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

[Oscar]

A quick update on recent TILMA developments:

December 6, 2006

More analysis and materials are coming, but for now please go to

http://www.canadians.org/DI/issues/TILMA.html

for our current resources.


BRITISH COLUMBIA FEDERATION OF LABOUR CAMPAIGN AGAINST TILMA

1. On November 30, the British Columbia Federation of Labour committed itself at their annual convention to fight against TILMA. Their media release stated, "Delegates spoke strongly against TILMA and its consequences for working people in British Columbia. In the end, the 1100 convention delegates voted unanimously to pressure the B.C. government to abandon the agreement; develop a community campaign to stop it; and work closely with municipal governments, school districts and social allies to help the public understand the negative consequences of the agreement for B.C. communities."

The BCFL's website is http://www.bcfed.com/


TILMA SPEECH TO THE EDMONTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

2. On November 24, Business Edge magazine reported on TILMA. The article noted that, "B.C. Economic Development Minister Colin Hansen, who along with Gary Mar, Alberta's minister of international and intergovernmental relations, recently spoke about TILMA to the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce." It also stated, "TILMA has a two-year phase-in period to allow business, professional organizations and governments to harmonize their standards and regulations. There's also a dispute-settlement process that can be triggered by either jurisdiction or a private company. It gives TILMA enforceability and could result in penalties of up to $5 million per occurrence."

This article can be found at

http://www.businessedge.ca/article.cfm/newsID/14146.cfm


REPORT ON TILMA FROM THE NATIONAL UNION OF PUBLIC AND GENERAL EMPLOYEES

3. On November 20, the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) said, "a trade deal recently signed by British Columbia and Alberta undermines the authority of elected provincial governments, now and in the future...(A new) NUPGE report, called Red Alert: It's time to stop waltzing with TILMA, calls for full public debate and consultation before anything so sweeping and potentially limiting of provincial powers is adopted."

Their 5-page report can be downloaded as a PDF at

http://www.nupge.ca/publications/trade_tilma.pdf


CONFERENCE BOARD OF CANADA ENDORSES TILMA

4. On November 20, Macleans magazine did a feature story on the Conference Board of Canada report entitled Mission Possible: Sustainable Prosperity for Canada. Mission Possible sets out five key areas for improvement, one of which is "creating a Canadian common market." The article goes on to state that, "Mission Possible is calling for more bold steps like TILMA."

This article can be found at

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/busin ... 129_137129



ONTARIO FEDERATION OF LABOUR OPPOSES TILMA

5. On November 13, the Ontario Federation of Labour issued an open letter to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty. The letter from OFL President Wayne Samuelson stated, "TILMA enables commercial interests to sue government for regulations they don't like. In this sense it goes even beyond NAFTA's Chapter 11, as it allows law suits over "any matter regarding the interpretation or application of this Agreement." In our opinion, this provision gives business unprecedented and unwarranted power over democratic government."

The full text of this letter can be read at

http://ofl.ca/index.php/message_from_th ... /index_in/
trade_investment_and_labour_mobility_agreements_tilma/


Thanks,
Brent

Brent Patterson
Director of Organizing
The Council of Canadians

[Oscar]

This letter has been sent to many concerned citizens across Canada, the Federation of Labour Presidents in every province and territory in Canada, and all NDP MLA's and Cabinet Ministers.
=================================

December 7. 2006

Friends,

Attached (Below) is a copy of a letter of reply from Saskatchewan Minister of Government Relations, Harry Van Mulligen to a Saskatchewan citizen who has written letters opposed to the Saskatchewan Government signing on to the "right-wing" Alberta-B.C. Trade Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement.

The Saskatchewan Government has "no mandate" whatsoever to enter into an agreement that was created by the two most right-wing, anti-union, anti-democratic, pro-big-business governments in the country.

The TILMA is NOT a "labour mobility" agreement - it is a "Corporate Bill of Rights" created by Klein and Campbell to satisfy their "big-business" backers. It is not good for workers, or families, or students, or ordinary citizens.

Contrary to what Mr. Van Mulligan and the bureaucrats in his department profess - the Alberta-B.C. TILMA strips away the rights of citizens and it strips away the ability of their duly elected governments to act in the public interest - in favour of pandering to the corporate elite.

I expect better from my government. If the Saskatchewan NDP can champion the rights of farmers to have a vote on the retention of the Canadian Wheat Board (which is the farmers right), then this same government must champion the rights of the citizens of this province to have a say (and a vote) on whether or not we want to sign on to an agreement that strips away our democratic rights in favour of preferential treatment for corporations - most of which are controlled by multi-national, U.S. based interests.

I also expect a broad-based public consultation, and a balanced analysis. Such analysis must include representations from "progressive" economists, including those representing the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Council of Canadians, the Canadian Labour Movement, and others.


Yours truly,


Larry Hubich
President
Saskatchewan Federation of Labour

Attached:

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]

Investment provisions the draconian side of TILMA

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news ... af37ffcbc4

Vancouver Sun December 13, 2006

Murray Dobbin

Last April the governments of B.C. and Alberta signed an agreement called the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA). There was no public notice, little media coverage, no legislation introduced to give it legitimacy and no debate in the legislature. The Alberta-based think tank, the Canada West Foundation, says TILMA will rid the provinces of barriers that "frustrate business".

The most draconian aspect of TILMA is its investment provisions. Once the agreement enters into force on April 1, 2007, individuals and businesses will gain the right to launch complaints and get up to $5 million in awards against governments just because they “restrict” investment. Since pretty much everything a government does in some way restricts investment, the two provinces are in for a wild ride.

TILMA claims will be decided by NAFTA-like panels.

What are some examples of government restrictions on investment that could be challenged under TILMA? TILMA has some exceptions, but land use planning is not one of them. The Agricultural Land Commission, the Island Trusts, regional districts and land use restrictions in provincial parks will all be vulnerable to a TILMA challenge as of next April.

Municipalities will have a two-year grace period before the government extends TILMA to them. They could then be challenged for regulating the size and location of commercial signs and billboards, imposing height restrictions on buildings, or requiring green space allocations from developers. And they can be challenged starting in April if they introduce bylaws that are stricter than their existing ones.

We can get some idea of what we might be in for by looking at Oregon. A ballot measure approved in 2004 gives property owners there the right to sue for compensation for anything the state or local governments do that restricts the value of their property. The result is the effective end of land use planning. According to Sheila Martin, Director of the Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies, the ballot measure has resulted in over 6,000 claims totalling over $6 billion.

“The biggest impact of the measure,” says Martin, “has been on Oregon’s land use regulations which seek to protect farm and forest land.” Land use deregulation outside the cities has Martin especially worried: “Theurban growth boundary will become ‘leaky,’ releasing pressure for higher density in the cities.” Many challenges have been filed against “sign ordinances” regulating the size and location of commercial signs.

Like the dilemma BC and Alberta will face under TILMA, Oregon is now having to decide whether to pay compensation to keep their regulations, or waive them for the complainant. The trouble is, there is no limit to the number of claims that can be made against a single regulation - so if you want to keep it, you have to keep paying.

