This is from CUPE.
I found the syntax a bit bewildering at one place:
B.C. and Alberta must recognize each other's standards, even if they are lower.
From the passages following it is clear that this is meant: B.C. and Alberta must recognize each other's standards even if one province's standard is lower than that of the other!
This could lead to an influx of B.C. students into Alberta for teacher training. They will save a full year and will be qualified to teach in B.C.
New Year's Resolution: Stop TILMA!
January 3, 2008 04:52 PM
B.C. and Alberta's Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) is a secretly negotiated, inter-provincial trade agreement that undermines democracy in both provinces, and threatens to expand across Canada. CUPE has been working with other anti-TILMA groups to push back against this destructive agreement and pressure the provincial government to abandon it or at least allow politicians to actually debate it in the legislature.
"The TILMA was designed to eliminate some mythical trade barriers between our provinces, but the agreement's supporters cannot even come up with a list of what those barriers are," says CUPE BC president Barry O'Neill. "Inter-provincial trade barriers in Canada were estimated at one-twentieth of one per cent of our economy over 20 years ago, and even the right wing think tank, the C.D. Howe Institute, reports that they have fallen ever since."
The TILMA is also supposed to remove differences in regulations that block labour mobility between the provinces, but this creates a race to the bottom as both B.C. and Alberta must recognize each other's standards, even if they are lower. On December 17, the BC College of Teachers announced that it has become TILMA-compliant by reconciling its teacher educations standards-currently requiring five years of post-secondary training for teachers-with Alberta's standards: only four years of training. The College of Teachers claims that "parents in both provinces can be assured that their children will continue to be taught by some of the most talented and dedicated teachers in the world." The problem, of course, is that B.C.'s high teacher education standards are no longer required.
The TILMA is mostly a corporate bill of rights. It allows "investors"-businesses, corporations or individuals-to sue the provincial government if any law, bylaw or regulation from the provincial government, or any municipality, school board, health authority, crown corporation or government body limits a business's ability to make money, except for laws in a very few legitimate areas. This essentially allows businesses to veto laws that they don't like.
The TILMA is designed to let businesses veto legislation from democratically elected politicians. So it is not surprising that governments do not want the agreement itself debated. In British Columbia, many groups and individuals have been pushing back against this erosion of democracy, and after several major anti-TILMA events this past year, CUPE and our allies successfully forced the government not to pass or even debate its TILMA-enabling legislation.
Showing posts with label TILMA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TILMA. Show all posts
Friday, January 11, 2008
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
TILMA and the Ontario Election
This shows the different party leaders' positions on TILMA. It is from the progressive-econ blog.
The NDP takes the strongest position against TILMA.
TILMA and the Ontario Election
Posted by Erin Weir under TILMA, labour market, regulation, unions.
October 9th, 2007
Comments: none
During the provincial campaign, Dalton McGuinty seems to have changed his tune on TILMA. This change is somewhat reminiscent of the Saskatchewan Party’s “road to Damascus” conversion on the issue.
Six months ago, McGuinty praised TILMA and mused about joining it. A couple of weeks ago, he wrote the following in response to a questionnaire from the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU):
Regarding the Trade and Investment Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA), let me assure you that our priority when studying any potential trade agreement is to ensure it would increase jobs -good jobs - here in Ontario. We will not sign an agreement that would lower or would allow for the lowering of environmental, labour, health and safety standards for Ontario workers.
We will not sign an agreement without first consulting with labour and business.
McGuinty deserves credit for backing away from his endorsement of TILMA. However, he still leaves the door wide open to joining it. Supporters of TILMA argue that it would increase employment without lowering standards. McGuinty offers no indication of whether he agrees or disagrees with this assessment.
Howard Hampton provided a far better response, which demonstrates an understanding that TILMA would reduce employment quality and provincial standards:
TILMA is a formidable instrument for de-regulation that will undermine the rights of working people. Labour standards and related measures are explicitly included as general exceptions to TILMA. This would allow companies to challenge labour standards like health and safety regulations and employment standards. Ontario’s NDP oppose any involvement in TILMA or any similar agreement.
As far as I know, John Tory has not responded to OPSEU’s questionnaire. However, his stance on TILMA is well known if contradictory.
It remains abundantly clear that the best way to stop TILMA in Ontario is to send as many New Democrats as possible to Queen’s Park on Wednesday.
Hats off to OPSEU for trying to pin down the party leaders on this important issue!
The NDP takes the strongest position against TILMA.
TILMA and the Ontario Election
Posted by Erin Weir under TILMA, labour market, regulation, unions.
October 9th, 2007
Comments: none
During the provincial campaign, Dalton McGuinty seems to have changed his tune on TILMA. This change is somewhat reminiscent of the Saskatchewan Party’s “road to Damascus” conversion on the issue.
Six months ago, McGuinty praised TILMA and mused about joining it. A couple of weeks ago, he wrote the following in response to a questionnaire from the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU):
Regarding the Trade and Investment Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA), let me assure you that our priority when studying any potential trade agreement is to ensure it would increase jobs -good jobs - here in Ontario. We will not sign an agreement that would lower or would allow for the lowering of environmental, labour, health and safety standards for Ontario workers.
We will not sign an agreement without first consulting with labour and business.
McGuinty deserves credit for backing away from his endorsement of TILMA. However, he still leaves the door wide open to joining it. Supporters of TILMA argue that it would increase employment without lowering standards. McGuinty offers no indication of whether he agrees or disagrees with this assessment.
Howard Hampton provided a far better response, which demonstrates an understanding that TILMA would reduce employment quality and provincial standards:
TILMA is a formidable instrument for de-regulation that will undermine the rights of working people. Labour standards and related measures are explicitly included as general exceptions to TILMA. This would allow companies to challenge labour standards like health and safety regulations and employment standards. Ontario’s NDP oppose any involvement in TILMA or any similar agreement.
As far as I know, John Tory has not responded to OPSEU’s questionnaire. However, his stance on TILMA is well known if contradictory.
It remains abundantly clear that the best way to stop TILMA in Ontario is to send as many New Democrats as possible to Queen’s Park on Wednesday.
Hats off to OPSEU for trying to pin down the party leaders on this important issue!
Thursday, September 27, 2007
BC Municipalities reject TILMA
This is from this site. It is not surprising that the municipalities should be upset about TILMA since Alberta and BC negotiated it without even consulting the municipalities. Of course the whole SPP business is done behind closed doors but often with the CEOs of big North AMerican companies as an advisory group the NACC.
BC municipalities reject TILMA
Posted by Marc Lee under TILMA, BC.
September 26th, 2007
Comments: none
This week in Vancouver, the annual meetings of the Union of BC Municipalities are talking TILMA. The BC government signed the deal without consulting municipalities, and it is now in effect. Over the next two years, however, municipalities have an opportunity to seek exemptions from the agreement, although their appeals would go to Economic Development Minister Colin Hansen who would then have to negotiate on their behalf with his Alberta counterpart. If no deal is reached, the full force of TILMA would apply to municipalities, and in the interim they are to behave as if it does.
Needless to say, lots of municipalities are unhappy with this intrusion into their policy-making space. On Monday, Minister Hansen – who has been denying that the deal will have any consequences while insisting miraculous economic benefits – spoke to a workshop of municipal councillors and mayors. Municipalities have now done their own legal analyses of the pitfalls of TILMA’s investor (and other) provisions, and based on this, the word is that Hansen left the room with his tail between his legs.(*)
Below is a copy of the resolution that was passed by the UBCM almost unanimously today, and a summary of the Monday workshop by Caelie Frampton of the Council of Canadians (reposted from this site):
Whereas the provincial governments of British Columbia and Alberta have entered into a Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA), which came into effect on April 1, 2007 and which is intended to liberalize trade, investment and labour mobility beyond the level provided by the Agreement on Internal Trade that was brought into effect for British Columbia on March 31, 2002;
AND WHEREAS TILMA has the potential to have far reaching negative impacts on local government objectives:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Union of BC Municipalities review the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement between British Columbia and Alberta, and enter into discussions with the provincial government and local governments, with the intent of either making changes to the agreement to more specifically address local government concerns, exempt local governments from the agreement, or request that the Province withdraw from the agreement altogether.
