TILMA: BC/Alberta Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Ag

[Oscar]

Dear Saskatchewan friends and colleagues...

Just when you thought trade deals were done (the GATS is toast and so is the FTAA) we in BC and Alberta have another one to deal with - and you may have it, too, if we don’t expose it.

I am talking about the Trade, investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement, or TILMA, signed by the two provinces in April and coming into effect next April.

BC and Alberta trade officials are now shopping it around to other provinces to get them to sign on. Saskatchewan is now set to sign on with Lorne Calvert apparently well informed and supportive of the deal.

Ontario is also interested.

I am forwarding to you an analysis done by Ellen Gould, who does trade research for the Council of Canadians and is working on a study of TILMA for the CCPA. It gives you an idea of how horrific this deal is - basically representing a surrender of the power to govern.

This deal takes NAFTA principles and applies them to virtually every regulation in existence (NAFTA at least has some exceptions) - making democratic governance almost irrelevant. It allows companies from one province to sue for up $5 million in compensation for lost profits.

Please take half an hour to write a short letter to the premier with copies to the other ministers below. THERE IS STILL TIME TO STOP IT.

Lorne Calvert - premier@gov.sk.ca
Clay Serby - Minister of Economic and Co-operative Development -
cserby@rd.gov.sk.ca
Eric Cline - Minister Responsible for Investment Saskatchewan Inc. -
minister.ir@gov.sk.ca
Harry Van Mulligan - Minister of Government Relations -
minister.gr@gov.sk.ca <mailto:minister@gr.gov.sk.ca>

Yours, extremely alarmed,

Murray Dobbin
mdobbin@telus.net

Murray Dobbin is a Vancouver journalist who has written extensively on trade agreements.
=====================================

ATTENTION: OPINION PAGE EDITOR

Alberta BC investment deal threatens local government

By Murray Dobbin

Last April the provincial government signed the Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement, or TILMA, with the province of Alberta. It may well be one of the most radical investment deals ever signed anywhere and local governments may be the most negatively affected.

The agreement - to come into effect next April - will jeopardize many of the regulatory powers now enjoyed by municipalities and could result in enormous amount of additional administrative paper work and costs.

TILMA has been promoted primarily as a labour mobility agreement and has been touted as a way of creating a economic powerhouse of the two provinces by harmonizing all regulations. The agreement requires BC and Alberta regulations to be made the same. But by far its most important provisions have to do with investment - and the power the agreement gives to investors to challenge existing and future regulations.

But the agreement goes much further by adopting some of the most controversial aspects of international treaties such as NAFTA. Specifically, TILMA enshrines the right of corporations to sue governments when regulations negatively impact their profitability. It allows private individuals (and companies) from one province to sue and get up to $5 million compensation for regulations, policies, and programs existing in the other province, that "impair or restrict" investment, trade, or labour mobility. A three person dispute panel will have the power to make legally binding decisions that will compel these governments to change their
policies, no matter how popular they might be.

This agreement is designed to foster massive deregulation. Article 3 proclaims that there shall be "No Obstacles" that would impair or restrict" .. investment.. between the Parties" and that "Parties shall not establish new standards or regulations that operate to restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility." The problem, of course, is that virtually every regulation or standard has some impact on investment. That means that literally all existing and future regulation could be affected.

TILMA accepts certain regulatory objectives as legitimate - but even these can be challenged on the basis that the stated objective could be achieved in a "less restrictive" manner. Also, there are many objectives that are not accepted as legitimate - for example the preservation of agricultural land, the conservation of heritage sites, the maintenance of scenic views, or the promotion of neighbourhood or rural economic development. By-laws restricting billboards could be one of the first to be challenged. Tax deductions for local businesses in depressed areas could be next.

There are some limited exceptions allowed for in the agreement, such as water, but even these are to be reviewed annually to reduce their scope.

There is supposed to be a transition period for municipalities during which time consultations will take place. But as of next April, the agreement will require that no municipal (or school board) regulation or policy be "amended or renewed in a manner that would decrease its consistency with this Agreement." This means local governments actions could be the subject of a TILMA challenge as early as next April.

The agreement has the potential to increase exponentially the amount of paper work municipalities have to do regarding new by-laws, procurement or new infrastructure. Each provincial government, as well as local governments in each province, will be obliged when they are undertaking any action that might be covered by TILMA, to "provide the other Party [BC or Alberta] with an opportunity to comment on the measure, and take such comments into consideration." In addition, purchasing decisions costing as little as $10,000 will be open to challenge and could be overturned if the panel decides the purchase violated the agreement.

TILMA is being sold to the public as an agreement about getting rid of internal trade barriers and increasing labour mobility. But a 1998 study for the BC government found that: "efforts to liberalize interprovincial trade will have almost no effect on trade flows. The reality is that interprovincial trade barriers are already very low." As for labour mobility, this question is already being dealt with at the national level, under an initiative taken by Manitoba.

It would be difficult to imagine a more anti-democratic initiative by a government. The governments of BC and Alberta have actually created greater rights for interests outside of their provinces to intervene in the legislative process, than they have guaranteed for voters in their own provinces. As of next April, the value of citizens' votes - provincial and municipal - will drop dramatically as governments of one province will not restricted from increasing their standards or regulations. Nor will they be able to undertake most kinds of regional or industrial development initiatives. Maybe that is why the Liberals cancelled the fall sitting of the legislature. They are already anticipating having nothing to do.

Cheers,

Murray Dobbin

The BC/Alberta Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement - A Summary of Its Impacts by Ellen Gould

“Within the TILMA are the seeds of a true economic union, an erasing of the provincial boundary for all purposes except voting and the color of the license plate.” Todd Hirsch, Canada West Foundation, July 15, 2006

If the Campbell government was going to erase the border with Alberta, shouldn't it have had a consultation with the province's citizens first? The “Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement” (TILMA) was signed by Alberta and BC in April 2006.

It is posted on the Internet at http://tinyurl.com/krqrb.

With no public consultation process, Campbell and Klein signed this agreement that (among other things):

- Allows private individuals to sue and get up to $5 million compensation for regulations, policies, and programs that “impair or restrict” investment, trade, or labour mobility. Alberta and BC will also be able to sue each other for any violation of the agreement. A three person dispute panel will have the power to make legally binding decisions that will compel these governments to change their policies, no matter how popular these policies are.

- Is a major step towards "deep integration" with the US. Complaints about differences in provincial regulations are made repeatedly by the US Trade Representative. At the most recent Pacific Northwest Economic Region conference, representatives of north western US states and BC and Alberta committed to explore the possibility of "expanding the B.C.-Alberta Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) /concept/ throughout the PNWER region."

- Goes far beyond NAFTA in enabling commercial interests to sue for regulations they don’t like. NAFTA allows private investors to sue under NAFTA’s Chapter 11, but TILMA allows these suits over “any matter regarding the interpretation or application of this Agreement.” While TILMA restricts compensation to $5 million, private interests could all line up to get compensated once one complaint has been successful. This will force governments to change their policies. Alberta’s Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations, Gary Mar, Alberta Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, told the Richmond Chamber of Commerce in June 2006 that the TILMA dispute process is “everything Canadian business asked for”.

- Massively deregulates. The agreement says in Article 3 that there shall be “No Obstacles” that would impair or restrict “trade through the territory of the Parties, or investment or labour mobility between the Parties” and that “Parties shall not establish new standards or regulations that operate to restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility.” There are some limited exceptions allowed for in the agreement, such as water, but these are to be reviewed annually to reduce their scope.

All government regulation will be affected because any regulation could be seen as in some way restricting investment. And even if a regulation fits with one of the objectives TILMA accepts as being legitimate, it can still be successfully challenged if it is not the least restrictive way to achieve the objective.

- Recognizes only certain government objectives as legitimate. Among the objectives not recognized as legitimate are the preservation of agricultural land, the conservation of heritage sites, the maintenance of scenic views, or the promotion of small business, neighbourhood or rural development.