How many claims will BC get? Oregon allows anyone with property in the state to sue over land use regulation. TILMA gives Albertans the right to sue BC over restrictions on their BC investments, and vice versa. But Gordon Campbell is hocking TILMA to all the other provinces to get them to sign on, which would expand the potential number of complaints against BC. And under TILMA complaints can be made against a wide range of government regulations or programs, not just land use planning.

TILMA allows for a limited number of “Legitimate Objectives” so governments can try to defend themselves before a dispute panel, arguing their regulations were "necessary." But nothing in TILMA ecognizes the kind of quality of life objectives served by land use planning.

Moreover, a government would also have to demonstrate that its measure is not more restrictive to business than necessary to achieve its objectives.

BC officials are making extravagant claims about trade barriers between the provinces, suggesting that TILMA could “save” BC $4.8 billion - an eye-popping figure, equivalent to what BC earns annually from its softwood exports to the US. In October, federal officials told a Senate committee that reliable studies have estimated inter-provincial trade barriers to be about one tenth the amount BC is claiming, and vary depending on what is defined as a trade barrier. Is the removal of land use restrictions part of the "benefits" to be gained by TILMA? What about the drop in property values that could result from uncontrolled development?

Alberta cabinet minister Gary Mar told a Richmond business audience the easy process TILMA provides for complaints to be taken against governments is "everything Canadian business asked for." He was right about that. But what about everyone else?

[Oscar]

TILMA spells bad news for workers

The Commonwealth Journal   Vol 66 Issue 5

http://www.saskndp.com/cw/66.5/opinion- ... dnews.html

opinion by Don Kossick

NDP members and the Saskatchewan public should be aware of the B.C./Alberta Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) signed in April, 2006.

If Saskatchewan signs onto this deal it will have far reaching consequences.

Negotiated without any public input this "free trade" deal implements the following measures:

Private individuals can sue and get up to $5 million in compensation for regulations, polices and programs that "impair or restrict" investment, trade or labour mobility;

It (TILMA) is a Western Canada free trade deal with a vengeance... Our government must reject any overtures to be part of this deal.

Goes far beyond NAFTA in enabling commercial interests to sue for regulations they do not like;

Recognizes only certain government objectives as legitimate. (Objectives not recognized as legitimate include preservation of agricultural land, conservation of heritage sites, maintenance of scenic views, promotion of small business, neighborhood and rural development);

Makes B.C. and Alberta regulations the same forever (all B.C. mining regulations will forever remain as minimal as Alberta's, and if Saskatchewan joined, Saskatchewan's regulations would be made the same as B.C. and Alberta, making it impossible for Saskatchewan voters to have their concerns acted on by any future government);

All professional requirements will be harmonized (higher standards for B.C. teachers certification will be targeted for elimination).

It is a Western Canada free trade deal with a vengeance. It will commit all future B.C. and Alberta governments to automatically support expansion of trade agreements. Both provinces will be committed to promoting cross border transfers of energy, including into the U.S. And, all purchasing decisions by provincial governments, local governments, crown corporations, school boards, and universities could be challenged and overturned for purchases costing as little as ten thousand dollars. Even the exceptions in the agreement for areas like water are targeted to be reduced on an annual basis.

It is highly undemocratic promoting the interests of non-resident corporations over citizens and local communities.

There will be strong pressures to include Saskatchewan in this agreement. This could be disastrous wiping out social, economic, labour, environmental rights and standards that have been achieved over the years for citizens and communities.

Our government must reject any overtures to be part of this deal.

[Oscar]

Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Saskatchewan - Saskatchewan Notes - Dec. 2006 Issue

[b]Examining the Implications of TILMA for Saskatchewan
by Loretta Gerlach

Introduction

What is TILMA, and what would it mean for Saskatchewan?

On April 28, 2006 the governments of Alberta and British Columbia signed the Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) scheduled to come into effect April 1, 2007 and with the intention of full implementation and effect by April 1, 2009.

This agreement formally commits Alberta and British Columbia to far reaching rules affecting trade, investment and labour mobility. Proponents describe it as a form of economic union between the two provinces; opponents describe it as a bill of rights for corporations.

The TILMA aims to expand upon the 1994 Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT). The first Article reads that where there is an inconsistency between TILMA and the AIT “the provision that is more conducive to liberalized trade, investment and labour mobility prevails between the Parties”.1 While the AIT has often been criticized by the business community for being an unenforceable political arrangement, TILMA is fundamentally different.

TILMA would be binding on governments and would allow individuals and businesses to directly challenge government regulations, and to obtain monetary awards for agreement violations that negatively affect their investments.

Alberta and B.C. recently tabled their agreement with the federal-provincial Committee of Ministers on Internal Trade and invited other provinces to sign on to it. The Saskatchewan Government is currently investigating the possibility of signing onto TILMA.

There are four main components of TILMA. The first is a commitment to reduce so-called barriers to trade and investment in member provinces. Article 3 of TILMA reads that "Each Party shall ensure that its measures do not operate to restrict or impair trade between or through the territory of the Parties, or investment or labour mobility between the Parties".2

Article 5(3) reads that the "Parties shall not establish new standards or regulations that operate to restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility”.3 This means that in principle the parties must engage in fully liberalized trade and investment unless there is a “legitimate objective” to restrict it. Legitimate objectives include items such as protection of the environment, public order, the provision of social services and health services within the province, and consumer protection. However, in order for a Province to utilize a legitimate objectives argument to enact or maintain a restriction that otherwise would violate the agreement, it would face the high hurdle of having to demonstrate that its purpose was legitimate and could not be achieved through less restrictive means.

The second feature of TILMA is a commitment that member governments will not restrict or prohibit investment. Investment in TILMA is defined very broadly as:

"a) an enterprise;
b) financial assets, including money, shares, bonds, debentures, partnership rights, receivables, inventories, capital assets, options and goodwill;
c) the acquisition of financial assets; or
d) the establishment, acquisition or expansion of an enterprise”.4

The Role of the Saskatchewan Government

The Premier of Saskatchewan has made public commitments to engage in public consultations on the implications of Saskatchewan joining TILMA before the government will sign. On December 6, 2006 The Saskatoon Star Phoenix reported that according to Government Relations Minister Harry Van Mulligen, a comprehensive review of the agreement is underway and the government intends to decide whether to join TILMA in January, 2007.5 While such statements are welcome, their vagueness and the short timeframe raise grave concerns about how substantial they are and in particular whether the government’s plans for consultation and analysis match the significance of adopting the comprehensive agreement. Criticisms have arisen in Alberta and British Columbia that there was a dearth of public consultation and awareness prior to the signing of TILMA and that no sectoral analyses have been made public. Nor was there any legislative debate in either province prior to signing.
Saskatchewan would be wise to learn from these objections.