BC municipalities reject TILMA
Posted by Marc Lee under TILMA, BC.
September 26th, 2007
Comments: none
This week in Vancouver, the annual meetings of the Union of BC Municipalities are talking TILMA. The BC government signed the deal without consulting municipalities, and it is now in effect. Over the next two years, however, municipalities have an opportunity to seek exemptions from the agreement, although their appeals would go to Economic Development Minister Colin Hansen who would then have to negotiate on their behalf with his Alberta counterpart. If no deal is reached, the full force of TILMA would apply to municipalities, and in the interim they are to behave as if it does.
Needless to say, lots of municipalities are unhappy with this intrusion into their policy-making space. On Monday, Minister Hansen – who has been denying that the deal will have any consequences while insisting miraculous economic benefits – spoke to a workshop of municipal councillors and mayors. Municipalities have now done their own legal analyses of the pitfalls of TILMA’s investor (and other) provisions, and based on this, the word is that Hansen left the room with his tail between his legs.(*)
Below is a copy of the resolution that was passed by the UBCM almost unanimously today, and a summary of the Monday workshop by Caelie Frampton of the Council of Canadians (reposted from this site):
Whereas the provincial governments of British Columbia and Alberta have entered into a Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA), which came into effect on April 1, 2007 and which is intended to liberalize trade, investment and labour mobility beyond the level provided by the Agreement on Internal Trade that was brought into effect for British Columbia on March 31, 2002;
AND WHEREAS TILMA has the potential to have far reaching negative impacts on local government objectives:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Union of BC Municipalities review the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement between British Columbia and Alberta, and enter into discussions with the provincial government and local governments, with the intent of either making changes to the agreement to more specifically address local government concerns, exempt local governments from the agreement, or request that the Province withdraw from the agreement altogether.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
John Tory's promises and TILMA
I wonder if Tory really understands the implications of TILMA. As Weir mentions his privileging Ontario produce is a violation of TILMA.
The Ontario Election and TILMA
Posted by Erin Weir under TILMA, budgets, farming.
September 19th, 2007
A clear contradiction has emerged in John Tory’s election promises. It reflects an existing tension in the McGuinty government’s position.
As noted previously on this blog, the Conservative Party’s election platform proposes that Ontario join TILMA. As reported in today’s Globe and Mail, Tory has pledged to require that provincially-funded institutions buy their food and beverages from Ontario producers. Such a policy would definitely violate TILMA, which explicitly bans preferential provincial procurement policies.
While the Liberal platform appears to be silent on TILMA, the last provincial budget committed to “exploring the merits of joining the Alberta-British Columbia Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA).” This agreement would contradict the spirit, if not the letter, of the province’s Pick Ontario Freshness campaign
The Ontario Election and TILMA
Posted by Erin Weir under TILMA, budgets, farming.
September 19th, 2007
A clear contradiction has emerged in John Tory’s election promises. It reflects an existing tension in the McGuinty government’s position.
As noted previously on this blog, the Conservative Party’s election platform proposes that Ontario join TILMA. As reported in today’s Globe and Mail, Tory has pledged to require that provincially-funded institutions buy their food and beverages from Ontario producers. Such a policy would definitely violate TILMA, which explicitly bans preferential provincial procurement policies.
While the Liberal platform appears to be silent on TILMA, the last provincial budget committed to “exploring the merits of joining the Alberta-British Columbia Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA).” This agreement would contradict the spirit, if not the letter, of the province’s Pick Ontario Freshness campaign
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Here is a very detailed analysis of Brad Wall's flip-flop on TILMA. A lot of effort must have gone into this article by Joe Kuchta. I will post his blog address later.
TILMA: Pre-election flip-flop destroys Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall’s credibility
“Saskatchewan Party Calls On NDP To Join In Western Trade Pact”
– Saskatchewan Party News Release Headline, May 1, 2006
“The province of Saskatchewan should be there as a part of this accord.”
– Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall, Saskatchewan Legislature, May 18, 2006
“I have no idea what’s scary about what B.C. and Alberta are doing...there is opportunity for us in our view and nothing to be worried about.”
–Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall, Regina Leader-Post, June 7, 2006
“[Saskatchewan Party Economic Development Critic Lyle] Stewart said a Saskatchewan Party government would seek a similar agreement with other western provinces.”
– Saskatchewan Party News Release, August 4, 2006
“[T]here’s no way that [The NDP] will sign on to the TILMA agreement before the next election. It’s going to take a new government…to do bold things like sign on to the TILMA agreement and get this province rolling.”
– Saskatchewan Party MLA Elwin Hermanson, Saskatchewan Legislature, March 26, 2007
After a year of repeatedly saying that it supported the BC-Alberta Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA), and would sign it if elected, the Saskatchewan Party has now officially come out against the trade deal – sort of.
In a pre-election damage control move to extricate itself from the growing criticism and controversy surrounding TILMA, Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall, under the cover of a long-weekend news release and a recent report by an all-party legislative committee examining the trade deal, flip-flopped his party’s position by saying it would not sign the agreement “in its present form.”
The careful wording would seem to allow Wall the leeway to consider signing TILMA in a different form should one emerge at a later date.
In the June 28, 2007, news release Wall blamed the Saskatchewan NDP government for his party’s about face saying it was because the province “did not take part in the original TILMA negotiations with BC and Alberta” and “had no part in negotiating its terms.”
This ignores the fact that it was British Columbia that first approached Alberta with a proposal to negotiate a comprehensive bi-lateral agreement on trade, investment and labour mobility. On October 8, 2003, the Governments of British Columbia and Alberta signed a joint Protocol of Co-operation, identifying the goal of expanding trade, investment and labour mobility between the two provinces. On May 26, 2004, the two governments signed an Internal Trade Framework Agreement confirmed as the basis for consultations and negotiation of a comprehensive bilateral agreement to enhance trade, investment and labour mobility between the two provinces. None of these documents appears to suggest that other provinces or territories would or should be involved.
It also ignores the fact that the negotiations between BC and Alberta were conducted behind closed-doors and that no consultation with municipalities, the public or legislative debate took place prior to the agreement’s signing on April 28, 2006.
Forgotten is the Saskatchewan Party’s May 1, 2006, news release calling on the NDP government to join the agreement and Wall’s condemnation of Premier Lorne Calvert in the legislature on May 1 & 2 for not being at the table with BC and Alberta during their closed-door meetings and for not immediately signing the trade deal – without proper consultation or study.
In the legislature on May 18, 2006, Wall again berated Premier Calvert and said the province of Saskatchewan should be part of the accord.
On August 4, 2006, then-Saskatchewan Party Economic Development Critic Lyle Stewart said a Saskatchewan Party government would seek a similar agreement with other western provinces.
During his many tirades Wall raised no concerns with TILMA “in its present form”.
The news release and Wall’s comments appear to be politically motivated and nothing more than a pathetic attempt to divert attention away from his party’s support for a reckless, destructive and increasingly divisive trade agreement.
If the Saskatchewan Party is capable of this kind of deception and hypocrisy as the official opposition what do the people of Saskatchewan have to look forward to should it be asked to form the next government?
“The Saskatchewan Party strongly supports the reduction of inter-provincial trade barriers as a means to grow Saskatchewan’s economy and create new jobs,” Wall said in the news release.
Unfortunately, the news release does not provide a list of genuine trade barriers between provinces that Wall thinks should be removed.
Furthermore, on April 3, 2007, an Edmonton Journal editorial said there is “little in the way of genuine trade barriers remaining between the two westernmost provinces” and Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall said in a news release that Saskatchewan is “the lowest cost jurisdiction…with fewer trade barriers and restrictions than either B.C. or Alberta.” Wall seems to have forgotten that he made these comments.
In the June 28 news release Wall said the Opposition’s own research and the TILMA hearings raised specific concerns about three areas which are not clearly addressed in the current TILMA agreement:
1. The protection of Crown Corporations;
2. The exemption of provincial new growth tax incentives; and
3. The potential loss of new growth tax incentives at the municipal level.
Curiously, despite his party’s own research, Wall never brought these concerns forward last year when he was hysterically calling on Premier Calvert to sign the agreement. And yet in the legislature on May 2, 2006, Wall had the gall to suggest that NDP Government Relations Minister Harry Van Mulligen had not done his homework on the TILMA file.
This seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. During a speech at the 2006 Saskatoon Leader’s Dinner on March 2, 2006, at TCU Place, Wall proudly proclaimed that when it comes to his party “We are doing our homework.”
Then there is Wall’s March 19, 2007, letter to the City of Saskatoon outlining the three criteria that would have to be met in order for his party to sign TILMA:
1. That it not negatively impact on the public ownership of the major Crowns
2. That it not negatively impact environmental standards
3. That it not negatively impact the well-being of workers.
The exemption of provincial new growth tax incentives and the potential loss of new growth tax incentives at the municipal level mentioned in the June 28 news release are absent from the list – and yet the Saskatchewan Party claims it does its homework.
Not only would TILMA adversely affect municipalities it puts at risk important policies and programs that are in the public interest to maintain.
TILMA’s list of exceptions include measures relating to Aboriginal peoples; water; regulated rates established for the public good or the public interest; social policy, including labour standards and codes, minimum wages, employment insurance, social assistance benefits and worker’s compensation; compensation to persons for losses resulting from calamities such as diseases or disasters; assistance for book and magazine publishers, sound recordings, and film development, production and distribution; assistance for recreation, academic research or to non-profit organizations; the management and disposal of hazardous and waste materials; and the management or conservation of forests, fish and wildlife.
A measure includes any legislation, regulation, standard, directive, requirement, guideline, program, policy, administrative practice or other procedure.
Article 17 of the agreement requires a ministerial committee to “review annually the exceptions listed...with a view to reducing their scope.”
The exceptions in TILMA will shrink over time and are by no means safe. The Conference Board of Canada’s impact assessment for the BC Government confirms this stating “TILMA is considered to be an improvement… since future negotiations can focus on the removal of the exceptions from the explicit exclusion list.”
Furthermore, an October 2006 TILMA fact sheet states that “if a measure is not clearly identified as an exception, it is subject to the rules of the agreement.”
Since health and education measures are not clearly identified as exceptions, it would seem they, too, could be at significant risk.
Wall has refused to say whether a Saskatchewan Party government would ensure that these important measures are permanently exempt from any trade agreement it might consider signing. His silence on the issue and the fact that they aren’t included in the June 28 news release or Wall’s March 19 letter to the City of Saskatoon seems to indicate that his party has little or no intention of protecting these areas.
Wall stated in the June 28 news release that he was also concerned about the lack of formal input from Saskatchewan cities.
“Our Enterprise Saskatchewan plan for the economy involves direct input from stakeholders including the municipal sector,” Wall said. “How could we enter into a major trade and investment agreement without their formal input and assessment?
Where was Wall a year ago when similar concerns, along with many others which he refuses to recognize, began coming forward from various organizations and individuals? Why is it only now in the eleventh hour that he is willing to acknowledge their validity?
Enterprise Saskatchewan was announced on September 21, 2004, as part of Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall’s “new economic vision” for the province outlined in the document The Promise of Saskatchewan: A New Vision for Saskatchewan’s Economy. While it predates TILMA by nineteen months it offers some insight into what Wall believes are barriers plaguing Saskatchewan.
In an address that day to more than 200 students at the University of Saskatchewan’s College of Commerce Wall said Saskatchewan must shed its dependence on public sector intervention and begin to build a larger private sector as the primary economic driver.
“The goal of our Enterprise Saskatchewan plan is to create an aggressive, agile and entrepreneurial economy within a stable and positive business environment that removes the politics from economic development and can survive Saskatchewan’s volatile election cycle.”
Wall said Enterprise Saskatchewan will focus on Saskatchewan’s key economic sectors and implement a broad plan consisting of, but not limited to fifteen elements, one of which “will develop a systematic and ongoing process to identify and remove barriers to growth in each of our key economic sectors.”
Apparently the number of barriers in Saskatchewan is substantial. According to Wall, “Saskatchewan Party MLAs have spent a great deal of time meeting with various industry groups and economic development organizations to identify barriers to growth in key economic sectors. We understand the many and varied barriers that exist.”
The word barrier occurs 40 times in the plan. While no attempt is made to provide a separate, comprehensive list, Wall does refer to the following as barriers:
– Direct competition to business from various government agencies
– Crowns attempting to diversify from core functions; policies of the Crowns themselves
– Inadequate access to bandwidth
– Lack of high-speed internet access in parts of the province
– Corporate income taxes
– The resource surcharge
– Shortage of skilled labour
– Poor infrastructure (i.e. high quality roads)
– Red tape
– Government permitting
– The PST
– Financial institutions taxed at a higher rate than manufacturing firms
– High fuel taxes
One barrier that Wall mentions a few times is the corporate capital tax which he calls “insidious” and “penalizes private sector investment” yet in the next breath says that it is an area “the government of Saskatchewan may not be in a position to offer meaningful reductions” and “will be too costly to be eliminated or significantly reduced immediately.” So it would appear that even though Enterprise Saskatchewan promises to identify and remove barriers it might not apply in this case. It makes one wonder how many others would meet a similar fate should the Saskatchewan Party form government.
It is unclear whether an agreement like TILMA is the appropriate vehicle for addressing Wall’s barriers. He does not appear to be citing them when commenting on the trade agreement. To date Wall has not produced a list of genuine trade barriers between provinces and has described Saskatchewan as being “the lowest cost jurisdiction…with fewer trade barriers and restrictions than either B.C. or Alberta.” Yet, it seems through constant rhetoric that he and his party continue to create an atmosphere of crisis suggesting barriers exist in such great numbers that it is threatening the province’s very existence.
It is interesting to note that the word investment appears 80 times in Wall’s economic vision while social occurs just 3 times. Page 26 appears to provide a glimpse of where social issues are situated on Wall’s list of priorities:
“In 1996, a KPMG study on location cost analysis highlighted the need for Saskatchewan to become competitive on taxes and stability. Investors were worried about the stability of the business environment and the potential for radical changes in operating conditions. Indeed, the study recommended more partnerships between stakeholders through a provincial economic development authority. The study also pointed out that investment decisions are driven by financial factors, not quality-of-life considerations. It recommends Saskatchewan emphasize its attraction in business terms, not social ones, when marketing itself to outside investors.
“Let us not lose sight of the basics. Saskatchewan must be competitive in terms of taxes, regulation, the availability of venture capital, and innovation.
“An enterprising, entrepreneurial Saskatchewan economy will be impatient, relentless, aggressive, self-promoting and even brash. Profit within that economy will be lauded instead of envied.”
In Wall’s world it would seem that investor rights and interests trump social and quality-of-life considerations.
In his party’s June 28 news release leader Brad Wall said “We know that Alberta and BC officials have indicated that having Saskatchewan sign on without any revisiting of the agreement would not make sense for those two provinces either.”
This is not new information. The BC Government – who initiated TILMA – publicly stated its position on the matter last year.
In a speech to the BC Business Council and Canada West Foundation on December 13, 2006, BC Premier Gordon Campbell had this to say about TILMA:
“So we’ve said to Saskatchewan we’d like to tell you how the agreement’s working; we want to show you how the dispute resolution works; we want to show you the penalties; we want to show you what we’re doing. We’d love you to join us, but these are the rules.
“I talked with Premier McGuinty in Ontario about Ontario joining British Columbia and Alberta. I said to Premier McGuinty: “You’re the biggest province in the country, Dalton. You guys are important to all of us. By the way, we’re not changing the agreement, but you’re welcome to join.””
In Provinces unite to tackle skill shortages (Vancouver Sun, Dec. 14, 2006) Premier Campbell said Saskatchewan and Ontario are welcome to join TILMA “provided they don’t try to tinker with the deal.”
Given Brad Wall’s apparent fondness for BC and Alberta style governance and the claim that his party does its homework it seems reasonable to think that he knew about this long ago. So why is he only bringing it up now and using it as an excuse for not signing the agreement?
Wall’s affinity for Alberta and its conservative government is well known.