Some examples of regulations that would be vulnerable to challenge on the grounds that they are not based on “legitimate objectives” and restrict investment are the Agricultural Land Reserve, municipal bans on billboards, municipal development restrictions to maintain the quality of neighbourhoods.

- Makes BC and Alberta regulations the same - forever. Aside from some limited exceptions, BC and Alberta will have to “mutually recognize or otherwise reconcile their existing standards and regulations”. All BC mining regulations, for example, will forever have to be as minimal as those of Alberta’s, regardless of changes in government. This binding obligation lessens the value of the right to vote in each province, as the government of one province would not be permitted to increase standards and regulations beyond what exists in the other province.

- Covers all government “entities” – Crown corporations, local governments, school boards, universities, private agencies on contract with the government - and subjects their policies to potential challenges. Although there is supposed to be a consultation process with these entities in a transition period until 2009, the agreement already requires that none of their measures is “amended or renewed in a manner that would decrease its consistency with this Agreement.” This means all local governments, for example, already cannot initiate anything that might violate the agreement.

- Eliminates political choice. TILMA commits all future BC and Alberta governments to automatically support expansion of trade agreements. It commits all future BC and Alberta governments to promote cross-border transfers of energy, including to the US.

- Will allow all purchasing decisions by provincial governments, local governments, Crown Corporations, school boards, and universities to be challenged and overturned for purchases costing as little as $10,000.

- Bans government support for rural development, small business, and economically depressed regions. Targets any agricultural support. Government assistance that "distorts investment decisions" is a violation of the agreement.

- Undermines the democratic process in each province by granting political rights to non-citizens. Each provincial government, as well as local governments in each province, will be obligated when they are doing anything that might be covered by TILMA to "provide the other Party [BC or Alberta] with an opportunity to comment on the measure, and take such comments into consideration."

In other words, the governments of BC and Alberta have created greater rights for interests outside of their provinces to intervene in the legislative process than they have guaranteed for voters in their own provinces. This is especially ironic given the lack of consultation British Columbians and Albertans were afforded in the creation of TILMA.

- Is being promoted on a false basis. Alberta and BC politicians are selling the agreement on the claim that supposedly show "billions" could be saved by eliminating so-called inter-provincial trade barriers. These claims have been repeatedly debunked by economists. Real barriers to inter-provincial trade are minimal. The claims about inter-provincial barriers are really an attack on government's right to regulate.

[Oscar]

Sleep-walking in Saskatchewan?

(A Warning on the Alta-B.C. Trade Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement …Possibly on its way to a province near you.)

Saskatchewan politicians have recently been invited by the right-wing leadership of Alberta and British Columbia to commit this province to a sweeping NAFTA-style trade agreement. This is a radical agreement, that if adopted, would in great measure erase provincial boundaries and challenge the face and future of provincial and local governance.

The Fraser Institute, the Canada West Foundation, and the Alberta government are all right-wing sources that enthusiastically applaud this agreement.

“It seeks to rid the provinces of all barriers to trade, investment, and the movement of products that hinders growth and frustrates businesses. Within the agreement are the seeds of a true economic union, an erasing of the provincial boundary for all purposes except voting and the colour of the license plate” - Todd Hirsch; Canada West Foundation:

“The agreement extends to municipalities, school boards, and other publicly funded and operated entities…. If a measure is not specifically excluded, it is subject to the rules" - Mark Mullins; Executive director, Fraser Institute:

"…The whole thing is backed by some very big teeth, in which either government can be subject to fines of up to $5 million should we not bring ourselves into compliance. The TILMA dispute resolution is accessible, co-operative, consultative and enforceable, everything Canadian business asked for. And it supports the most open free trade agreement in Canada, also what business asked for." - Gary Mar; Minister Alberta International and Intergovernmental Relations

-Outside the right wing media, commentary and analysis has been sadly lacking. The issue has come into being largely ‘under the radar’. Two noteworthy exceptions to this “sleep-walk” are research analyst Ellen Gould and west coast journalist Murray Dobbin. We gratefully acknowledge their leadership and concern.

“ This agreement is being promoted on a false basis. Alberta and B.C. politicians are selling the agreement on the claim that “billions” could be saved by eliminating so-called inter-provincial trade barriers. These claims have been repeatedly debunked by economists. Real barriers to inter-provincial trade are minimal. The claims about inter-provincial trade are really an attack on the public sector’s right to regulate. “
- Ellen Gould: Trade Research analyst:

“ It’s hard to imagine a more anti-democratic initiative by a government. The governments of B.C. and Alberta have actually created greater rights for interests outside of their provinces to intervene in the legislative process, than they have guaranteed for voters in their own provinces. As of April 2007 the value of citizens votes will drop as governments of either province will be restricted from increasing their standards or regulations in any way. Also, they will not be able to undertake most kinds of regional or industrial development incentives. Governments will have much less to do and much less capacity to do it.” - Murray Dobbin; Independent Journalist

Here at home, Saskatchewan Party leaders are, of course, excited by the prospects of creating this ‘free trade’, deregulated Shangri-La in western Canada! The Calvert government is also tempted, and obviously feeling pressure to join. Finance Minister Van Mulligan has already met with his provincial counterparts. A Saskatchewan move to join would represent an abandonment of the party’s tradition of challenge to wholesale de-regulation and free-trade –a policy witnessed in our continuing support for the Canadian Wheat Board.

This major agreement –titled the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement , was signed by the Alberta and B.C. provincial cabinets in April 2006. There was no public consultation. Most citizens are unaware of its existence. The agreement will come fully into effect in April 2007. It will harmonize all regulations governing economic activity in those two provinces, with some exceptions. The exceptions, in aboriginal policies, water, health, and labour standards are subject to further review by 2009. The agreement essentially eliminates provincial boundaries and independent jurisdiction in all major areas of the economy!

Here’s what it allows.

-Corporate Challenges to local laws and policies: Private individuals and companies can sue for up to $5 million compensation for regulations, policies, and programs that “impair or restrict” investment, trade, or labour mobility. A three person dispute panel will have the power to make legally binding decisions that will compel these governments to change their policies, no matter how popular these policies are.

Massive deregulation: “no obstacles” shall be allowed that “would impair or restrict trade through the territory of the parties”. This means rapidly eliminating provincially regulatory standards over the next two years and “Parties shall not establish new standards or regulations that operate to restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility”.

Extending controls to all public “entities”: Crown corporations, local governments, school boards, universities, private agencies on contract with the government, are all subject to potential challenges on their policies if they can be interpreted as in any way preferential or “trade restricting”. It is unlikely, for example, that Health regions could, as a matter of policy, give preferential purchasing to local food producers.

Here are some questions to think about and possibly to ask your political representatives:

1) Will the Saskatchewan government commit its citizens to such a fundamental long term agreement as TILMA without any public consultation with citizens, business and the wide array of public entities and local governments most affected?

2) Are there still good reasons for having separate provincial jurisdiction? If so would that include the economic sectors of industry, agriculture, mining, services and public procurement policy that this agreement proposes to fully integrate?

3) What is the future capacity of Crown Corporations, like Sasktel, to innovate in their approach to service delivery and utility rates? Would they be allowed to subsidize rural and northern users who “market delivery” costs are much higher?

4) Do we think as a province that we could pioneer new social policies , (as we did with medicare), within this new climate of unregulated business rights and domination?

STOP THE SLEEP-WALK!! If you oppose, have concerns about, or wish more information on the TILMA, contact your MLA, a Cabinet Minister or the Premier and voice your concerns!

Don Mitchell
Moose Jaw, SK

[Oscar]

November 6, 2006

Premier Lorne Calvert
Legislative Building
Regina. SK S4S 0B3
premier@gov.sk.ca

Dear Premier Calvert

Re: Alberta/BC Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA)

From a CBC article dated September 26, 2006, “Sask. ponders joining BC, Alberta trade deal” (see below), I understand that your government is committed to studying the above-noted Agreement and that, according to Mr. Van Mulligan, Minister of Government Relations, a decision will be made next year as to whether or not Saskatchewan will join in.