With respect to economic analysis, the Provincial Government has commissioned the Conference Board of Canada to undertake an analysis of the economic implications for Saskatchewan to join TILMA. The Conference Board of Canada is a nonprofit organization with a self-described mission to “build leadership capacity for a better Canada by creating and sharing insights on economic trends, public policy and organizational performance”. 6

Unfortunately, its past record of academic quality is overshadowed in this case by a perception of bias in favour of TILMA. In their May 2006 report “Death by a Thousand Paper Cuts: The Effect of Barriers to Competition on Canadian Productivity” 7 the authors make specific policy recommendations that are consistent with TILMA. Maclean’s Magazine reports that the Conference Board of Canada will be calling for more “bold steps like TILMA” in a report entitled "Mission Impossible", to be released in January 2007. 8 While the Saskatchewan government may garner valuable information from its Conference Board contract, the current process cannot legitimately be seen as a substitute for substantial public consultation that TILMA requires.

The Roots of the Problem

TILMA is a broad and comprehensive trade agreement. Its binding commitment to extensive ‘liberalization’ of trade, investment and labour mobility, coupled with its specific and detailed private dispute settlement mechanism, backed up by enforceable monetary awards, makes it is one of the most far reaching trade and investment agreements ever signed by a government in Canada. There are a number of significant and potential negative impacts that could be faced by citizens of Saskatchewan should the provincial government choose to sign on to the agreement.

The agreement would undermine the authority of local governments—including democratically chosen bodies such as municipal governments, school boards, university boards and health regions—to make democratic decisions in the interests of their constituents. Although there is a two year transitional period before the agreement would fully extend to
"municipalities and municipal organizations", as soon as the agreement comes into force, they would be subject to pressure under the agreement for any bylaws they enact that are stricter than their existing ones. Many of the decisions these democratic bodies make – including procurement decisions, zoning requirements and service provision - would be subject to TILMA rules if Saskatchewan were to sign the agreement. For example, local government would no longer be able to utilize local hiring provisions or local purchasing preferences should they so choose. Local and regional elected bodies are generally the closest to the grassroots and maintaining their decision-making abilities intact is important for democratic governance. Regrettably, to date there has been limited consultation with these elected leaders.

TILMA could also threaten governments’ unfettered ability to provide support for rural development specific to the needs of economically depressed or otherwise challenged regions. Such assistance programs could be seen as restricting trade or distorting investment decisions and governments could face challenges to them for being contrary to TILMA rules. Important Saskatchewan-specific programs, such as the Northern Development Fund could be at serious risk.

The relationship between the decisions of TILMA dispute panels and decisions by established provincial judicial bodies is also of concern. A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld that the foreign investor dispute mechanism under the North American Free Trade Agreement, which can supersede judicial decisions, is constitutionally acceptable in Canada. There is no explicit language in TILMA that recognizes a superior authority of the Courts in the provinces. Trade panels generally do not consider other aspects of law even where their
rulings impinge upon human rights and other fundamental issues. If panel decisions can in effect trump the decisions of provincial Courts, this would
be a matter of significant concern.

As is the case in many trade agreements and disputes, the consequences are often unknown until they are tested through the dispute resolution process. Human rights are one area where there may be unexpected
and/or potential negative consequences. Long fought battles for issues like pay equity, employment equity and basic rights against discrimination and harassment would seem to be at odds with the overall goals of TILMA. In the event of disputes involving these policies, governments would be required to justify them before dispute panellists in terms of the agreement’s narrow or undefined exceptions. It is evident that the architects of TILMA were concerned almost exclusively with economic issues. For example, in Part VII (General Definitions), TILMA states that “affirmative action programs for disadvantaged groups” are a legitimate objective for which the parties can make certain decisions that otherwise interfere with TILMA’s goals.

Unfortunately, affirmative action is largely an American concept. In Canada, employment equity— a distinct process for achieving equality in all aspects of employment—has been the term largely used since Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella, then Commissioner of the Royal Commission on Equality in Employment, coined it in 1984. The TILMA does not specify employment equity as a “legitimate objective”.

Need for Further Consultation and Investigation

In order for any government to make such a farreaching decision to adopt TILMA—and thus to place economic development and policy above democratic processes and human rights—there must be a firm mandate from constituents. As a crucial first step, the Government of Saskatchewan should begin to engage in full, comprehensive public education and consultation.

The Government needs to conduct comprehensive and participatory sectoral analyses of the implications of signing such a radical agreement as TILMA.

Government departments should enact their own research and consultation processes with their key stakeholders as well as their research and policy analysts who best know and understand the issues facing and processes followed in those portfolios.

These key government departments include but are not limited to Government Relations – Municipal Government, Northern Affairs, Health, Learning, Advanced Education and Employment, Industry and Resources, Agriculture and Food, Liquor and Gaming, Justice, Labour, and each Crown Corporation. For too long departments have depended on Government Relations to conduct all the research and analyses on trade agreements in areas where trade specialists have little or no expertise.

We now need to call on the departments to bring forward their expertise to ensure that a new expansive ‘trade’ agreement, with its binding rules, cannot trump other issues that are vital to the unique social fabric of Saskatchewan.

There is no good reason for the provinces to rush to a decision on TILMA. Each government has a responsibility to ensure that they have a clear mandate from the citizenry to proceed in such a radical manner. Before proceeding any further on TILMA, the Government of Saskatchewan must assure citizens that it respects responsible governance and is committed to ethics and human rights. The government should demonstrate its commitment to the value of democracy by embarking on comprehensive consultations on TILMA with the people of Saskatchewan.

Loretta Gerlach is a Sessional Instructor in the Departments of Justice Studies and Sociology at the University of Regina. She gratefully acknowledges the feedback of Dr. Jim Grieshaber-Otto and Ellen Gould who provided valuable input on earlier drafts of this paper.

Sources cited:
1 From the TILMA agreement between Alberta and British Columbia, available at
http://www.gov.bc.ca/bcgov/content/docs ... final.pdf;
Internet, accessed November 29, 2006

2 ibid

3 ibid

4 ibid

5 Woods, James (2006 December 06) “Government May Make Energy Pitch to U.S. President Hopefuls”, Saskatoon Star Phoenix.

6 From the Conference Board of Canada website, http://www.conferenceboard.ca/who.htm; Internet; accessed December 10, 2006

7 Available from the Conference Board of Canada at
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/cgibin/MsmGo.exegrab_id=
0&EXTRA_ARG=&CFGNAME=MssFind.cfg&host_id=42&page_id=324
3&query=death%20by%20a%20thousand%20paper20cuts&hiword=a
%20by%20DEATHS%20thousand%20death%20cuts%20THOUSANDS%20PAPERS%20PAPERBASED%20paper%20DEATHLY%20;
Internet; accessed December 1, 2006

8 Preville, Philip (2006 November 27) “Exclusive Report: How to Fix Canada - On the Brink”, MacLean’s Magazine

The CCPA is an independent, non-partisan research institute concerned with issues of social and economic justice. Founded in 1980, the CCPA is Canada's leading progressive research institute for public policy.
By combining solid research with extensive outreach, we work to enrich democratic dialogue and ensure Canadians know there are workable solutions to the issues we face. We offer analysis and policy options to the media, general public, social justice and labour organizations, academia and government. We produce research studies, policy briefs, books, editorials and commentary, and other publications, including our monthly magazine the CCPA Monitor.