During a speech to the North Saskatoon Business Association on December 8, 2005, at the Delta Bessborough Hotel, Wall said:
“I have spoken to many of those seeking to replace Mr. Klein in Alberta, and to Mr. Klein himself and they welcome the day when Saskatchewan will join Alberta and B.C. at the table to earnestly work together in areas of public policy including energy policy and the reduction of inter-provincial trade barriers.
“They are waiting. I have already told them that a Brad Wall government will be at that table.”
In his March 2, 2006, Saskatoon Leader’s Dinner Speech, Wall said that then-Alberta Premier Ralph Klein invited him to attend his annual Global Business Forum in Banff in September 2005.
“The Premier of Alberta informed me of high level meetings between his province and BC to look at ways of reducing inter-provincial barriers to growth and trade,” Wall said.
Wall went on to say “I am announcing tonight that I have tasked Sask. Party Cutknife-Turtleford MLA Michael Chisholm to focus exclusively on the opportunities of western economic cooperation so that we may send a clear but unpretentious message to other western capitals that a new government in Saskatchewan means a leading partner for them in the emerging New West and a strong new voice for Saskatchewan at the Council of the Federation of this country.”
In a March 3, 2006, Saskatchewan Party news release Wall followed up on the Chisholm announcement stating:
“We want to send a clear message to other western capitals that a new government in Saskatchewan will mean a leading partner for them in this emerging new west,” Wall said.
“Inter-provincial trade barriers, regulations and barriers to growth will be the focus of this Saskatchewan Party initiative.”
In Deal interests Sask. premier (Regina Leader-Post, June 7, 2006), it was reported that Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall met with then-Alberta Premier Ralph Klein in Calgary on June 5, 2006, “where the main topic of discussion” was TILMA.
“I have no idea what’s scary about what B.C. and Alberta are doing…there is opportunity for us in our view and nothing to be worried about,” Wall was quoted as saying.
In the Saskatchewan Legislature on April 2, 2007, on the subject of TILMA, Wall said:
“We met with officials in Alberta and BC — both elected and the senior civil servants — who were part of negotiating that agreement. We asked questions about how would this impact our Crowns, which is very important to the province. How would it impact the autonomy of municipalities? We were doing our homework.”
It seems the Saskatchewan Party might have been privy to some of TILMA’s details prior to its signing and also that the governments of BC and Alberta were not interested in changing the agreement for other provinces, but the party chose to say little about it until its June 28, 2007, news release. Why?
Lastly, Wall said in the June 28 news release that he prefers other modes of western economic cooperation including Saskatchewan’s involvement in the Pacific North West Economic Region (PNWER) and he has already indicated that a Saskatchewan Party government would hold joint cabinet meetings with other western provinces to explore opportunities to cooperate in areas such as health care equipment and pharmaceutical purchases.
Wall neglected to mention that it was through closed-door joint cabinet meetings that led to TILMA in the first place. It seems Wall is eager to drag Saskatchewan down that road as well.
As for its support of PNWER the Saskatchewan Party appears to be in lock step with Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s trade agenda.
In a speech delivered at the 2007 Saskatoon Saskatchewan Party Leader’s Dinner on March 8, 2007, at TCU Place, Wall said, “Then there is PNWER (the Pacific Northwest Economic Region). Another regional dynamic group of northwestern states together with Alberta and BC who are cooperating to build the Asia Pacific Gateway…I have asked our critic for Western Economic Cooperation Mike Chisholm to focus on this opportunity.”
A few weeks later Prime Minister Harper had this to say at a May 4, 2007, press conference in Vancouver: “It’s hard to overstate the importance of Asia-Pacific trade to Canada’s economic future. The Gateway Initiative is obviously critical to realizing our potential as a country.”
“Our Government has now committed over $1 billion to this Initiative…And in the longer term, we intend to develop an Atlantic Gateway on the East Coast.”
The press conference also gave Harper the opportunity to showcase his support for TILMA: “This is a bold step that has been undertaken by two forward-looking provinces committed to successfully competing in global markets, and I believe their success will set an example other provinces will find hard to resist.”
Wall’s agenda appears to go well beyond TILMA and could include joining PNWER who are studying the BC-Alberta trade agreement as well.
On July 18, 2006, PNWER’s Trade & Economic Development Work Group resolved to “embrace the opportunity to educate and explore the possibility of expanding the B.C.-Alberta Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) concept throughout the PNWER region.”
The 17th PNWER Annual Summit is scheduled for July 22-26, 2007, in Anchorage, Alaska. The Trade & Economic Development portion of the agenda is set for the morning of July 24, 2007, where an update on the 2006 Working Group Action Items regarding TILMA will be discussed. Mr. Shawn Robbins, Director of Internal Trade for Alberta International and Intergovernmental Relations is confirmed to attend.
The controversy and debate surrounding TILMA may be far from over.
The Saskatchewan Party and its leader Brad Wall’s support for the agreement last year was unequivocal. One might wish to keep in mind the old adage that “a leopard cannot change its spots.”
posted by Joe Kuchta @ 4:45 AM 0 comments
TILMA: Pre-election flip-flop destroys Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall’s credibility
“Saskatchewan Party Calls On NDP To Join In Western Trade Pact”
– Saskatchewan Party News Release Headline, May 1, 2006
“The province of Saskatchewan should be there as a part of this accord.”
– Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall, Saskatchewan Legislature, May 18, 2006
“I have no idea what’s scary about what B.C. and Alberta are doing...there is opportunity for us in our view and nothing to be worried about.”
–Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall, Regina Leader-Post, June 7, 2006
“[Saskatchewan Party Economic Development Critic Lyle] Stewart said a Saskatchewan Party government would seek a similar agreement with other western provinces.”
– Saskatchewan Party News Release, August 4, 2006
“[T]here’s no way that [The NDP] will sign on to the TILMA agreement before the next election. It’s going to take a new government…to do bold things like sign on to the TILMA agreement and get this province rolling.”
– Saskatchewan Party MLA Elwin Hermanson, Saskatchewan Legislature, March 26, 2007
After a year of repeatedly saying that it supported the BC-Alberta Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA), and would sign it if elected, the Saskatchewan Party has now officially come out against the trade deal – sort of.
In a pre-election damage control move to extricate itself from the growing criticism and controversy surrounding TILMA, Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall, under the cover of a long-weekend news release and a recent report by an all-party legislative committee examining the trade deal, flip-flopped his party’s position by saying it would not sign the agreement “in its present form.”
The careful wording would seem to allow Wall the leeway to consider signing TILMA in a different form should one emerge at a later date.
In the June 28, 2007, news release Wall blamed the Saskatchewan NDP government for his party’s about face saying it was because the province “did not take part in the original TILMA negotiations with BC and Alberta” and “had no part in negotiating its terms.”
This ignores the fact that it was British Columbia that first approached Alberta with a proposal to negotiate a comprehensive bi-lateral agreement on trade, investment and labour mobility. On October 8, 2003, the Governments of British Columbia and Alberta signed a joint Protocol of Co-operation, identifying the goal of expanding trade, investment and labour mobility between the two provinces. On May 26, 2004, the two governments signed an Internal Trade Framework Agreement confirmed as the basis for consultations and negotiation of a comprehensive bilateral agreement to enhance trade, investment and labour mobility between the two provinces. None of these documents appears to suggest that other provinces or territories would or should be involved.
It also ignores the fact that the negotiations between BC and Alberta were conducted behind closed-doors and that no consultation with municipalities, the public or legislative debate took place prior to the agreement’s signing on April 28, 2006.
Forgotten is the Saskatchewan Party’s May 1, 2006, news release calling on the NDP government to join the agreement and Wall’s condemnation of Premier Lorne Calvert in the legislature on May 1 & 2 for not being at the table with BC and Alberta during their closed-door meetings and for not immediately signing the trade deal – without proper consultation or study.
In the legislature on May 18, 2006, Wall again berated Premier Calvert and said the province of Saskatchewan should be part of the accord.
On August 4, 2006, then-Saskatchewan Party Economic Development Critic Lyle Stewart said a Saskatchewan Party government would seek a similar agreement with other western provinces.
During his many tirades Wall raised no concerns with TILMA “in its present form”.