TILMA is being sold to your government, and to the public, as an agreement about getting rid of internal trade barriers and increasing labour mobility. Neither of these requires adjustment or tinkering through any agreement with our neighbouring provinces. In fact, a 1998 study done for the BC government found that: “efforts to liberalize interprovincial trade will have almost no effect on trade flows. The reality is that interprovincial trade barriers are already very low.”

What TILMA is really designed to do, among other things, is foster massive deregulation. Article 3 proclaims that there shall be “No Obstacles’ that would impair or restrict “…investment …between the parties” and that “Parties shall not establish new standards or regulations that operate to restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility.” Since virtually every regulation or standard has some impact on investment, all existing or future regulation could be affected.

No municipal (or school board) regulation or policy can be “amended or renewed in a manner that would decrease its consistency with this Agreement.” Each local or provincial government will be obliged, when undertaking any action that might be covered by TILMA, to “provide the other Party with an opportunity to comment on the measure, and take such comments into consideration.” The value of citizens’ votes – provincial and municipal – will drop dramatically as governments of one province will not be restricted from increasing their standards or regulations. Nor will they be able to undertake most kinds of regional or industrial development initiatives.

The governments of BC and Alberta have actually created greater rights for interests outside of their provinces to intervene in the legislative process than they have guaranteed for their own voters. In fact, TILMA enshrines the right of corporations to sue governments when regulations negatively impact their profitability. It allows private individuals (and companies) from one province to sue and get up to $5 million compensation for regulations, policies and programs existing in the other province that “impair or restrict” investment, trade or labour mobility. This kind of backward thinking is a slippery slope designed to give power to investors to challenge any existing and future regulations, while taking away power and control from the people!

It is difficult to imagine a more anti-democratic initiative by a government and I strongly urge you – expect you - and your government to decline to participate in this ‘scheme’.

Yours truly,

Elaine Hughes
Box 23
Archerwill, SK S0E 0B0

Cc: Clay Serby, Minister of Economic and Co-operative Development
cserby@rd.gov.sk.ca

Eric Cline, Minister Responsible for Investment Saskatchewan Inc.
minister.ir@gov.sk.ca

Harry Van Mulligen, Minister of Government Relations
minister.gr@gov.sk.ca

================================

Sask. ponders joining B.C., Alberta trade deal

FULL TEXT at:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/s ... -deal.html

Last Updated: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 | 12:11 PM CT
CBC News

Saskatchewan is still on the outside of a Western Canadian trade deal looking in — but that could change, the provincial government says.

British Columbia and Alberta signed an agreement earlier this year aimed at breaking down the barriers for businesses and workers in both provinces.

The opposition Saskatchewan Party accused the government of missing the boat and and has been urging it to join the deal.

FULL TEXT at:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/s ... -deal.html

==================================
Reply from Premier Calvert:

November 15, 2006

Elaine Hughes
Box 23
Archerwill, SK S0E 0B0

Dear Ms Hughes

Thank you for your e-mails of November 5 and 8 regarding the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) recently signed by the Governments of Alberta and British Columbia.

I note that you have copied your letter to the Honourable Harry Van Mulligen, Minister of Government Relations, and I have asked that he reply on behalf of the Government. You can expect a response from the Minister or one of his officials in the near future.

I appreciate your interest in this matter, and again thank you for writing.

Yours sincerely,

(Original signed by Lorne Calvert)
Lorne Calvert
Premier

Cc: Honourable Harry Van Mulligen, Minister Government Relations

========================================
Reply from Minister Van Mulligen:

December 4, 2006

Ms. Elaine Hughes
Box 23
Archerwill, SK S0E 0B0

Dear Ms. Hughes:

I am writing in response to your recent correspondence regarding the Alberta-British Columbia Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA). Thank you for expressing an interest in internal trade issues, and for seeking a clearer understanding of Saskatchewan’s approach to TILMA.

Saskatchewan, like the federal and other provincial and territorial governments across Canada, was made aware of the existence and contents of the TILMA when it was publicly released by Premiers Campbell and Klein in late April of this year.

We learned at that time that, in accordance with the terms of the national Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT, 1994), the TILMA is a bilateral agreement that is open to accession by all other governments in Canada that wish to adopt its provisions instead of, or in addition to, those that currently apply Canada-wide in and through AIT.

In early September of this year, Alberta and British Columbia formally tabled the TILMA with the federal-provincial Committee of Ministers on Internal Trade for their collective review and consideration.

In that context, Saskatchewan, like all jurisdictions in Canada, is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of the TILMA to determine whether that model is a possible way forward for ‘renovating’ the AIT as a whole – as the Premiers’ Council of the Federation has directed – and/or whether it can be a useful regional complement to the national AIT.

The Canada-wide consideration of the TILMA (or any other) model for renovating the AIT is important to Saskatchewan, since over half of our internal trade occurs with Central Canada. From our perspective, it makes sense to try to avoid, if possible, having two or more sets of internal trade rules within Canada.

Saskatchewan is currently Canada’s second most export-oriented province, and internal trade is an increasingly important ‘driver’ of our economic performance. However, while the provincial government is committed to ensuring that Saskatchewan remains an attractive trade partner and investment location, we will continue to pursue those economic objectives in ways that do not unduly constrain our ability, now and in the future, to deliver the social, environmental and community development objectives that also constitute our electoral mandate.

Whether or not the TILMA strikes an acceptable balance in these respects is the key question that our internal review is intended to answer. In addition to receiving valuable public input such as your own, I expect that we will also want to consult with local stakeholders whose interests could or would be affected by Saskatchewan’s possible accession to that agreement.

We are aware of the critical analysis of the TILMA produced by Ms. Ellen Gould and Mr. Murray Dobbin that is replicated, in part, in your letter. At this stage in our review, I will only say that they have raised some critically important issues that we are examining very carefully. We also expect that, if and when we decide whether to pursue Saskatchewan’s possible accession to TILMA any further, these issues will be among the key subjects addressed in our external consultations.

In closing, I think it is important to recall that Canada’s constitution creates certain rights and obligations of ‘economic citizenship’ with respect to the functioning of our country’s economic union that all of our governments, indeed all Canadians, should try to honour. The national AIT is an example of how the two orders of government have attempted, through intergovernmental agreement that preserves our respective democratic and legislative authorities, to deliver on the fundamental economic commitments that we have made to each other. A key purpose of our current review of the TILMA is to determine whether or not that agreement can make a valuable contribution to our shared objectives in these areas.

Sincerely,

Original signed by Harry Van Mulligen
Minister of Government Relations

Cc: Premier Lorne Calvert
Honourable Clay Serby, Minister of Regional Economic and Co-operative Development
Lily Stonehouse, Deputy Minister, Government Relations

[Oscar]

Let's make a deal, Western-style

[ http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/canad ... 482_131482 ]

August 02, 2006

A new, wide-ranging trade agreement between Alberta and B.C. will erase the border and create a new economic power

COLIN CAMPBELL

Colin Hansen, British Columbia's minister of economic development, and his Alberta counterpart Gary Mar, the minister of international and intergovernmental relations, have developed a sound friendship over the past three years. That's partly a result of the annual joint cabinet meetings between the two provinces, but also because they genuinely seem to get along, as do their wives, notes Mar. "When he calls me or when I call him, we always have time for each other." This is the friendship that helped Alberta and B.C. sign a deal that solved one of the oldest, most deeply rooted trade irritants in Canadian history -- a deal that threatened to collapse in the last 24 hours of its three-year negotiation process. And no, it wasn't the softwood lumber agreement, signed just a few days before. This one, which received considerably less attention, is a wide-ranging interprovincial agreement known as TILMA: the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement.

For Full Text:
[ http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/canad ... 482_131482 ]

[Oscar]

TILMA may expand to Quebec and Atlantic provinces

November 8, 2006

Please see below an article from yesterday's Halifax Chronicle Herald which suggests that the BC-Alberta Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) may be expanding to the Atlantic provinces and Quebec.