The Saskatchewan office of CCPA was opened in 2001. If you would like more information about CCPA-SK or to be on our electronic distribution list please contact us.

Canadian Centre for Policy Alternative -Saskatchewan
#105-2505, 11th Avenue, Regina, SK S4P 0K6
Ph: 306-924-CCPA (924-3372)
Email: ccpasask@sasktel.net
Website: www.policyalternatives.ca

[Oscar]

No Analysis Done on TILMA

December 21, 2006

To: All NDP MLAs

RE: Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA)

As you are likely now aware, the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour and our affiliates have grave concerns about the potential for the Saskatchewan Government to sign onto the Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) with Alberta and British Columbia.

Specifically, we are concerned and troubled that the Government has not done a comprehensive analysis of the potential impacts of TILMA. As we know from previous Canadian experiences with trade agreements, often we are unsure of the implications until the agreement is tested by the dispute resolution process.

At this time, I am posing a number of critical questions to you. It is my goal to ensure that you personally have a complete and detailed understanding of each question, and its answer, before your Government makes any further movement towards signing TILMA. If you are unable to answer these questions for me or only have answers that may have negative implications for Saskatchewan working people, then I am calling on your Government not to sign it.

In addition, I would ask that you encourage the Premier to attend a briefing that the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has offered to arrange with Dr. Jim Grieshaber-Otto, an expert on trade agreements from British Columbia. I believe Dr. Grieshaber-Otto would provide valuable information about TILMA’s potential impacts, information necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the agreement.

My questions are as follows:

1. I understand that a key difference between the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) and TILMA is the existence of an enforcement mechanism, and that trade policy bureaucrats in the provincial government feel that the AIT is ineffective due to a lack of compliance mechanisms. In addition, I understand that it is suggested TILMA will not force governments to change potentially offending measures.

Under the dispute resolution process of TILMA, however, individuals, companies, and governments would be able to challenge breeches of TILMA by the Saskatchewan Government and its entities at a dispute panel.

What kinds of regulations or programs of government within the Saskatchewan economy currently exist that would constitute contraventions of TILMA?

2. We are told by the trade bureaucrats that TILMA cannot compel a government to change its regulations – which is technically true. While there is nothing in TILMA that directly forces a government to deregulate, the dispute panel process in which governments can be fined up to $5 million is obviously a disincentive for governments to create new regulations. TILMA does provide for significant financial compensation for complainants in lieu of said changes. How then is the government going to appropriately budget to pay for compensation under panel decisions?

3. Article 34 of TILMA indicates that there is a time limit of two years on a party to initiate dispute panel proceedings. It also indicates that only one proceeding on a subject may occur at any given time. If a measure affects multiple parties, am I to understand that it would be first come-first serve for resolution by a panel? I am concerned that there is no language in TILMA that would prevent more than one party from initiating proceedings against a particular government regulation. Although only one party can have their grievance heard at panel at a time, am I correct in assuming that there is nothing to prevent a separate party from initiating proceedings against the government on the same issue, at a later date within the two-year specified timeline? Should the Government be ordered to pay a fine by the panel, could it end up being fined twice for the same breech of TILMA?

4. There are some exemptions in TILMA as well as potential “legitimate objectives”. However, it is my understanding that in order to demonstrate a legitimate objectives reasoning for a decision, a Government or entity needs to demonstrate that the same objective could not be accomplished with a less trade restrictive measure. Can you ensure that each relevant Government department and entity has been educated on the role of legitimate objectives and how this language will impact their operations, legislation, policies and regulations?

5. Local hiring provisions, local or union preference procurement, and regional economic assistance programs are all potential violations of TILMA. Can you confirm that the provincial government, the municipalities, local school boards, health regions, or universities, for example, will never wish to hire in favour of local interests? TILMA is being described as an agreement to increase labour mobility, but can we really say that our local governments should not be able to determine at some point in the future whether or not they wish to hire locally? Do you believe that it is in the best interest of our local economies to potentially force governing bodies to hire from outside the province simply because we cannot favour Saskatchewan-based workers or companies? How does this impact the Province’s efforts to recruit and maintain hard-to-retain positions such as the Registered Nurse bursary program?

6. What would the precise impact of TILMA be on Government entities such as municipalities, school boards, health regions, and post-secondary institutions? Are these entities aware of how TILMA would impact their abilities to govern and to regulate their respective areas?

7. TILMA is designed from an economic perspective and it is concerned only with the issues and matters contained within. If there is a conflict between the purely economic goals of TILMA and a human rights issue that is not covered by the narrow scope of legitimate objectives, how would we guarantee that the human rights perspective of a matter is protected? For example, TILMA exempts affirmative action, but Canada does not use affirmative action, but rather employment equity. Are employment equity programs protected under TILMA? What about Representative Workforce Initiatives, are they protected?

8. Given the recent ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal on the constitutionality of NAFTA investor-state litigation, and given the comprehensive dispute mechanism in TILMA, what do you think will happen if a judicial decision conflicts with a TILMA panel decision? Can a dispute panel, whose decisions are binding, overrule a judicial decision?

9. What would happen to region-specific initiatives such as the Northern Development Fund under TILMA rules and harmonization processes?

10. My final question is one most critical to my constituents, the workers of Saskatchewan. TILMA exempts labour standards and codes, minimum wages and workers’ compensation. However, would the rights of Saskatchewan citizens under the Trade Union Act be preserved since unionization rights have not been exempted under TILMA? Saskatchewan workers enjoy a superior standard of rights than do their Alberta and British Columbia counterparts. I see no language in TILMA to protect the rights of unionized or unionizing workers and in fact, I see the application of Articles 3 and 5 would lead to the demise of these superior standards of rights.

Thank you in advance for addressing these questions and concerns and request your written reply.

Sincerely,


Larry Hubich
President

[Oscar]

TILMA Origins

December 24, 2006

Someone is trying to get to the root of the problem.

What is the problem?

This 58 pager seems to be pointing the finger at Canadian Agriculture. As if we aren’t having enough of a hard time making it on the farm. As I had been thinking all along with these CFO’s, the reason they are coming in is to weed more of us off the land.

They refer to trade barriers between provinces but the comparison to the American way is used much too often in this paper. Just because the Americans appear to be doing better than us at some things that doesn’t necessarily mean they are better than us at everything.

In fact, the very reason why the US is fighting with us all the time is that they see Canadian farmers as a threat to them making a profit. They have managed to control us at the elevator gate and now they want to control us while we are still sitting on the tractor seat.

With this new TILMA they will have a much easier time to have their way with us. The bigger question is, why are our provincial leaders going along with this?

We can almost compare this to the ladies walking the streets who are selling their bodies. The instant dollar is more important than the future ahead?

