FIFA, or the folks they were using as their agents, make sure there were not spillover effects, that soccer balls were not being made in Pakistan or somewhere else, or that there were schools or some alternative outlet for these children? What's the end of the story?

Mr. Benedict: First of all, the end of the story is yet to come.

Mr. Godfrey: Right.

Mr. Benedict: Very recently, a couple of weeks ago, they signed this agreement, this code of labour practice. They are still in the process of discussing what accompanying measures are required.

One of the advantages, of course, is that 80% of the world production of FIFA soccer balls happens to occur in a relatively limited geographic area, in one country. So here, both the vertical and sectoral, if you will, happen to be in the same place. This is interesting and offers a real opportunity for success.

Again, it's important that those areas we target.... I would suggest another one. For example, medical and surgical tools also happen to be fairly concentrated in one area, and diamond cutting is in the north of India. There is a series of industries where children are particularly involved and can be targeted, can be put forward as success stories.

Mr. Godfrey: What I was asking about, though, is that even in the early days of this story people are thinking of what's going to happen to those kids, that they're not going to be thrown into something worse.

Mr. Benedict: Absolutely. If I may, I'll leave you the agreement itself, including the preamble.

Mr. Godfrey: Okay.

.1150

Mr. Benedict: Before even the preamble it says:

Having concurred on the necessity for effective independent monitoring to ensure that the Code is respected at all levels, and on the need for education and training for children removed from the football producing industry, the above organisations are continuing discussions on practical measures to achieve these objectives.

This is an agreement to continue to work on the issue of child labour in the sporting goods industry. As I mentioned, they're going to a conference in November to make it not only soccer balls but industrywide.

The Chairman: I'd like to bring up a couple of points for clarification.

Mr. Barr, you used the acronym ``GPT''. The clerk reminded me that perhaps we should explain it for the sake of the interpreters and others.

Mr. Barr: You may be able to do it better than I can. It's the general preferential tariff, I believe. That is simply to say that tariffs may be lightened, made less onerous, and some countries may be preferred over others with respect to Canadian imports of products from abroad - conditional on orientation toward a number of issues or areas that Canada might want to see.

This has been quite an interesting area of work in the United States with respect to core labour rights questions. I think the experience in Guatemala especially has been very instructive and quite interesting. The GSP, in their case, has been quite an effective tool for moving forward labour rights questions.

The Chairman: Are there any other questions, members?

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for participating today. This has been a very long morning, and a very valuable one from the point of view of our work. I apologize for being away for quite a bit myself. I was at another committee. From the questions and the comments, I recognize that you've had much to give us in our understanding of these issues. It's been very valuable. We'll keep you informed as we do our work. I hope you will follow our work and make comments on what we hear in the future.

On behalf of all my colleagues, I'd like to thank you for being here this morning.

I declare this meeting adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page