The Chronicle Herald reports that Elizabeth Beale, president and CEO of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, said this week, "I think this is a very useful model for us to look at here in Atlantic Canada."

The article also reports that a senior official with the Nova Scotia government is "chairing a committee of civil servants that is using the B.C.-Alberta accord as a template to draft a similar agreement for the region that would also include Quebec" and that there will be "a draft document to deliver to cabinet for consideration in about six months."

The Council of Canadians believes that the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement is a dangerous new aspect to the deep integration agenda with the United States and must be stopped.

Already at the Pacific Northwest Economic Region conference this past July in Edmonton, representatives of north-western US states and British Columbia and Alberta committed to explore the possibility of expanding TILMA throughout the PNWER region, which includes Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.

Moreover, as analyst Ellen Gould reports, the United States Trade Representative has made repeated complaints about differences in provincial regulations in Canada. TILMA can be seen as a "made-to-please-Bush" attempt to address this U.S. concern.

For more information on TILMA:

Go to the Council of Canadians website at

[ http://www.canadians.org/display_docume ... 1&catid=64 ]

=============================================

Trade pact would make region more competitive, speaker says

[ http://money.canoe.ca/News/2006/11/07/2265253.html ]

'Novel' Alberta-B.C. accord useful model, economic council CEO says

Tuesday November 7, 2006

By BRUCE ERSKINE Business Reporter

The Atlantic provinces should consider following the lead of Alberta and British Columbia, which recently signed an agreement on trade investment and labour mobility, says Elizabeth Beale, president and CEO of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council.

"I think this is a very useful model for us to look at here in Atlantic Canada," she said on Monday during the council's Outlook 2007 conference in Halifax.

"This is something that goes beyond the agreement on internal trade in terms of its commitment to eliminate barriers that impair trade or labour mobility," she said of the B.C.-Alberta agreement, signed in April. "It imposes a requirement for effective dispute settlement, for standards and regulations to be reconciled and for workers to have their qualifications recognized in both provinces. It's really quite a novel agreement."

FULL STORY:
[ http://money.canoe.ca/News/2006/11/07/2265253.html ]

[Oscar]

The following resolution was debated and passed at the 2006 Saskatchewan Federation of Labour Annual Convention held Nov 1 – 4, 2006 in Regina:

49. Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement

WHEREAS the provincial governments of Alberta and British Columbia recently signed the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA), which comes into effect April 2007; and

WHEREAS the trade and investment provisions of this agreement create rigid rules that will restrict the ability of governments to act in the public interest by using ethical purchasing policies, procurement strategies to promote local employment and other policies; and

WHEREAS TILMA could force harmonization of regulations in a downward direction, since any regulation that is more restrictive in one province than the other could be challenged as a restriction on trade, investment or labour mobility; and

WHEREAS TILMA will widely impact governments and their public sector employees, including those working at crown corporations, municipalities, school boards and publicly funded academic, health and social service entities; and

WHEREAS the Saskatchewan Government has stated that it is considering joining this agreement;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour (SFL) demand the provincial government hold extensive public consultations, which include government’s analysis of its impact on labour, unions and public services throughout the province regarding TILMA, or any other trade agreement;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the SFL actively participate in these consultations by exposing the truth about the impact of TILMA on labour, unions and public services and encourage all affiliates to do the same;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED upon completion of those consultations the SFL shall demand the government not enter into any agreement, including TILMA, which threatens the government’s legitimate right to regulate and/or provide services.

[Oscar]

Published in the Wadena News on December 6, 2006

Dear Editor:

………coming to a province near you!

While they sleep, Saskatchewan residents need to know that the provincial government is being pushed by the Sask Party to sign onto the very silent BC/AB Trade, Investment and Labour Mobilization Agreement – TILMA.
[ http://www.gov.bc.ca/ecdev/popt/media_r ... eement.htm ]

With no input from the residents of either province, the governments of BC and Alberta signed TILMA in April of 2006. Even now, folks don’t realize that this agreement was signed or that it actually gives more power to Alberta residents than the citizens of BC (and vice versa) regarding public interest regulations…. Plus, it gives sweeping privileges to business at the expense of every other sector of society.

If Saskatchewan signs onto this scheme, municipal governments could be faced with endless challenges to their bylaws – any regulation that is stricter than similar regulations in any other province signing the deal will be vulnerable.

TILMA may also ban government financial support for rural development, small business and economically depressed regions, even targeting agricultural support - any government assistance that “distorts investment decisions” is a violation of TILMA!

It’s not too late to urge your democratically-elected government to not sign this secretive, undemocratic scheme.

Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK

[Oscar]

Sent to Editor of Globe & Mail on November 22, 2006

Dear Editor:

………coming to a province near you!

While they sleep, Saskatchewan residents need to know that the provincial government is being pushed by the Sask Party to sign onto the very silent BC/AB Trade, Investment and Labour Mobilization Agreement – TILMA.

Ontario and Quebec are also contemplating joining in.

With no input from the residents of either province, the governments of BC and Alberta signed TILMA in April of 2006. Even now, folks don’t realize that this agreement was signed or that it actually gives more power to Alberta residents than the citizens of BC (and vice versa) regarding public interest regulations…. Plus, it gives sweeping privileges to business at the expense of every other sector of society.

Signing on to TILMA means that municipal governments could be faced with endless challenges to their bylaws – any regulation that is stricter than similar regulations in any other province signing the deal will be vulnerable.

TILMA may also ban government financial support for rural development, small business and economically depressed regions, even targeting agricultural support - any government assistance that “distorts investment decisions” is a violation of TILMA!

It’s not too late to urge your democratically-elected government to not sign this secretive, undemocratic scheme.

Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK

[Oscar]

Saskatchewan Federation of Labour

November 22, 2006

Premier Lorne Calvert
Room 226
Legislative Building
Regina, Sask.
S4S 0B3

Dear Premier Calvert:

RE: Alberta/B.C. Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA)

I write to follow up on our recent conversations regarding the Alberta/British Columbia TILMA and in particular your commitment at the SFL Convention luncheon to have broad based consultation on any such proposed trade deal. As you are aware we believe that TILMA is just the most recent attempt by corporate planners to increase their economic power while reducing the democratic right of citizens to govern themselves.

To say the least, we are shocked and amazed to learn that the Government Relations department has contracted with the Conference Board of Canada (CBoC) to undertake an analysis of the economic implications for Saskatchewan of joining TILMA. What about the social implications?

Why waste the money hiring the CBoC? Why doesn’t the government just have its officials read the May 2006 CBoC report Death by a Thousand Paper Cuts (The Effect of Barriers to Competition on Canadian Productivity). The CBoC has already made up their mind on the issue.

Consider the conclusions they reached in their May 2006 report:

Page 47 “Canada would benefit from a fresh dose of competition by reducing domestic and international barriers to competition, including both tariff and non-tariff barriers.”

Page 48 3rd and final recommendation
“Agreements among and between provinces should be encouraged as a way to make progress on reducing internal NTB (non-tariff barriers). Bilateral or multi-provincial agreements could circumvent roadblocks created by one or more provinces, and could serve as positive models for Canada-wide action.”

With these types of conclusions how can anyone expect an unbiased opinion from this organization?

As part of their analysis we are told that the CBoC will conduct consultations “with key government departments/agencies as well as business “stake holders”.

If TILMA is also about labour mobility why isn’t labour part of any consultation process? And what about the general public? This appears to be the same secret process used in B.C. and Alberta where hardly anyone was consulted.

We have also learned that once this level of superficial consultation has occurred the analysis will be referred “to at least one, and possibly two, non-governmental economists (likely at the University of Saskatchewan and the University of Calgary) for their independent review and comment.”

Again, we are skeptical. Why not consult with economists from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives or the Canadian Labour Congress?

We then understand that the “combined analysis will then be reviewed by an internal team of economists from Government Relations, Saskatchewan Industry and Resources and Finance.