Denis Sauvageau

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

Death by a Thousand Paper Cuts: The Effect of Barriers to Competition on Canadian Productivity by Paul Darby, Kip Beckman, Yves St-Maurice and Dan Lemaire at:

http://www.gov.bc.ca/ecdev/down/173_06_ ... tition.pdf

From Page 2: Preface

There is evidence that competition-enhancing policies can foster higher productivity and economic growth. This report examines the extent of the barriers to competition in Canada and their impact on productivity. The report concludes that there is a legacy of international and internal protection that inhibits the development of competitive

markets. Canadian productivity could be enhanced by eliminating barriers that impair the effective functioning of markets, especially in a core group of primary and manufacturing industries. The results are important in shaping policy approaches to closing the Canada–U.S. productivity gap.

About The Conference Board of Canada

We are:

• A not-for-profit Canadian organization that takes a business-like approach to its operations.

• Objective and non-partisan. We do not lobby for specific interests.

• Funded exclusively through the fees we charge for services to the private and public sectors.

• Experts in running conferences but also at conducting, publishing and disseminating research, helping people network, developing individual leadership skills and building organizational capacity.

• Specialists in economic trends, as well as organizational performance and public policy issues.

• Not a government department or agency, although we are often hired to provide services for all levels of government.

• Independent from, but affiliated with, The Conference Board, Inc. of New York, which serves nearly 2,000 companies in 60 nations and has offices in Brussels and Hong Kong.oar

Printed in Canada • All rights reserved

ISSN 0827-1070 • ISBN 0-88763-727-2


From Page. 4 - LEAD INVESTOR: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

Academic Research Funding Partner: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

The Conference Board of Canada is solely responsible for the content of this document, including any errors or omissions.

Accenture Inc.
Alberta Ministry of Municipal Affairs
Banque Nationale du Canada
BCE Inc.
Bombardier Transportation
Business Development Bank of Canada
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
CGI Group Inc.
Deloitte & Touche LLP
E.I. du Pont Canada Company
EnCana Corporation - http://www.encana.com/
Ernst & Young LLP
Forest Products Association of Canada
General Electric Canada Inc.
George Weston Limited
Harris Steel Group Inc.
IBM Canada Ltd.
Imperial Oil Limited
Lafarge Canada Inc.
Le Groupe Canam Manac Inc.
Manulife Financial Corporation
Mercer Delta Consulting Limited
Microsoft Canada Inc.
Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Trade
Power Corporation of Canada
Pratt & Whitney Canada
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
RBC Financial Group
SaskEnergy Incorporated
SNC-Lavalin Group Inc.
Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada
Sun Life Financial Inc.
Syncrude Canada Ltd.
TD Bank Financial Group
TELUS Corporation
The Bank of Nova Scotia
The Co-operators Group Limited
Toronto Hydro Corporation
TransAlta Corporation
UBS Securities Canada Inc.
Unilever Canada Inc.
Xerox Canada Ltd.

[Oscar]

New trade pact gives away provincial rights

http://cupe.ca/trade/New_Trade_Pact_gives

Dec 21, 2006 02:17 PM

Would you be surprised if you woke up one morning to find that your provincial government had signed away many of its rights to govern, including the right to have economic development programs? Would it shock you if the government also signed away the right of towns and cities to regulate on behalf of their citizens, including zoning?

This is what residents of British Columbia and Alberta woke up to in April 2006. It is what people in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario may wake up to if their provinces sign on to the British Columbia/Alberta Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA).

The trade and investment provisions of the agreement contain elements that go far beyond those found in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
How far does the deal go? The Canada West Foundation’s Todd Hirsch told the Winnipeg Free Press that for all intents and purposes, TILMA erased “the provincial boundary for all purposes except voting and the colour of the license plate.”

The agreement’s language is explicit. The parties want to eliminate measures that restrict trade or investment. TILMA covers more than just provincial rules: local governments, school boards, colleges, universities, health institutions and social services are all included in the deal.

While municipal governments are not covered by the agreement until 2009, TILMA says that during the transition period, local governments cannot change or even “renew” any measures that don’t conform to the agreement.

Business subsidies are verboten. Regional economic development measures are permitted only in “exceptional circumstances” and only if they do not distort investment. Joint federal-provincial grants to business under programs like the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Western Economic Diversification program would probably not be permitted. Ontario’s support for automakers would also be banned.

Almost any local government action will be open to challenge. For example, an investor might decide a zoning change had “restricted” her right to investment. Ethical purchasing programs will be out of the question.

Labour mobility provisions will result in a leveling down of (standards A province will have to justify that higher standards are “legitimate” and any difference will only be permitted if less restrictive options were not available. It has been almost impossible to meet this test in the international agreements TILMA copies.

Corporations that think their rights have been infringed on can bring claims under the agreement. Penalties for infractions are harsh – up to $5 million.

TILMA’s economic benefits are wildly exaggerated. They are based on Fraser Institute estimates made before Canadian provinces signed an interprovincial trade deal in the 1990s. Many economists suggest resulting savings will be small.

The deal does give corporations the whip hand in getting rid of regulations they don’t like. What sort of things is being described as trade barriers? A May 2006 Conference Board report lists the following:



“Fire marshal regulations are stricter, and they are constantly monitored in Ontario. We don’t believe this is the case in Quebec, and this presents an uneven playing field.”
“An organization in the professional, scientific and technical sector felt that Alberta’s Occupational Health and Safety Act placed undue financial pressure on the company.” (While some labour measures are exempted by TILMA, health and safety is not among them.)
“The respondent was also concerned about the province’s proposed 'ticketing' act which would discriminate against employers in the province. If an employer decided to fire a worker without two weeks’ notice, the employer would still be required to compensate that employee for two weeks of pay.”

When the only difference between provinces is the “colour of the license plate,” provinces and municipalities will not have the right to create new laws and regulations to meet the needs of their citizens. Many of the differences between provinces reflect different realities and legitimate decisions made to serve citizens. They are not trade barriers: they are democratic choices.

Canadians should have a say in decisions that fundamentally change not only the political reality of their governments but the balance of power between corporations and those governments. British Columbians and Albertans should demand public hearings on this agreement. People in other provinces considering TILMA should demand a higher standard of democracy than our two western provinces are willing to allow.

[Oscar]

Making the Links Radio is doing a special on the impact of TILMA with Ellen Gould this Wednesday - Jan 3rd at 6 pm and Friday, Jan 5th at 7 pm.

It is on 90.5 FM radio in Saskatoon and is broadcasted as well through Sasktel Max at channel 520.

All the best into the New Year!

Don

www.makingthelinksradio.ca

[Oscar]

UPDATE: The Ontario Government's position on TILMA – January 16, 2007

Sandra Pupatello, Ontario's Minister of Economic Development and Trade, said in a November 28, 2006 speech:

"For years, governments and countries have geared their alliances on a north/south axis. That's what economies dictated. But now opportunities for partnerships exist within the borders of our own country - between east and west. It's important that we find "made-in-Canada" solutions. As our Finance Minister Greg Sorbara indicated in his recent Fall economic Statement, we should encourage inter-provincial trade by matching the industrial needs in Alberta with the industrial capacity in Ontario. We should also explore the merits of joining the Alberta-British Columbia trade agreement."