The news release and Wall’s comments appear to be politically motivated and nothing more than a pathetic attempt to divert attention away from his party’s support for a reckless, destructive and increasingly divisive trade agreement.
If the Saskatchewan Party is capable of this kind of deception and hypocrisy as the official opposition what do the people of Saskatchewan have to look forward to should it be asked to form the next government?
“The Saskatchewan Party strongly supports the reduction of inter-provincial trade barriers as a means to grow Saskatchewan’s economy and create new jobs,” Wall said in the news release.
Unfortunately, the news release does not provide a list of genuine trade barriers between provinces that Wall thinks should be removed.
Furthermore, on April 3, 2007, an Edmonton Journal editorial said there is “little in the way of genuine trade barriers remaining between the two westernmost provinces” and Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall said in a news release that Saskatchewan is “the lowest cost jurisdiction…with fewer trade barriers and restrictions than either B.C. or Alberta.” Wall seems to have forgotten that he made these comments.
In the June 28 news release Wall said the Opposition’s own research and the TILMA hearings raised specific concerns about three areas which are not clearly addressed in the current TILMA agreement:
1. The protection of Crown Corporations;
2. The exemption of provincial new growth tax incentives; and
3. The potential loss of new growth tax incentives at the municipal level.
Curiously, despite his party’s own research, Wall never brought these concerns forward last year when he was hysterically calling on Premier Calvert to sign the agreement. And yet in the legislature on May 2, 2006, Wall had the gall to suggest that NDP Government Relations Minister Harry Van Mulligen had not done his homework on the TILMA file.
This seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. During a speech at the 2006 Saskatoon Leader’s Dinner on March 2, 2006, at TCU Place, Wall proudly proclaimed that when it comes to his party “We are doing our homework.”
Then there is Wall’s March 19, 2007, letter to the City of Saskatoon outlining the three criteria that would have to be met in order for his party to sign TILMA:
1. That it not negatively impact on the public ownership of the major Crowns
2. That it not negatively impact environmental standards
3. That it not negatively impact the well-being of workers.
The exemption of provincial new growth tax incentives and the potential loss of new growth tax incentives at the municipal level mentioned in the June 28 news release are absent from the list – and yet the Saskatchewan Party claims it does its homework.
Not only would TILMA adversely affect municipalities it puts at risk important policies and programs that are in the public interest to maintain.
TILMA’s list of exceptions include measures relating to Aboriginal peoples; water; regulated rates established for the public good or the public interest; social policy, including labour standards and codes, minimum wages, employment insurance, social assistance benefits and worker’s compensation; compensation to persons for losses resulting from calamities such as diseases or disasters; assistance for book and magazine publishers, sound recordings, and film development, production and distribution; assistance for recreation, academic research or to non-profit organizations; the management and disposal of hazardous and waste materials; and the management or conservation of forests, fish and wildlife.
A measure includes any legislation, regulation, standard, directive, requirement, guideline, program, policy, administrative practice or other procedure.
Article 17 of the agreement requires a ministerial committee to “review annually the exceptions listed...with a view to reducing their scope.”
The exceptions in TILMA will shrink over time and are by no means safe. The Conference Board of Canada’s impact assessment for the BC Government confirms this stating “TILMA is considered to be an improvement… since future negotiations can focus on the removal of the exceptions from the explicit exclusion list.”
Furthermore, an October 2006 TILMA fact sheet states that “if a measure is not clearly identified as an exception, it is subject to the rules of the agreement.”
Since health and education measures are not clearly identified as exceptions, it would seem they, too, could be at significant risk.
Wall has refused to say whether a Saskatchewan Party government would ensure that these important measures are permanently exempt from any trade agreement it might consider signing. His silence on the issue and the fact that they aren’t included in the June 28 news release or Wall’s March 19 letter to the City of Saskatoon seems to indicate that his party has little or no intention of protecting these areas.
Wall stated in the June 28 news release that he was also concerned about the lack of formal input from Saskatchewan cities.
“Our Enterprise Saskatchewan plan for the economy involves direct input from stakeholders including the municipal sector,” Wall said. “How could we enter into a major trade and investment agreement without their formal input and assessment?
Where was Wall a year ago when similar concerns, along with many others which he refuses to recognize, began coming forward from various organizations and individuals? Why is it only now in the eleventh hour that he is willing to acknowledge their validity?
Enterprise Saskatchewan was announced on September 21, 2004, as part of Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall’s “new economic vision” for the province outlined in the document The Promise of Saskatchewan: A New Vision for Saskatchewan’s Economy. While it predates TILMA by nineteen months it offers some insight into what Wall believes are barriers plaguing Saskatchewan.
In an address that day to more than 200 students at the University of Saskatchewan’s College of Commerce Wall said Saskatchewan must shed its dependence on public sector intervention and begin to build a larger private sector as the primary economic driver.
“The goal of our Enterprise Saskatchewan plan is to create an aggressive, agile and entrepreneurial economy within a stable and positive business environment that removes the politics from economic development and can survive Saskatchewan’s volatile election cycle.”
Wall said Enterprise Saskatchewan will focus on Saskatchewan’s key economic sectors and implement a broad plan consisting of, but not limited to fifteen elements, one of which “will develop a systematic and ongoing process to identify and remove barriers to growth in each of our key economic sectors.”
Apparently the number of barriers in Saskatchewan is substantial. According to Wall, “Saskatchewan Party MLAs have spent a great deal of time meeting with various industry groups and economic development organizations to identify barriers to growth in key economic sectors. We understand the many and varied barriers that exist.”
The word barrier occurs 40 times in the plan. While no attempt is made to provide a separate, comprehensive list, Wall does refer to the following as barriers:
– Direct competition to business from various government agencies
– Crowns attempting to diversify from core functions; policies of the Crowns themselves
– Inadequate access to bandwidth
– Lack of high-speed internet access in parts of the province
– Corporate income taxes
– The resource surcharge
– Shortage of skilled labour
– Poor infrastructure (i.e. high quality roads)
– Red tape
– Government permitting
– The PST
– Financial institutions taxed at a higher rate than manufacturing firms
– High fuel taxes
One barrier that Wall mentions a few times is the corporate capital tax which he calls “insidious” and “penalizes private sector investment” yet in the next breath says that it is an area “the government of Saskatchewan may not be in a position to offer meaningful reductions” and “will be too costly to be eliminated or significantly reduced immediately.” So it would appear that even though Enterprise Saskatchewan promises to identify and remove barriers it might not apply in this case. It makes one wonder how many others would meet a similar fate should the Saskatchewan Party form government.
It is unclear whether an agreement like TILMA is the appropriate vehicle for addressing Wall’s barriers. He does not appear to be citing them when commenting on the trade agreement. To date Wall has not produced a list of genuine trade barriers between provinces and has described Saskatchewan as being “the lowest cost jurisdiction…with fewer trade barriers and restrictions than either B.C. or Alberta.” Yet, it seems through constant rhetoric that he and his party continue to create an atmosphere of crisis suggesting barriers exist in such great numbers that it is threatening the province’s very existence.
It is interesting to note that the word investment appears 80 times in Wall’s economic vision while social occurs just 3 times. Page 26 appears to provide a glimpse of where social issues are situated on Wall’s list of priorities:
“In 1996, a KPMG study on location cost analysis highlighted the need for Saskatchewan to become competitive on taxes and stability. Investors were worried about the stability of the business environment and the potential for radical changes in operating conditions. Indeed, the study recommended more partnerships between stakeholders through a provincial economic development authority. The study also pointed out that investment decisions are driven by financial factors, not quality-of-life considerations. It recommends Saskatchewan emphasize its attraction in business terms, not social ones, when marketing itself to outside investors.
“Let us not lose sight of the basics. Saskatchewan must be competitive in terms of taxes, regulation, the availability of venture capital, and innovation.
“An enterprising, entrepreneurial Saskatchewan economy will be impatient, relentless, aggressive, self-promoting and even brash. Profit within that economy will be lauded instead of envied.”
In Wall’s world it would seem that investor rights and interests trump social and quality-of-life considerations.