Who will be looking after the interests of workers in these discussions? After all labour mobility is supposed to be part of the deal!

In this whole process something seems to be missing. While TILMA could seriously affect the lives of all Canadians and our democratic right to govern ourselves there seems to be little or no input from the vast majority of our citizens. The new rules seem to be formulated in dark shadowy rooms by those who will gain the most.

We urge you to put the brakes on this process and stop this race to the bottom being foisted on us by the corporate elite. Economies should be structured to provide for the majority of our citizens and not as a cream separator for the rich and the corporations.

Sincerely,


Larry Hubich
President

cc Honourable Eric Cline, Sask Industry and Resources
Honourable Harry Van Mulligan, Government Relations
Honourable Andrew Thomson, Finance
SFL Executive Council

/dl/cope397/tilma-nov06

============================
Mr. Van Mulligen's reply:

(Typed from original by E. Hughes on January 4, 2007)

Minister of Government Relations
Legislative Building
Regina, Saskatchewan S4S 0B3

December 19, 2006

Mr. Larry Hubich, President
Saskatchewan Federation of Labour
220 – 2445 13th Avenue
REGINA, SK S4P 0W1

Dear Mr. Hubich:

I am writing in response to your recent letter to Premier Calvert regarding the Alberta-British Columbia Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA). Premier Calvert has asked me to reply to the issues you have raised.

Regarding my Department’s contract with the Conference Board of Canada, you may be aware that, aside from its widely recognized expertise in economic modelling and forecasting (Saskatchewan’s economy included), the Board purports to have devised a novel method for quantifying internal trade barriers and their economic impacts.

Since virtually all of the existing economic literature on this subject is very dated, incomplete or inappropriate for this purpose, and since the Board apparently used its new method to look specifically at the TILMA for British Columbia, we have asked the Board to provide a similar ‘baseline’ analysis for Saskatchewan.

I understand that, in order to refine its formal economic analysis, the Board is conducting a limited survey of local companies to determine if they can identify any specific ‘barriers’ that are appreciably constraining Saskatchewan’s growth prospects.

We recognize that the Board’s new quantitative method is contested. For that reason, we intend to have their work undergo independent peer-review by some who have demonstrable expertise in the economics of internal trade and/or in the analysis of the Saskatchewan economy.

The provincial government has adopted a methodical approach to the invitation to join the TILMA.

We are currently conducting a comprehensive internal review of its possible implications for the government existing and future ‘measures’, as that term is defined in the TILMA. The above-mentioned economic analyses are part of our internal review.

If, based on that analysis, the government decides to pursue possible accession to the TILMA any further, we will proceed with external consultations, that I can assure you, will include the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour.

Sincerely,

(Original signed by Harry Van Mulligen)
Minister of Government Relations

Cc: Premier Calvert
Honourable David Forbes, Minister of Labour
Honourable Eric Cline, Minister of Industry and Resources
Honourable Andrew Thompson, Minister of Finance

==========================
January 5th, 2007

Honourable Harry Van Mulligen
Minister of Government Relations
Room 315
Legislative Building
Regina, SK S4S 0B3

RE: TILMA

Dear Mr. Van Mulligen:

I write in response to your letter of December 19th regarding your government’s contract with the Conference Board of Canada to assess the merits of signing the TILMA. In your letter, you state that your government retained the Conference Board of Canada to provide an analysis of TILMA for Saskatchewan, “since the Board apparently used its new method to look specifically at the TILMA for British Columbia”.

Since we already know that the Conference Board of Canada has recommended to the B.C. government that it sign the TILMA, it appears that you are contracting an already biased source to perform an analysis for the Saskatchewan government. Do you honestly expect to get a different response from the Conference Board than was given to the B.C. government?

We also find it very disconcerting that the B.C. government has refused to publicly release the analysis of TILMA done by the Conference Board of Canada. Apparently, the Conference Board is not allowed to release the study, and is forbidden to discuss the methodology used in its analysis. Have you seen the analysis done for B.C.? We would like to see the study released to the public domain where its numbers can be verified and its methodology analyzed by progressive economists.

You state in your letter that you intend to have the Conference Board’s work “undergo independent peer-review by some who have demonstrable experience in the economics of internal trade and/or in the analysis of the Saskatchewan economy”. As you know, we are concerned that you plan to consult economists from the University of Calgary and the University of Saskatchewan for this task. We would like your assurance that you will consult independent experts. We suggest you consult Jim Greishaber-Otto, Senior Research Fellow with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and/or Erin Weir, a Saskatchewan-born economist with the Canadian Labour Congress. If you need contact information for these experts, please let me know.

As for your assurances that you will proceed with external consultations that include the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour, we will gladly provide our input to any consultation you undertake. You will understand, however, our skepticism of such a process, in that you are deeply into an evaluation of TILMA and you have yet to consult anyone from labour on an agreement that purports to be about labour mobility.

I look forward to your response on the above issues.

Sincerely,

Larry Hubich
President

Cc: Premier Lorne Calvert
Honourable David Forbes, Minister of Labour
Honourable Eric Cline, Minister of Industry and Resources
Honourable Andrew Thompson, Minister of Finance

/clb

[Oscar]

McGuinty wants to trim Ontario's "excess of democracy"

BY STUART TREW

Ottawa Xpress, November 23, 2006

New mayor Larry O'Brien wants to add business ethics to city council. Dalton McGuinty simply wants to let businesses rule. The Premier was in British Columbia last month to discuss the B.C.-Alberta Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) that was signed exclusively by Premiers Gordon Campbell and Ralph Klein this past April. When I say exclusively, I mean it - there was no public consultation, no political debate, and legislators in both provinces are just now starting to hear about it.

Western municipalities were also kept suspiciously out of the loop, despite the fact that TILMA strips them of considerable authority. Regulations on building heights? Forget about them. They are a barrier to trade and investment. A new pesticide bylaw? Unlikely. The free market has no room for fancy rules designed to protect our health or the environment.

Under TILMA, which goes into effect this April, corporations will have the power to sue local governments for up to $5-million in order to protect their profits. There should be "No Obstacles" to interprovincial or international trade, says the agreement, which "opens" the energy sector, the movement of labour, investment, government procurement, agriculture, transportation and financial services. TILMA is also designed to expand over time to include the regulation of school boards, publicly funded academia, health and social services, and possibly even water management.

"This is one of the most radical trade and investment deals ever signed," said Larry Brown of the National Union of Public and General Employees this week. "This deal effectively erases the border between B.C. and Alberta and makes democratic governance practically irrelevant."

In the more upbeat words of Alberta's gung-ho Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations, Gary Mar, TILMA is "everything Canadian business asked for."

Mainly that's because it gives Canadian businesses the same rights to sue Canadian governments that American and Mexican corporations currently enjoy under NAFTA. News commentary about TILMA has been overwhelmingly positive. The media loves free trade, no matter what the conditions. Few of the news articles and columns about TILMA discussed its implications for cash-strapped cities that will end up spending millions they don't have fighting lawsuits against regulations they thought it their democratic duty to implement!

So what is McGuinty thinking? According to an interview with CanWest last month, his only concern is "whether or not we think that we're strong enough to compete - whether [Ontario] can be seen as an attractive jurisdiction for investment and for workers." Potential opposition to TILMA is brushed aside as "some concerns raised by labour groups."

Ottawa city councillors, if you're out there - Dalton McGuinty wants to severely curtail your authority and he does not care what you think about it. You will not be consulted before he creates a free trade zone with B.C. and Alberta (and probably Saskatchewan and some eastern provinces who are also eager to join). And once he signs TILMA, none of its measures can be "amended or renewed in a manner that would decrease its consistency with this Agreement." There will be briefings, disguised as consultations, but after the fact, and they will be about fitting your new straitjacket, not soliciting your advice.