A CanWest News Service report from October 18, 2006 noted that, "Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty says he wants in on the free-trade agreement signed earlier this year by British Columbia and Alberta."

McGuinty said the BC-Alberta agreement, "...has been very well received by Albertans and British Columbians alike, notwithstanding some of the concerns raised by various groups. For us here in Ontario, undoubtedly there will be some concerns raised by some labour groups for example...(but) the issue is whether or not we think that we're strong enough to compete - whether we can be seen as an attractive jurisdiction for investment and for workers. I think it's a step in the right direction for us to move toward ultimately a state where there is free trade actually within this country."

For information on the British Columbia-Alberta Trade Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) go to the Council of Canadians website at http://www.canadians.org/DI/issues/TILMA/index.html

If you live in the following ridings and want to provide comments critical of TILMA to your MPP you can reach:

* Sandra Pupatello, Ontario's Minister of Economic Development and Trade and MPP for Windsor-West, at spupatello.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org

* Greg Sorbara, Ontario's Finance Minister and MPP for Vaughan-King-Aurora, at gsorbara.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org

* Dalton McGuinty, Ontario's Premier and MPP for Ottawa-South, at dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org

If you live in Alberta or British Columbia, you may want to e-mail the Ontario premier and take exception to his statement that TILMA "...has been very well received by Albertans and British Columbians alike, notwithstanding some of the concerns raised by various groups."

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

Letter from Colin J. Williams:

January 16, 2007

Minister Greg Sorbara,
Minister of Finance
Government of Ontario

Dear Minister Sorbara:

I hope that, before committing to the British Columbia-Alberta Trade Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA), you will publish a white paper setting out the benefits and disadvantages of this particular arrangement. Clearly, one of the potential disadvantages is the loss of provincial autonomy.

Minister Pupatello recently pointed to our unhealthy dependence on trade with the United States. Through NAFTA, we have sacrificed our national freedom of choice, with limited benefit. In spite of having the best unemployment level for 30 years, our unemployment level continues to be significantly worse that of the US. Think of the loss of productive capacity.

I can remember the day when Canada had a large merchant navy and traded with the world. Yes, we need to improve our intra-provincial trade but we also need measures to stench the outflow of Canadian industry and to encourage trade beyond N. America.

Best wishes,


Colin J. Williams
Brockville, ON

[Oscar]

Conspiracy theorists given a free run at continental pact

Barbara Yaffe, Vancouver Sun

Published: Tuesday, January 23, 2007

An inept public relations strategy has led to raging hysteria from critics in Canada and the U.S. about a common-sense effort under way to strengthen the position of North American business and ensure continental security.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership was first conjured up in March 2005 at meeting in Waco, Texas, of George W. Bush, Paul Martin and Vicente Fox. One year later in Cancun, Bush, Fox and newly elected Stephen Harper announced a North American Competitiveness Council to help implement the continental strategy.

Then, last September, a subsequent meeting was held without fanfare in Banff. It featured business leaders and politicians from the NAFTA partners. No media were invited. The so-called "secret" Banff meeting set off alarm bells among nationalists and protectionists in both Canada and the U.S.

Full article at:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/colu ... 2ec7805284

[Oscar]

Corporate Rights Deal to Make Us April Fools

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/01/24/TILMA/

TILMA will strip our ability to set local limits.

By Murray Dobbin January 24, 2007 TheTyee.ca

By now most Tyee readers will have heard of TILMA, the corporate rights agreement signed by Gordon Campbell and Ralph Klein in April of last year. The agreement -- the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement -- was first pitched as a deal that would create a western "powerhouse" of the two fastest growing provinces.

But that populist bromide didn't last long when it was discovered this fall that TILMA is actually being peddled to every province in the country and is backed heavily by the Harper government.

What TILMA is actually intended to do is to advance another, much larger agenda, the one often referred to as "deep integration" and now a formal agreement between the three NAFTA partners. It's called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). The SPP will see Canada effectively harmonize virtually every important area of public policy with the U.S.: defence, foreign policy, energy (they get security, we get greenhouse gases), culture, social policy, tax policy, drug testing and safety and much more.

But to "harmonize" Canadian public policy with the U.S. requires massive deregulation across the country. Much of that regulation is provincial and municipal, over which Ottawa has no control. That's where TILMA comes in. I have to admit it's clever, if they ultimately get away with it. Prepare the country for assimilation into the U.S. by promoting an agreement that claims to be about domestic, inter-provincial trade.

What will be harmonized through TILMA is simple enough. A fundamental political difference between Canada and the U.S. is that they have property rights in their constitution and we do not. That's no accident. When the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was negotiated between the federal government and the provinces, the idea of property rights was vigorously discussed -- and then rejected. Canada's tradition of activist government and strong social programs demanded that social rights trump the rights of investors. TILMA does an end run around that historic, democratic decision and the constitution.

Stripping our authority

They are rooted in the ever-expanding definition of property rights in the U.S., expressed in something called "regulatory takings" -- in other words, expropriation by regulation. That is what NAFTA Chapter 11 is all about. Companies can sue Canada if any regulation effectively "expropriates" the value of their property, including their capacity to make a profit.

But TILMA goes far beyond NAFTA because individuals can demand compensation (up to $5 million per challenge) if a regulation or law merely "restricts or impairs" an investment. This is an extremely low threshold for a legal challenge. One article in TILMA states outright thereshall be "no obstacle" to trade, investment or labour mobility. It could release a flood of litigation. A similar law in Oregon just dealing with land use has resulted in over 6,000 claims worth $6 billion.

TILMA comes into affect, appropriately, on April Fool's Day. There is a two-year phase-in for municipalities and school boards, and the agreement also applies to crown corporations.

What sorts of things could be affected?

When fully implemented, TILMA would allow legal challenges to the location and size of commercial signs, environmental set-backs for developers, zoning, building height restrictions, pesticide bans, and green space requirements in urban areas.

It also could allow challenges to restrictions on private health clinics, halt stricter rules for nursing homes and almost certainly overturn the current ban on junk food in B.C. schools.

With respect to the environment, regulations regarding air quality are at risk, as are restrictions on tourist developments, the establishment of ecological reserves, the Agricultural Land Reserves and the authority of the Islands Trusts.

There are exceptions to the agreement and a list of legitimate "objectives" that governments can try to protect. But even here, they have to prove to an independent dispute panel that the objective was met with the least possible restriction to business -- a very tough challenge.

Deregulation domino theory

Most so-called "trade" agreements (none of them are actually about trade, they are about investors' rights) open up an investor challenge only if a regulation or "measure" is discriminatory; that is, if it treats an investor from one country differently than another. TILMA has such a clause (Article 4) but in addition it has a clause (Article 5) that enforceswhat is called "mutual recognition." That means, for example, that an investor from Alberta can choose to bring with him to B.C. the Alberta regulations that apply to his business. One example is Vancouver rent controls. An Alberta investor could build or buy an apartment block in Vancouver and use TILMA's Article 5 to demand that rent controls not apply to his apartments.