In his party’s June 28 news release leader Brad Wall said “We know that Alberta and BC officials have indicated that having Saskatchewan sign on without any revisiting of the agreement would not make sense for those two provinces either.”
This is not new information. The BC Government – who initiated TILMA – publicly stated its position on the matter last year.
In a speech to the BC Business Council and Canada West Foundation on December 13, 2006, BC Premier Gordon Campbell had this to say about TILMA:
“So we’ve said to Saskatchewan we’d like to tell you how the agreement’s working; we want to show you how the dispute resolution works; we want to show you the penalties; we want to show you what we’re doing. We’d love you to join us, but these are the rules.
“I talked with Premier McGuinty in Ontario about Ontario joining British Columbia and Alberta. I said to Premier McGuinty: “You’re the biggest province in the country, Dalton. You guys are important to all of us. By the way, we’re not changing the agreement, but you’re welcome to join.””
In Provinces unite to tackle skill shortages (Vancouver Sun, Dec. 14, 2006) Premier Campbell said Saskatchewan and Ontario are welcome to join TILMA “provided they don’t try to tinker with the deal.”
Given Brad Wall’s apparent fondness for BC and Alberta style governance and the claim that his party does its homework it seems reasonable to think that he knew about this long ago. So why is he only bringing it up now and using it as an excuse for not signing the agreement?
Wall’s affinity for Alberta and its conservative government is well known.
During a speech to the North Saskatoon Business Association on December 8, 2005, at the Delta Bessborough Hotel, Wall said:
“I have spoken to many of those seeking to replace Mr. Klein in Alberta, and to Mr. Klein himself and they welcome the day when Saskatchewan will join Alberta and B.C. at the table to earnestly work together in areas of public policy including energy policy and the reduction of inter-provincial trade barriers.
“They are waiting. I have already told them that a Brad Wall government will be at that table.”
In his March 2, 2006, Saskatoon Leader’s Dinner Speech, Wall said that then-Alberta Premier Ralph Klein invited him to attend his annual Global Business Forum in Banff in September 2005.
“The Premier of Alberta informed me of high level meetings between his province and BC to look at ways of reducing inter-provincial barriers to growth and trade,” Wall said.
Wall went on to say “I am announcing tonight that I have tasked Sask. Party Cutknife-Turtleford MLA Michael Chisholm to focus exclusively on the opportunities of western economic cooperation so that we may send a clear but unpretentious message to other western capitals that a new government in Saskatchewan means a leading partner for them in the emerging New West and a strong new voice for Saskatchewan at the Council of the Federation of this country.”
In a March 3, 2006, Saskatchewan Party news release Wall followed up on the Chisholm announcement stating:
“We want to send a clear message to other western capitals that a new government in Saskatchewan will mean a leading partner for them in this emerging new west,” Wall said.
“Inter-provincial trade barriers, regulations and barriers to growth will be the focus of this Saskatchewan Party initiative.”
In Deal interests Sask. premier (Regina Leader-Post, June 7, 2006), it was reported that Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall met with then-Alberta Premier Ralph Klein in Calgary on June 5, 2006, “where the main topic of discussion” was TILMA.
“I have no idea what’s scary about what B.C. and Alberta are doing…there is opportunity for us in our view and nothing to be worried about,” Wall was quoted as saying.
In the Saskatchewan Legislature on April 2, 2007, on the subject of TILMA, Wall said:
“We met with officials in Alberta and BC — both elected and the senior civil servants — who were part of negotiating that agreement. We asked questions about how would this impact our Crowns, which is very important to the province. How would it impact the autonomy of municipalities? We were doing our homework.”
It seems the Saskatchewan Party might have been privy to some of TILMA’s details prior to its signing and also that the governments of BC and Alberta were not interested in changing the agreement for other provinces, but the party chose to say little about it until its June 28, 2007, news release. Why?
Lastly, Wall said in the June 28 news release that he prefers other modes of western economic cooperation including Saskatchewan’s involvement in the Pacific North West Economic Region (PNWER) and he has already indicated that a Saskatchewan Party government would hold joint cabinet meetings with other western provinces to explore opportunities to cooperate in areas such as health care equipment and pharmaceutical purchases.
Wall neglected to mention that it was through closed-door joint cabinet meetings that led to TILMA in the first place. It seems Wall is eager to drag Saskatchewan down that road as well.
As for its support of PNWER the Saskatchewan Party appears to be in lock step with Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s trade agenda.
In a speech delivered at the 2007 Saskatoon Saskatchewan Party Leader’s Dinner on March 8, 2007, at TCU Place, Wall said, “Then there is PNWER (the Pacific Northwest Economic Region). Another regional dynamic group of northwestern states together with Alberta and BC who are cooperating to build the Asia Pacific Gateway…I have asked our critic for Western Economic Cooperation Mike Chisholm to focus on this opportunity.”
A few weeks later Prime Minister Harper had this to say at a May 4, 2007, press conference in Vancouver: “It’s hard to overstate the importance of Asia-Pacific trade to Canada’s economic future. The Gateway Initiative is obviously critical to realizing our potential as a country.”
“Our Government has now committed over $1 billion to this Initiative…And in the longer term, we intend to develop an Atlantic Gateway on the East Coast.”
The press conference also gave Harper the opportunity to showcase his support for TILMA: “This is a bold step that has been undertaken by two forward-looking provinces committed to successfully competing in global markets, and I believe their success will set an example other provinces will find hard to resist.”
Wall’s agenda appears to go well beyond TILMA and could include joining PNWER who are studying the BC-Alberta trade agreement as well.
On July 18, 2006, PNWER’s Trade & Economic Development Work Group resolved to “embrace the opportunity to educate and explore the possibility of expanding the B.C.-Alberta Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) concept throughout the PNWER region.”
The 17th PNWER Annual Summit is scheduled for July 22-26, 2007, in Anchorage, Alaska. The Trade & Economic Development portion of the agenda is set for the morning of July 24, 2007, where an update on the 2006 Working Group Action Items regarding TILMA will be discussed. Mr. Shawn Robbins, Director of Internal Trade for Alberta International and Intergovernmental Relations is confirmed to attend.
The controversy and debate surrounding TILMA may be far from over.
The Saskatchewan Party and its leader Brad Wall’s support for the agreement last year was unequivocal. One might wish to keep in mind the old adage that “a leopard cannot change its spots.”
posted by Joe Kuchta @ 4:45 AM 0 comments
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
The National Post on TILMA
This is a good reply to the National Post's editorial support for TILMA. It is not surprising that the National Post would support TILMA. It is a right wing, free enterprise paper on the whole. However, even many right wingers would not support TILMA if they understood its implications as is shown by the Sask. Party's rejection of it.
Posted by Erin Weir under democracy, TILMA, labour market, transportation.
August 14th, 2007
Comments: none
On Friday, the National Post’s lead editorial suggested that inter-provincial trade barriers are significant enough to validate the Quebec-separatist view that “Canada is not a real country.” The following edited response from yours truly is printed as a “Counterpoint” in today’s edition:
In a recent editorial, the National Post called for all provinces to join the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA), which came into force between Alberta and British Columbia in April (”Let TILMA Grow,” Aug. 10).
According to the Post, TILMA is needed to eliminate inter-provincial trade barriers, “which, in certain sectors, actually make it easier for Canadian firms to trade with the United States than Canadian firms in different provinces.” Yet the Post identifies no sector for which this claim is accurate. From 2000 through 2006, inter-provincial exports grew four times faster than Canada’s international exports.
Canadian courts have consistently struck down provincial attempts to directly interfere with inter-provincial trade. What the Post calls “regulatory non-tariff trade barriers” are merely differences in provincial policy that may or may not have side-effects on inter-provincial commerce. These include occupational certification, procurement and trucking registration. The Post approvingly notes that Alberta and B.C. “are now bound to recognize the other’s occupational standards.” But the effect of this approach will be to turn the lowest standard in any province into the minimum standard for every province.
Prior to TILMA, all provinces except Quebec and B.C. maintained a common set of Red Seal standards for many skilled trades, ensuring inter-provincial mobility for tradespeople. Under TILMA, Alberta employers must accept people trained to lower standards in B.C. A far better approach would be for B.C. to adopt Red Seal standards.