Economic Development Minister Sandra Pupatello was on a trade mission to Alberta this week. Her main goal was to offer Ontario's manufacturing sector as a solution to the oil sands labour shortage. Though her office told me she will not be discussing TILMA, Carol Chawrun from Alberta International and Intergovernmental Relations said Gary Mar would love to discuss the agreement should Pupatello ask. There is a good chance she will.

This is an urgent issue. Newly re-elected city councillor Clive Doucet has asked staff to look into the consequences for Ottawa of McGuinty going over everyone's head by signing TILMA. But it will take an Ontario-wide campaign to stop him. The best way to start that campaign is to get your city councillor a copy of the B.C.-Alberta agreement, which is available
at www.iir.gov.ab.ca. Alberta and B.C. went into this thing with their eyes closed. Let's not follow them without a fight.

[Oscar]

Council of Canadians on TILMA

http://www.canadians.org:80/trade/publi ... uld06.html

The Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) is a dangerous new aspect to the deep integration agenda with the United States and must be stopped.

Already at the Pacific Northwest Economic Region conference this past July in Edmonton, representatives of north-western US states and British Columbia and Alberta committed to explore the possibility of expanding TILMA throughout the PNWER region, which includes Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.

Moreover, the United States Trade Representative has made repeated complaints about differences in provincial regulations in Canada. TILMA can be seen as a "made-to-please-Bush" attempt to address this U.S. concern.

For further information on the implications of TILMA, including its impact on municipalities, go to the Council of Canadians website at http://www.canadians.org/trade/publicat ... uld06.html

And while TILMA at this point is an agreement between the British Columbia and Alberta governments, it is rapidly spreading across the country. Saskatchewan and Ontario are very supportive of it, and a key business lobby group, the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, is calling for a version of TILMA for Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. This makes it a Canada-wide concern.

[Oscar]

Published in the Carnduff Gazette-Post on November 23, 2006

Dear Editor:

………too much secrecy

While they sleep, Saskatchewan residents need to know that the provincial government is being pushed by the Sask Party to sign onto the very silent BC/AB Trade, Investment and Labour Mobilization Agreement – TILMA.
(See: http://www.ecdev.gov.bc.ca/ProgramsAndS ... l_2006.pdf ])

With no input from the residents of either province, the governments of BC and Alberta signed TILMA in April of 2006. Even now, folks don’t realize that this agreement was signed or that it actually gives more power to Alberta residents than the citizens of BC (and vice versa) regarding public interest regulations…. Plus, it gives sweeping privileges to business at the expense of every other sector of society.

With a few exceptions, BC and Alberta will have to “mutually recognize or otherwise reconcile (harmonize) their existing standards and regulations”. Further, they are barred forever from establishing “new standards or regulations that operate to restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility.”

If Saskatchewan signs onto this scheme, municipal governments will be most affected, faced with endless challenges to their bylaws, from laws restricting the placement of billboards to laws governing land use and zoning – any regulation that is stricter than similar regulations in any other province signing the deal may be vulnerable.

Under TILMA, all purchasing decisions by provincial governments, local governments, Crown Corporations, school boards and universities may be challenged and overturned for purchases costing as little as $10,000.

TILMA also covers all government ‘entities’ – Crown corporations, local governments, school boards, universities, hospitals, private agencies on contract with the government – and subjects their policies to potential challenges and the need to pay up to $5 Million in compensation.

Most worrisome of all, TILMA may also ban government financial support for rural development, small business and economically depressed regions, even targeting agricultural support. Any government assistance that “distorts investment decisions” is a violation of TILMA!

Citizens must know that it’s not too late to urge the government not to buckle under Sask Party pressure to sign this secretive, undemocratic scheme.

Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK

[Oscar]

Dear Chapter activists:

The Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) is a dangerous new aspect to the deep integration agenda with the United States and must be stopped.

Already at the Pacific Northwest Economic Region conference this past July in Edmonton, representatives of north-western US states and British Columbia and Alberta committed to explore the possibility of expanding TILMA throughout the PNWER region, which includes Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.

Moreover, the United States Trade Representative has made repeated complaints about differences in provincial regulations in Canada. TILMA can be seen as a "made-to-please-Bush" attempt to address this U.S. concern.

For further information on the implications of TILMA, including its impact on municipalities, go to the Council of Canadians website at http://www.canadians.org/trade/publicat ... uld06.html

And while TILMA at this point is an agreement between the British Columbia and Alberta governments, it is rapidly spreading across the country. Saskatchewan and Ontario are very supportive of it, and a key business lobby group, the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, is calling for a version of TILMA for Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. This makes it a Canada-wide concern.

The Council of Canadians is calling on its chapter activists across the country to take action against TILMA by:

1. Identifying one key public figure in your community and encouraging them to express opposition to TILMA. This individual could be a municipal councillor, provincial legislator, federal MP, school board official, or someone else with a profile and influence in your community and area government. The idea here is to find someone with good political connections to advance these concerns for us within the corridors of power.

2. Taking a municipal resolution that would have your municipal Clerk's office prepare a report for your municipal council outlining the possible impact of TILMA on your community and making those concerns known to your provincial government. This is an excellent way to get city staff researching this issue, encouraging political debate on it, and having the credibility of a municipality behind our concerns.

3. Distributing Council materials on TILMA in your community, writing a letter to the editor when a TILMA report appears in your local newspaper, and generally assisting in the ways available to you within your limited time to widen public awareness of this issue.

By demonstrating a diverse and strong level of opposition to TILMA across the country, we hope to DEFEAT the trade agreement in British Columbia and Alberta, PREVENT it from spreading to other provinces and territories across the country, and STOP federal Industry Minister Maxime Bernier and the Harper government from promoting this dangerous agreement.

In order to achieve this, the Council of Canadians will be developing a backgrounder for chapter activists, a briefing note on TILMA that you can present to key public figures, and a sample municipal resolution that you can take to a progressive councillor to champion. We are very pleased that the prominent writer and chapter activist Murray Dobbin as well as writer/ researcher Ellen Gould have agreed to provide analysis to the Council to assist us in this important work.

The British Columbia-Alberta TILMA has been signed and will come into effect in April 2007. We are actively pursuing confirmation on whether or not enabling legislation must go to those legislatures to enact TILMA. This information will be key in shaping the most effective political strategy for chapters in British Columbia and Alberta in the days to come.

We also know that a draft proposal on a version of TILMA will be considered by the provincial government in Nova Scotia by April 2007. It is also possible that Ontario and Saskatchewan could sign on to this agreement in a matter of mere weeks.

For further guidance on this issue, to learn more about the activities in your region, and to share information on the work you are doing on this issue please be sure to be in touch with your regional organizer:

CARLEEN PICKARD, British Columbia-Yukon organizer, cpickard@canadians.org
LYN GORMAN, Prairies organizer, lgorman@canadians.org
CLIFF WHITE, Atlantic organizer, cwhite@canadians.org
EDUARDO SOUSA, Ontario-Quebec organizer, esousa@canadians.org

Thanks,
Brent

Brent Patterson
Director of Organizing
The Council of Canadians
700-170 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5V5
1-800-387-7177 ext. 291
bpatterson@canadians.org
www.canadians.org

[Oscar]

Ralph's Last Laugh: Inter-provincial trade deal ties the hands of government

By Ellen Gould Briarpatch Magazine December 2006/January 2007

On a CBC radio show in October, British Columbia's Minister of Economic Development Colin Hansen and Alberta's Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs Gary Mar boasted about how Saskatchewan was keen to sign on to TILMA, the BC/Alberta Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement. This agreement, which goes far beyond existing trade agreements, was signed by British Columbia and Alberta in April, 2006, after zero consultation with the general public. The agreement will come into effect in April, 2007.

The pitch Hansen and Mar made for TILMA sounded great. Through TILMA, BC and Alberta will form an economic powerhouse second only to Ontario. (Yeah, Western Canada!) The agreement will get rid of "huge" inter-provincial trade barriers so that, rather than focussing on increasing international trade, Canadians will be able to trade more with other Canadians. (Yeah, Canada!) And TILMA will standardize professional requirements so that people can leave home with their qualifications and be accredited to work in the other province. (Yeah, labour!)