If you have trouble believing this, here's what federal Industry Minister Maxime Bernier told the Senate banking committee when testifying about TILMA. "Mutual recognition is an important principle from the economic standpoint because...such a situation places regulators in competition with one another [for having the weakest regulations]." This is a clear expression of the race to the bottom, but perhaps the first time a government minister has ever admitted it.

There is full court press on to get TILMA implemented across the country before the citizenry figures out what is going on. A critical player in that campaign is the Conference Board of Canada (CBoC) a think-tank that until now, at least, has played a relatively moderate role in its research studies on public policy. The CBoC has done a whole flurry of studies (including a major one last week) raising the alarm about the allegedly devastating economic impact inter-provincial trade barriers are having on Canadian productivity and growth. It's an odd crisis because business has said virtually nothing about such barriers over the years. That is because such barriers, as normally understood, are minimal. That was the conclusion of a 1998 study done for the B.C. government by UBC economist Brian Copeland.

But according to the CBoC, the barriers are so onerous that if we got rid of them -- just between B.C. and Alberta -- B.C.'s GDP would leap by $4.6 billion a year. That is an amount equivalent to half our current exports to Alberta and 3.8 per cent of provincial GDP -- over 10 times previous estimates of such barriers done by Industry Canada.

To arrive at this inflated figure, Conference Board researchers arbitrarily assigned numbers to TILMA's effects in each economic sector. The study contains no hard data, no reference to other literature with actual evidence, no interviews with company CEOs, and, remarkably, no list of actual barriers to trade or investment. The study's huge numbers rely in large part on the benefits TILMA would provide to the resources sector: forestry, fisheries and mining. But these sectors are actually exempted from the agreement so will get no benefits whatsoever.

Just say whoa!

There is no attempt, either, to justify the study's unorthodox methodology, which seems designed to result in its radical conclusions. A CBoC survey sent to selected Saskatchewan businesses for the government there painted a very positive picture of TILMA with almost no references to potential down-sides. Indeed, the Conference Board's objectivity was put into serious question when Glen Hodgson, its chief economist, appeared before the Senate Banking Committee and declared: "We strongly endorse and welcome the agreement between B.C. and Alberta..."

As for the national cost of inter-provincial trade barriers, the CBoC admits it has no idea. It disavows the one per cent figure being attributed to the Conference Board by B.C. and Alberta politicians to promote the deal. Paul Darby, Conference Board deputy chief economist stated: "The figures don't exist. Nobody knows."

Opposition to TILMA is growing both here and in other provinces like Saskatchewan, and in the next few weeks promises to expand as municipalities, school boards, environmental groups and ordinary citizens find out about the agreement. But the promoters of this libertarian assault on government have a big head start. Much of the ability of governments to act in the public interest hangs in the balance.

[Oscar]

Letter to the Editor, Wynyard Advance:

Sent for publishing on February 7, 2007

In September, in Wadena, we formed the Quill Plains Chapter of the Council of Canadians. This is a distinctly rural chapter, aiming to be a means of mutual support for people throughout our region who are concerned about energy, agriculture, water - and the push for ‘deep integration’ with the USA.

We also aim to raise a rural voice at the national level. In October, Elaine Hughes from Archerwill represented us at the Council of Canadians Annual Meeting in Charlottetown. Elaine returned with enthusiasm from the gathering, but with grave concerns about TILMA (Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement), which hastens privatization while undermining local authority and Fair Trade.

Now, the Quill Plains Chapter is hosting an Information Meeting: Saturday, February 24, Wynyard Legion Hall, 1:00 p.m. (Potluck lunch at noon.)

Everyone is welcome.

Council of Canadians Prairie Region Organizer Lyn Gorman will speak on ENERGY (Saskatchewan and Alberta tarsands and nuclear power): What is happening? How are we being affected? What can we expect?

Marvin Meickel, Saskatchewan Federation of Labour, will speak on the prospects and dangers of TILMA for Saskatchewan and for Canada.

Many of these issues are inter-related, including climate change and the farm economy, all the local and global challenges of poverty, and the goals of peace and health.

The Council of Canadians is one good way to share concerns and make a difference.

Bill Curry
Wynyard, SK

For more information on TILMA, go to:

http://www.canadians.org/DI/issues/TILMA/index.html

[Oscar]

Facing the Facts about TILMA
http://www.canadians.org/DI/issues/TILMA/factsheet.html

February 2007

PDF version at: http://www.canadians.org/DI/documents/T ... iction.pdf

The Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) was signed by the Alberta and B.C. governments without public consultation. Now that citizens have been able to see the agreement, they have identified it as a serious threat to democracy and the ability to govern in the public interest. Opposition has been fierce and proponents of TILMA are on the defensive. The B.C. government even released a “Fact or Fiction” backgrounder this January to try to diffuse all the criticism it is getting.

The following rebuttal is designed to help you respond to proponents of TILMA who claim we are ignorant of its details. As you’ll see, the government’s arguments hold no water. The greatest strength of the case against TILMA is that it is entirely based on the wording of the agreement itself.

Fiction: “B.C. and Alberta have reserved the right to supersede the Agreement when they are pursuing a legitimate objective."

— B.C. Economic Development Minister Colin Hansen in a November 28, 2006 email to a constituent

Fact: Nothing in TILMA allows governments to supersede the agreement just because they are pursuing legitimate objectives. Article 6 of TILMA – Legitimate Objectives – allows governments to justify their measures only if they can demonstrate to the satisfaction of a dispute panel that: 1) they are pursuing one of the few objectives TILMA defines as legitimate and; 2) their measure is not more restrictive than "necessary" to achieve that objective and; 3) they are not engaged "in a disguised restriction on trade, investment, or labour mobility."

Article 6 of TILMA is crystal clear that all three requirements have to be met for governments to justify their measures. In other words, it’s not enough to claim the pursuit of legitimate objectives, as Hansen suggests. What B.C. and Alberta have created in TILMA's Article 6 is a next-to-useless defence against challenges rather than a "right to supersede the Agreement."

The track record for governments attempting to convince trade panels that their measures are "necessary" is resoundingly negative. In the six cases brought to similar panels under the existing Agreement on Internal Trade, when governments have tried to prove what they were doing was necessary, those governments have lost every time. Dispute panels have ruled that governments must demonstrate that there was nothing else they could have done to meet their objectives that would have been less restrictive – an almost impossible task.

Fiction: “TILMA does not require harmonization of regulations. Nowhere in the Agreement does it say this.”

— B.C. Ministry of Economic Development backgrounder on TILMA

Fact: Article 5.1 of TILMA requires governments to “mutually recognize or otherwise reconcile their existing standards and regulations.” In determining the meaning of “to reconcile,” dispute panels could refer to the Concise Oxford Dictionary where the term is defined as “to harmonize.” Dispute panels could also try to interpret the intent of the negotiators. The Conference Board of Canada study, which the B.C. government frequently cites as proof of the economic benefits of TILMA, talks of the agreement achieving "harmonization" and "deregulation" among the two provinces.