The existing Agreement on Internal Trade prevents provincial governments from favouring local suppliers. TILMA will extend this regime to municipalities, school boards and Crown corporations. This is supposed to generate savings by expanding the pool of available suppliers for any given job. But at the municipal level, the cost of complying with arm’s-length procurement rules is likely to eclipse any potential cost savings.
Registering in multiple provinces undoubtedly creates a small additional cost for trucking companies under current rules. However, the Post’s suggestion that these companies are returning significant numbers of trucks empty to avoid registering in other provinces is unfounded. TILMA would encourage companies to register only in whichever province maintains the lowest standards.
Of course, provinces might reasonably choose to adopt common standards in some areas, but doing so hardly requires TILMA’s legalistic approach. This agreement’s enforcement mechanism allows private interests to sue for up to $5-million based on alleged violations by provincial governments, municipalities and school boards.
Rather than simply preventing measures that are discriminatory against businesses in other provinces, TILMA purports to “eliminate barriers that restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility.” The problem is that almost everything that governments do influences investment opportunities and could be challenged. TILMA’s limited, temporary exceptions protect a policy only if the government can prove that there is no conceivable alternative policy.
Commercial tribunals that meet behind closed doors, rather than provincial or federal courts, will interpret the extremely broad language of this 36-page agreement. Uncertainty about potential interpretations is already having a chilling effect on regulators in Alberta and B.C. who fear legal challenges. It makes no sense to sign a comprehensive agreement if there is no guarantee that tribunals will restrict its provisions to instances of genuine trade barriers.
Saskatchewan is the only province to have held public consultations on TILMA. Both the governing NDP and the right-wing Saskatchewan Party rejected the agreement because it severely constrains the capacity of provincial governments, municipalities and school boards to act in the public interest.
All provinces should join Saskatchewan in negotiating specific solutions to any minor inter-provincial barriers that may exist. At a minimum, Alberta, B.C. and any provinces considering joining TILMA should hold public consultations on this sweeping agreement.
Erin Weir is an economist with the Canadian Labour Congress. His presentation to Saskatchewan’s public hearings on joining TILMA is available at www.policyalternatives.ca.
Write a comment
Posted by Erin Weir under democracy, TILMA, labour market, transportation.
August 14th, 2007
Comments: none
On Friday, the National Post’s lead editorial suggested that inter-provincial trade barriers are significant enough to validate the Quebec-separatist view that “Canada is not a real country.” The following edited response from yours truly is printed as a “Counterpoint” in today’s edition:
In a recent editorial, the National Post called for all provinces to join the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA), which came into force between Alberta and British Columbia in April (”Let TILMA Grow,” Aug. 10).
According to the Post, TILMA is needed to eliminate inter-provincial trade barriers, “which, in certain sectors, actually make it easier for Canadian firms to trade with the United States than Canadian firms in different provinces.” Yet the Post identifies no sector for which this claim is accurate. From 2000 through 2006, inter-provincial exports grew four times faster than Canada’s international exports.
Canadian courts have consistently struck down provincial attempts to directly interfere with inter-provincial trade. What the Post calls “regulatory non-tariff trade barriers” are merely differences in provincial policy that may or may not have side-effects on inter-provincial commerce. These include occupational certification, procurement and trucking registration. The Post approvingly notes that Alberta and B.C. “are now bound to recognize the other’s occupational standards.” But the effect of this approach will be to turn the lowest standard in any province into the minimum standard for every province.
Prior to TILMA, all provinces except Quebec and B.C. maintained a common set of Red Seal standards for many skilled trades, ensuring inter-provincial mobility for tradespeople. Under TILMA, Alberta employers must accept people trained to lower standards in B.C. A far better approach would be for B.C. to adopt Red Seal standards.
The existing Agreement on Internal Trade prevents provincial governments from favouring local suppliers. TILMA will extend this regime to municipalities, school boards and Crown corporations. This is supposed to generate savings by expanding the pool of available suppliers for any given job. But at the municipal level, the cost of complying with arm’s-length procurement rules is likely to eclipse any potential cost savings.
Registering in multiple provinces undoubtedly creates a small additional cost for trucking companies under current rules. However, the Post’s suggestion that these companies are returning significant numbers of trucks empty to avoid registering in other provinces is unfounded. TILMA would encourage companies to register only in whichever province maintains the lowest standards.
Of course, provinces might reasonably choose to adopt common standards in some areas, but doing so hardly requires TILMA’s legalistic approach. This agreement’s enforcement mechanism allows private interests to sue for up to $5-million based on alleged violations by provincial governments, municipalities and school boards.
Rather than simply preventing measures that are discriminatory against businesses in other provinces, TILMA purports to “eliminate barriers that restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility.” The problem is that almost everything that governments do influences investment opportunities and could be challenged. TILMA’s limited, temporary exceptions protect a policy only if the government can prove that there is no conceivable alternative policy.
Commercial tribunals that meet behind closed doors, rather than provincial or federal courts, will interpret the extremely broad language of this 36-page agreement. Uncertainty about potential interpretations is already having a chilling effect on regulators in Alberta and B.C. who fear legal challenges. It makes no sense to sign a comprehensive agreement if there is no guarantee that tribunals will restrict its provisions to instances of genuine trade barriers.
Saskatchewan is the only province to have held public consultations on TILMA. Both the governing NDP and the right-wing Saskatchewan Party rejected the agreement because it severely constrains the capacity of provincial governments, municipalities and school boards to act in the public interest.
All provinces should join Saskatchewan in negotiating specific solutions to any minor inter-provincial barriers that may exist. At a minimum, Alberta, B.C. and any provinces considering joining TILMA should hold public consultations on this sweeping agreement.
Erin Weir is an economist with the Canadian Labour Congress. His presentation to Saskatchewan’s public hearings on joining TILMA is available at www.policyalternatives.ca.
Write a comment
Sunday, July 8, 2007
BC and Alberta push other provinces on TILMA
There is nothing stopping the provinces from agreeing on accepting each other's teacher's qualification or whatever without a general agreement such as TILMA which has many other features typically ignored in the pro-TILMA rhetoric.
Other provinces may be more concerned with preserving their own freedom of action than reducing it by signing on to TILMA.
Provinces sluggish on free-trade agreement: B.C., Alta.
Last Updated: Friday, July 6, 2007 | 4:52 PM CT
CBC News
The premiers of Alberta and British Columbia say they're frustrated with delays in getting other premiers to sign on to an interprovincial trade agreement.
Ed Stelmach and Gordon Campbell, both speaking Friday at the end of the western premiers' conference in Iqaluit, said they want the other provinces to agree to the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA), which both provinces signed last year. It came into effect April 1.
'I think it's time for us to decide whether we're a country or not.'
—B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell"We have to deal with issues that are trade barriers within the country of Canada," Stelmach said. "They're significant, they're impeding trade, they're increasing costs. And we want to take this agreement further and we've had, of course, interest paid by other premiers."
TILMA allows businesses, tradespeople and professionals to work and move back and forth across provincial borders with less red tape.
Under the agreement, businesses in the two provinces don't face duplicate registration requirements, and occupational standards for professionals like engineers and teachers are harmonized. As well, government procurement is more open to suppliers in both provinces.
But some provinces, like Saskatchewan, have expressed concern that by signing on to TILMA, they may lose control over what happens within their boundaries.
Continue Article
Saskatchewan's New Democrat government is concerned the province's Crown corporations could be hurt by the deal, as it would give all companies equal status in applying for government contracts. And just last week, the Opposition Saskatchewan Party announced it would not sign onto TILMA if elected, saying the deal may take away too much power from the provincial government.
Other jurisdictions are concerned that businesses registered in one province may have to be recognized in another.
But Campbell said all provinces identified the free movement of goods, labour and services as an issue more than a decade ago, so he doesn't understand why there's been so little movement in making TILMA a countrywide agreement.
"I'm proud of the fact that we've got TILMA signed between Alberta and British Columbia, and I think it's time for us to decide whether we're a country or not," Campbell said.
"I think it's ridiculous that someone can be trained as a teacher in Manitoba and isn't able to teach in British Columbia."