So why shouldn't Saskatchewan rush to sign on? Because what TILMA does is force governments at both the provincial and local levels to surrender vast areas of their ability to govern. The agreement is essentially a long list of things governments will be prohibited from doing, regardless of whether they are acting completely within their jurisdiction. Even if a majority of citizens in a province are demanding a new government initiative, the government will be blocked from acting if the initiative would conflict with TILMA. TILMA enables private investors to challenge governments, allowing commercial interests to trump the public good.

If anyone in the provincial government does due diligence and seriously investigates the case being made for TILMA, they will find it is a house of cards.

The Western Canada boosterism used to sell the agreement is a sham: BC Premier Gordon Campbell was lobbying Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty to sign on even as TILMA was being sold as a way to assert Western Canadian economic ascendancy over Ontario.

The claims of "huge" inter-provincial trade barriers also turn out to be based on nothing, or next to nothing-some isolated examples of trade irritants and a 1991 Canadian Manufacturers' Association report that confuses international with inter-provincial trade barriers. And all the labour mobility aspects of the agreement will soon be achieved by a separate process initiated by Manitoba's Premier Gary Doer.

A study done for the BC government in the late 1990s pointed out that trade barriers among the provinces are actually very low, meaning that, contrary to the recent claims of Hansen and Mar, "efforts to liberalize inter-provincial trade will have almost no effect on inter-provincial trade flows." Any projections of TILMA-related economic growth are, consequently, iffy at best. The agreement is certain, on the other hand, to result in deregulation, private sector challenges to government programs and policies, and the termination of economic development initiatives.

Far from being a recipe for prosperity or a stronger Canadian union, this agreement in fact represents a major step towards deep integration with the US-the process of harmonizing Canadian and US policies and regulations.

More Extreme than NAFTA and the Agreement on Internal Trade

Some of the most draconian provisions in TILMA can already be found in a 1994 agreement all provinces and the federal government are party to: the Agreement on Internal Trade. For example, both TILMA and the Agreement on Internal Trade state flatly that there shall be "no obstacles" to trade, investment, and labour mobility. They both say that provincial regulations are to be made the same, undercutting the democratic right of citizens to elect provincial governments that will bring in higher standards than exist in other provinces.

So why, if the already-signed Agreement on Internal Trade is so radical, have so few Canadians heard about it? Because it is mostly voluntary, allowing governments to harmonize their regulations gradually. If private investors think the agreement is being violated, they have to lobby their provincial governments to pursue complaints on their behalf. A government can block a private investor's complaint if they do not believe it is based on a reasonable interpretation of the agreement. Dispute panels cannot award monetary compensation for any violations.

The handling of disputes is one of the major differences between TILMA and the Agreement on Internal Trade. TILMA gives private investors, including persons who hold shares in a company and companies seeking to make new investments, new rights to challenge governments on a variety of grounds, including over programs and regulations that "impair or restrict" their investments.

The implications of these TILMA provisions are staggering. What government program or regulation could not be seen as a restriction on private investment? Saskatchewan's Crown Corporations, for instance, certainly restrict private investment by providing services that might be supplied in the private sector. Regulations such as municipal restrictions on the ability of developers to knock down heritage buildings clearly impair the ability of investors to maximize the return on their property investment.

Saskatchewan's Heritage Property Act could, therefore, become an early casualty of a TILMA-bound Saskatchewan. Among other things, the Act empowers municipalities to designate both individual properties and districts as heritage spaces, requiring property owners to seek municipal approval before making changes to such properties. The official legislative objective is to provide for "the Preservation, Interpretation and Development of Certain Aspects of Heritage Property." Saskatchewan's heritage legislation could be attacked through TILMA as a restriction on investment that cannot be justified under the agreement as meeting "legitimate" objectives.

TILMA is in fact more dangerous than NAFTA in its threat to governments. Already, NAFTA suits launched by private investors have meant that Canada has had to pay millions of dollars in compensation because it refused to export PCBs (which would have been a violation of its international environmental commitments). And the Canadian government is now in danger of losing a NAFTA challenge to Canada Post launched by UPS, the American parcel delivery firm. Less obvious is the damage done by the "chill effect" from the threat of investor lawsuits under NAFTA, such as when the federal government backed away from requiring plain-paper packaging of cigarettes or when Ontario and New Brunswick were dissuaded from introducing public auto insurance.

TILMA, however, goes even further than NAFTA in creating legal jeopardy for governments. The grounds that private investors can sue over are limited in NAFTA to clauses in Chapter 11 (investment) and Chapter 15 (state enterprises). In contrast, a private investor can take a government to a TILMA dispute panel over "any matter regarding the interpretation or application of this Agreement".

TILMA sets a $5 million cap on the compensation that panels can award in a single case. But since there is no restriction on the number of challenges that can be launched about the same program or regulation, governments will face continuous challenges if they keep doing anything that has been found to violate the agreement.

For example, an outdoor advertising firm might launch a TILMA case against a municipality's ban on billboards, and get as much as $5 million depending on the amount of business it had lost or would lose in the future. Once the proceedings in that case were over, though, another advertising firm could bring forward another case over exactly the same municipal billboard ban, and again get as much as $5 million in compensation. The cases could go on indefinitely until the municipality changed its bylaws and allowed unrestricted billboard advertising. TILMA goes far beyond NAFTA in providing grounds for such lawsuits against standards and regulations.

Another worrisome difference between NAFTA and TILMA is how the two agreements treat public services. Canada negotiated an exception in NAFTA to be able to adopt or maintain any measure related to social services, with education and healthcare specifically mentioned. While this NAFTA exception has been criticized as weak, TILMA is even worse in that it only contains exceptions for social policy, not social services. A panel might interpret this difference in terminology between the two agreements as an indication that TILMA's negotiators did not intend to protect public services.

One of TILMA's frequently quoted supporters, Todd Hirsch of the Canada West Foundation, told the Globe and Mail in November that with all its special rules and caveats, "no one really has a good handle" on the agreement. So TILMA's boosters seem to be advocating that despite its uncertainties, provincial governments should just go ahead and sign the deal and hope for the best. Needless to say, any lawyer advising a business to take this "sign first, consider the consequences later" approach to a legally binding contract would be fired.

"Everything Canadian business asked for"

For whatever reason, the BC and Alberta governments have created a litigant's heaven in TILMA, enabling private investors to sue them with the greatest of ease. The speed with which private investors can get a TILMA complaint heard, receive a panel ruling, and then be awarded monetary compensation would seem ideal from the perspective of someone wanting to challenge government programs and regulations. The short timelines TILMA imposes-forty-five days to issue a report, fifteen days to produce requested clarifications-mean that the cost of suing under the agreement would tend to be cheap relative to domestic courts or NAFTA.

Because modern day trade disputes have wider implications than just narrow commercial issues, panel rulings should be of great concern to the general public. Recent trade panel rulings have decided critical questions such as whether a country can maintain a moratorium on the introduction of genetically modified foods and whether alcohol advertising can be banned. But the time limits TILMA imposes on panels only encourages snap judgments on complex and far-reaching issues. The insistence that panels rule on the fate of government programs and regulations under such time constraints makes you wonder just whose interests the agreement is intended to serve.

Actually, you don't have to wonder. Alberta minister Gary Mar revealed to a Richmond Chamber of Commerce audience that TILMA's dispute process was "everything Canadian business asked for."

What's good for Alberta..

Heather Douglas, President of the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, has praised the Alberta government's role in negotiating TILMA, saying it "acted on our suggestions." According to Douglas, if Alberta signs TILMA-like agreements with other provinces, businesses will benefit from increased deregulation across the country. Paraphrasing the old saying about General Motors, Douglas promotes TILMA on the basis that "what's good for Alberta will be good for the country."