In fact, TILMA’s requirement that governments “mutually recognize” each others’ existing standards and regulations is an even greater threat to the public good than harmonization. Federal Industry Minister Maxime Bernier explained to a Senate banking committee that TILMA’s mutual recognition rules will put regulators in competition with each other to attract business. With mutual recognition, businesses will have the option of choosing which province's regulations they choose to operate under. This is great for the corporate bottom line, because it allows businesses to choose the weaker regulation every time, but from an environmental, public health or consumer protection perspective it means a race to the bottom.

Fiction: “In some areas the parties have agreed to reconcile or mutually recognize their standards. However, in some areas, Alberta’s standards are stricter. In other areas, British Columbia’s are stricter. The TILMA does not dictate that only the ‘lower’ standard will be adopted by both governments.”

— B.C. Ministry of Economic Development backgrounder on TILMA

Fact: TILMA enables private investors to sue governments for up to $5-million if existing regulations "restrict or impair investment" (Article 3); if regulations are not "reconciled" between the provinces (Article 5.1); and if new regulations are introduced that "restrict or impair investment" (Article 5.3). Since someone is more likely to sue because regulations are too high than if they are too low, TILMA will inevitably result in lower standards.

Article 13.2 of TILMA obligates governments to recognize the qualifications of workers certified by another province without requiring any "additional training or examinations." This means that a province must accept that a worker is certified even if his or her certification was based on lower standards in another province. A province is prohibited from imposing training and examination requirements on an out-of-province worker whose qualifications are less than what are required in his or her new province. A government will be unlikely to continue to impose heavier certification requirements on its own residents than it applies to residents from another province. TILMA will effectively push provinces to adopt the lower standard across the board.

Fiction: "If bylaws apply equally to all contractors, there is no discrimination and no complaint under TILMA."

— B.C. Ministry of Economic Development backgrounder on TILMA

Fact: Articles 4 (Non-discrimination) and 14 (Procurement) of TILMA state that governments cannot provide favourable treatment to local businesses or persons. But TILMA imposes other restrictions on governments – even when they are acting in a totally non-discriminatory way.

Article 3, for example, states that governments cannot "restrict or impair trade… or investment or labour mobility between the Parties.” Keep in mind that TILMA's definition of “investment” doesn’t just cover financial assets, but also “the establishment, acquisition or expansion of an enterprise.” So local government bylaws that limit residential or commercial development violate Article 3 because they restrict the establishment or expansion of a real estate enterprise, even though these bylaws do not discriminate between local and non-local businesses.

Fiction: "TILMA only restricts the use of business subsidies in certain narrow circumstances."

— B.C. Ministry of Economic Development backgrounder on TILMA

Fact: Article 12.1 of TILMA states that governments “shall not directly or indirectly provide business subsidies” if these subsidies "distort investment decisions." Subsidies are defined not only as grants but also as tax waivers and loans. In direct contrast with what B.C. is claiming, TILMA does not ban business subsidies only in "narrow circumstances" but in virtually all circumstances beyond the few specific exceptions listed in the agreement. As interventions in the free market, government subsidies for regional development, downtown revitalization, or to foster new industries always "distort investment decisions" and are therefore prohibited under TILMA.

Fiction: "No more than one dispute may be lodged on what is essentially the same complaint."

— B.C. Ministry of Economic Development backgrounder on TILMA

Fact: Article 34.2 states that a person may not challenge “any measure that is already the subject of proceedings.” But there is nothing in the agreement to stop a person filing the same complaint against the same government measure once those proceedings are over. Contrary to what the B.C. government is claiming, this means that repeated complaints against the same government measure are permitted under TILMA. This would put enormous pressure on governments to eliminate those measures or face repeated claims of up to $5-million in compensation for the same government program or regulation.

Fiction: "Only very serious complaints would go forward through the formal, costly dispute resolution process and would involve either discriminatory measures or measures intended to protect specific commercial interests."

— B.C. Ministry of Economic Development backgrounder on TILMA

Fact: TILMA has given businesses, investors and other individuals broader, more far-reaching grounds for challenging government programs and regulations than any existing free trade and investment agreement in Canada. Article 3, called “No Obstacles,” clearly states that governments violate the agreement whenever they "restrict or impair trade … or investment or labour mobility.”

Governments can be acting in a totally non-discriminatory way, within their constitutional authority, lawfully under domestic law, in pursuit of legitimate objectives, and still be in violation of TILMA.

TILMA has eliminated critical safeguards in the existing Agreement on Internal Trade on which it was based. For example, the Agreement on Internal Trade has a screening process that prevents complaints that are "frivolous or vexatious" or intended "to harass." It also prevents complaints that would lead to the downward harmonization of environmental and consumer protection regulations.

By eliminating these key safeguards, broadening the grounds for complaints and giving complainants the potential to win $5-million in compensation, the B.C. and Alberta governments have created a litigant’s dream. Gary Mar, Alberta's minister responsible for TILMA, told a business audience in Richmond, B.C. that, "The TILMA dispute resolution is accessible, cooperative, consultative and enforceable, everything Canadian business asked for."

Having given business everything they asked for in TILMA's dispute process, it is naïve to think they will not use it to their advantage.

For more information about TILMA, and for ideas on how to fight it, contact the Council of Canadians at 1-800-387-7177 or email inquiries@canadians.org.

[Oscar]

Labour body sounds alarm on trade pact
Alberta deal is 'a wolf in sheep's clothing'

Canadian Press February 7, 2007

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Alberta ... 0-sun.html

EDMONTON -- Alberta's free-trade agreement with British Columbia is "a wolf in sheep's clothing," says the head of the Alberta Federation of Labour.

Gil McGowan is warning other provinces that the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement isn't really about promoting labour mobility.

Instead, it's a way for companies to control elected decision makers, he said.

Union lawyers fear the deal will give companies the right to sue municipal and provincial governments and school boards that try to put privatized services under the public umbrella, Mr. McGowan says.

Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Guy Boutilier has been travelling to promote the deal, which kicks in April 1.

Other provinces have talked for ages about reducing barriers to trade, but Alberta and B.C. are "turning the talk into action," he said.

"I think it's positive, and I believe we will see more and more provinces express an interest in what we're trying to do," Mr. Boutilier said. "It's barrier busting. We're trying to eliminate red tape where it benefits people in both Alberta and B.C."

The provinces say the deal will result in savings of $4.8-billion and create 78,000 jobs.

If the agreement is so good, the deal should have been debated in the provincial legislature, rather than being negotiated behind closed doors, Liberal critic Bill Bonko says.

But Jason Clemens of the Fraser Institute said Yukon, Saskatchewan, Ontario and the Atlantic provinces are keen on this kind of agreement.

"This really could be a domino effect across the country to remove or dramatically reduce trade barriers," he said.

The first test of the deal could involve procurement of government services, Mr. Clemens said.

He said, for example, that the Alberta government could be sued and slapped with a fine if it were to choose an Alberta company over a B.C. company for a road repair contract if the bids were otherwise equal.