TILMA requires provinces to "reconcile their existing standards and regulations that operate to restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility." Given Alberta's deregulated environment, that means any province signing on to TILMA will have to adopt Alberta's lower standards and regulations, since anything higher could be challenged as a restriction on investment. Only regulations covered by the agreement's exceptions would not be affected.

Once provinces have deregulated to the same extent as Alberta, the text of the agreement states that signatory provinces will be prevented from introducing "new standards or regulations that operate to restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility." So higher standards adopted in the future, such as the ones Manitoba is considering to control hog barns, would likely be ruled a TILMA violation. To add insult to injury, if a province does ever entertain the idea of raising its standards, TILMA legally obligates it to seek the opinion of the other provincial governments and to take their views into consideration.

In obligating provinces to harmonize their regulations, TILMA deletes a key safeguard in the Agreement on Internal Trade, which says: "The Parties shall not, through such harmonization, lower the levels of environmental protection." The fact that TILMA contains no such clause is just what you would expect in an agreement drafted with no input other than from business interests.

The limits of TILMA safeguards

TILMA's advocates have pointed to its list of exceptions and its "legitimate objectives" clause in order to dismiss concerns about the agreement. TILMA does have a list of policy areas that are exempt, such as government measures related to water, aboriginal peoples, and social assistance, but these are subject to annual review "with a view to reducing their scope."
Saskatchewan may take the advice of trade officials that it can sign the agreement but still protect key areas of provincial policy by registering exceptions. This is a risky venture, however, since TILMA assumes that everything is covered except for those areas that negotiators think to exclude. For example, BC's negotiators did not register an exemption for the province's Agricultural Land Reserve, which limits urban development to preserve agricultural land. Such legislation seems tailor-made for a TILMA challenge.

BC officials are claiming, however, that regulations like the Agriculture Land Reserve could be protected in the event of a challenge by TILMA's "Legitimate Objectives" provisions. These provisions allow for violations of the agreement only if government regulations can meet certain criteria. First of all, they have to show that the program or regulation under consideration is intended to achieve objectives defined in the agreement as "legitimate," such as public order or protection of the environment. There are obvious omissions from the list of legitimate objectives, such as food security or the preservation of heritage properties.

Getting a panel to acknowledge a given objective as legitimate, however, is the least of a government's worries. If challenged, they have to prove their regulations are "necessary," which is a very tough standard in trade law.

In fact, we know exactly how difficult it would be for governments to defend themselves with TILMA's legitimate objectives provisions because an Agreement on Internal Trade panel has already ruled on such provisions. In the case against the federal's government's ban on inter-provincial trade of the gasoline additive MMT, the Agreement on Internal Trade panel accepted that the federal government had a legitimate reason for its regulations. But the MMT panel ruled that because the "Legitimate Objectives" provisions of the Agreement on Internal Trade require that whatever a government does to meet its objectives cannot be "unnecessarily" restrictive, the burden of proof falls on the defending government "to demonstrate that no other available option would have met the legitimate objective."

The TILMA advocates who are so sure that the agreement's "Legitimate Objectives" provisions will protect valued public policies should be challenged to name any policy that would be safe if a government had to demonstrate it had no other "available option."

Ending support for economic development initiatives

Alberta has been praised at the WTO for legislating a ban on assistance to private businesses. This Alberta policy is entrenched in TILMA's prohibition of business subsidies that "distort business decisions"-which could be said of any business subsidy. An example of a possible violation is Saskatoon's support for businesses located in economically depressed neighbourhoods. In defined "Enterprise Zones," Saskatoon provides tax breaks and waives permit fees for businesses. This assistance would fall under TILMA's definition of prohibited business subsidies, which includes not only cash grants but also any "reduction in taxation.or government levies otherwise payable." As well, TILMA only permits regional economic development initiatives under "exceptional circumstances." So, for instance, the commercial loans Saskatchewan grants to northern business under the Northern Development Fund would be TILMA violations.

TILMA also contains harsh restrictions on government procurement, ensuring that it can never be used to foster local or ethically minded businesses. Purchases of goods costing as little as $10,000 have to conform to rigorous guidelines to guarantee that no preference will be granted to local suppliers. TILMA's procurement rules will apply not only to provincial governments, but also to municipalities, school boards, and even non-governmental organizations that have regulatory or supervisory authority granted by governments.

The domino approach to trade negotiations

The Alberta government has for many years been pushing other provinces to approve a TILMA-like transformation of the Agreement on Internal Trade. By striking this deal with the neo-liberal government of BC, Alberta is taking a page from the US Trade Representative's playbook. When US trade negotiators have been blocked in achieving their agenda through multilateral negotiations on such agreements as the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, the Free Trade Area of the Americas, and the latest round of WTO negotiations, they have shifted their focus to negotiating bilateral deals with the low hanging fruit: governments vulnerable to US pressure or unconcerned about the loss of their right to regulate. Eventually, with enough such agreements in place, hold-out countries will face increasing pressure to sign on. Similarly, if other provinces begin to sign on to TILMA, pressure will grow on non-signatories to join the club.

TILMA and the US bilateral deals have a number of very similar elements: they provide expanded rights to private investors to sue over government regulations and programs; they contain strict constraints on local preferences in government purchasing; and they put the burden of proof on governments to demonstrate their regulations are "necessary." Both TILMA and bilateral agreements are being promoted as establishing precedents for future deals that would involve many more signatories.

Standing up for the right to govern

There is nothing inevitable, however, about this trade encroachment into more and more areas of public policy. A majority of state governments in the US have resisted the US Trade Representative's pressure tactics and have taken action to limit their vulnerability under new trade agreements. Some examples of state initiatives are:

. A number of states have declared they will not be bound by procurement rules in new trade agreements because this would require state-funded jobs to be outsourced. Oregon's Governor made it clear in a 2004 letter to the federal government that "neither the United States government nor any other government should consider Oregon a voluntary participant in any new trade pacts with regard to state procurement practices."

. When the WTO negotiations on services were heating up in 2006, the Governor of Maine wrote the US Trade Representative to express concern about the threat to critical state programs, including Maine's healthcare initiatives. The Governor wrote: "Maine cannot sit idly by and let the federal government negotiate trade agreements that undermine public services, good paying jobs, and our ability to make our own decisions at the state and local level."

. Attorneys general of 29 states wrote to the US Trade Representative in 2005 to say their states opposed the negotiation of new WTO restrictions on regulations-restrictions that are strikingly similar to those included in TILMA-because they would "unacceptably encroach upon our states' regulatory authority." The states succeeded in getting the US to oppose the new restrictions.

We are so accustomed to looking askance at US state governments and their weak social programs that it is hard to imagine that they might have something to teach us. But our provincial governments, which are no more conservative than the US states mentioned above, would do well to follow their lead in defending their authority to act in the public interest. They can start by unequivocally rejecting TILMA.

Ellen Gould is a consultant who has advised local governments, consumer groups and other organizations on the potential impacts of trade agreements.

[Oscar]

Gov't may make energy pitch to U.S. presidential hopefuls

The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) Wed 06 Dec 2006 Page: A6 Section: Local

Byline: James Wood Dateline: REGINA Source: The StarPhoenix

REGINA -- Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rudy Guiliani could soon be getting a call from the Saskatchewan government.

Industry and Resources Minister Eric Cline says the NDP government is contemplating contacting candidates in the 2008 American presidential race to tout Saskatchewan's energy resources and sell the province as a safe and secure energy source for the U.S.

"We're investigating whether we should contact representatives of various front-runners for both the Republicans and the Democrats who may become the next president to give them information about energy resources in Saskatchewan, so that as they consider their plans for preparing election platforms for the American election, they would simply be more aware of the energy resources in Saskatchewan," he said in an interview at the legislature Tuesday.

Cline said such an effort would follow his and Premier Lorne Calvert's February White House meeting with U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney on energy issues.

The next president needs to be aware of Saskatchewan's abundant supply of natural gas, oil and uranium, he said.

Read the full story, including reference to TILMA, at:

[ http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoe ... a296b354c4 ]

( For Star Phoenix Subscribers Only)