All of Canada's premiers will discuss the standardized accreditation and mobility of labour at the Council of the Federation meeting next month in Moncton, N.B. At the meeting of the council, which brings together premiers and territorial leaders to deal with "collaborative intergovernmental relations," Campbell and Stelmach said they'll try to convince everybody to consider signing on to the agreement.
All the western and northern premiers ended the Iqaluit meeting Friday with promises to work together on issues such as climate change, education and infrastructure
Other provinces may be more concerned with preserving their own freedom of action than reducing it by signing on to TILMA.
Provinces sluggish on free-trade agreement: B.C., Alta.
Last Updated: Friday, July 6, 2007 | 4:52 PM CT
CBC News
The premiers of Alberta and British Columbia say they're frustrated with delays in getting other premiers to sign on to an interprovincial trade agreement.
Ed Stelmach and Gordon Campbell, both speaking Friday at the end of the western premiers' conference in Iqaluit, said they want the other provinces to agree to the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA), which both provinces signed last year. It came into effect April 1.
'I think it's time for us to decide whether we're a country or not.'
—B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell"We have to deal with issues that are trade barriers within the country of Canada," Stelmach said. "They're significant, they're impeding trade, they're increasing costs. And we want to take this agreement further and we've had, of course, interest paid by other premiers."
TILMA allows businesses, tradespeople and professionals to work and move back and forth across provincial borders with less red tape.
Under the agreement, businesses in the two provinces don't face duplicate registration requirements, and occupational standards for professionals like engineers and teachers are harmonized. As well, government procurement is more open to suppliers in both provinces.
But some provinces, like Saskatchewan, have expressed concern that by signing on to TILMA, they may lose control over what happens within their boundaries.
Continue Article
Saskatchewan's New Democrat government is concerned the province's Crown corporations could be hurt by the deal, as it would give all companies equal status in applying for government contracts. And just last week, the Opposition Saskatchewan Party announced it would not sign onto TILMA if elected, saying the deal may take away too much power from the provincial government.
Other jurisdictions are concerned that businesses registered in one province may have to be recognized in another.
But Campbell said all provinces identified the free movement of goods, labour and services as an issue more than a decade ago, so he doesn't understand why there's been so little movement in making TILMA a countrywide agreement.
"I'm proud of the fact that we've got TILMA signed between Alberta and British Columbia, and I think it's time for us to decide whether we're a country or not," Campbell said.
"I think it's ridiculous that someone can be trained as a teacher in Manitoba and isn't able to teach in British Columbia."
All of Canada's premiers will discuss the standardized accreditation and mobility of labour at the Council of the Federation meeting next month in Moncton, N.B. At the meeting of the council, which brings together premiers and territorial leaders to deal with "collaborative intergovernmental relations," Campbell and Stelmach said they'll try to convince everybody to consider signing on to the agreement.
All the western and northern premiers ended the Iqaluit meeting Friday with promises to work together on issues such as climate change, education and infrastructure
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Sask. Party does not support TILMA
I just returned from Regina and was surprised to read in the Leader Post that the opposition Sask. Party does not support TILMA. Really it should be not that surprising. Although the Sask. Party is right wing, many right wingers are concerned about local control and the provinces losing power. Their main concern was that there were too many unanswered questions about TILMA. Even though it is leftist leaning groups such as the Council of Canadians that form the main opposition to TILMA together with some unions the concerns raised by TILMA are shared by many right leaning groups. In the US much of the opposition to deep integration comes not so much from the left but from right wing US nationalists who worry about the erosion of US sovereignty.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
What did the IMF say?
I read the speech as well and found nothing about inter-provincial trade barriers. This gives new meaning to the phrase "reading between the lines".
What Did the IMF Say?
Posted by Erin Weir under federalism, TILMA, financial markets.
June 22nd, 2007
Comments: 1
Under the headline “IMF Admonishes Canada,” the Financial Post reported on Wednesday:
The IMF added its voice yesterday to the growing chorus of observers urging Canada to undertake a 21st-century overhaul of its financial system, saying it should create a single securities regulator, open its banking system to foreign competition and mergers and tear down interprovincial trade barriers.
. . .
Rodrigo de Rato’s three suggestions to improve Canada’s financial systems: 1.Create a single securities regulator 2.Open the banking system to more foreign competition 3. Tear down interprovincial trade barriers
I cannot find any mention of “interprovincial trade barriers” in the published text of Rodrigo de Rato’s speech, nor does the National Post outline what he said on this topic. I can think of two possible explanations:
1. Mr. Rato said something that was not in his written text, in which case it would be interesting to know what it was.
2. The Harper government and others have been so successful in conflating the sensible notion of a national securities regulator with the hazy rhetoric about “interprovincial trade barriers” that a speech on the former prompts reporters to reflexively mention the latter.
UPDATE (June 25): The Financial Post has run another story (FP2 in today’s paper) containing the following statement:
Visiting Canada last week, Rodrigo de Rato said Canada should create a single securities regulator, open its banking system to foreign competition and mergers and dissolve interprovincial trade barriers.
All of the story’s quotes relate to the first two topics. Again, there are no specifics on “interprovincial trade barriers” or what Mr. Rato said about them.
What Did the IMF Say?
Posted by Erin Weir under federalism, TILMA, financial markets.
June 22nd, 2007
Comments: 1
Under the headline “IMF Admonishes Canada,” the Financial Post reported on Wednesday:
The IMF added its voice yesterday to the growing chorus of observers urging Canada to undertake a 21st-century overhaul of its financial system, saying it should create a single securities regulator, open its banking system to foreign competition and mergers and tear down interprovincial trade barriers.
. . .
Rodrigo de Rato’s three suggestions to improve Canada’s financial systems: 1.Create a single securities regulator 2.Open the banking system to more foreign competition 3. Tear down interprovincial trade barriers
I cannot find any mention of “interprovincial trade barriers” in the published text of Rodrigo de Rato’s speech, nor does the National Post outline what he said on this topic. I can think of two possible explanations:
1. Mr. Rato said something that was not in his written text, in which case it would be interesting to know what it was.
2. The Harper government and others have been so successful in conflating the sensible notion of a national securities regulator with the hazy rhetoric about “interprovincial trade barriers” that a speech on the former prompts reporters to reflexively mention the latter.
UPDATE (June 25): The Financial Post has run another story (FP2 in today’s paper) containing the following statement:
Visiting Canada last week, Rodrigo de Rato said Canada should create a single securities regulator, open its banking system to foreign competition and mergers and dissolve interprovincial trade barriers.
All of the story’s quotes relate to the first two topics. Again, there are no specifics on “interprovincial trade barriers” or what Mr. Rato said about them.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Letter to Ottawa Citizen on TILMA
No doubt free trade is more important than democracy or any freedom of provinces to set different health safety etc. regulations. In fact rather than democracy what we need is deep integration with the US. This will allow capital free reign which is the ultimate aim of democracy under capitalist conditions. Of course this all trickles down benefits to the people for whom the government is of and for. There is bad democracy and good democracy. TILMA and deep integration stands for good democracy. Freedom to set different regulations is bad democracy.
Beware downside to latest trade deal
The Ottawa Citizen
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Re: Trading with the neighbours, May 15.
The Citizen editorial's extravagant enthusiasm for the B.C.-Alberta Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) is seriously misplaced.
The debate about TILMA is a good example of unquestioning adherence to conventional wisdoms. In this case it's the all-too-familiar bromide that eliminating trade barriers will increase economic prosperity and equality.
Throwing cold water on this manufactured truth, though, are the facts about trade barriers and TILMA. The fact is there are very few obstacles to interprovincial trade and labour mobility. TILMA supporters in government and business are falsely claiming that differences in public interest regulation amount to trade barriers. There's no evidence that differences in regulation results in significant economic costs. In fact, the most credible research on interprovincial barriers finds they cost less than 1/20th of one per cent of GDP.
There are, however, significant downsides associated with TILMA. The agreement gives enormous power to corporations to challenge, via a disputes panel, all existing and future government regulations, including health, safety and environmental standards.
If the disputes panel decides the law or regulation "impairs" or "restricts" a corporation's investment, then the law is struck down and the government can be forced to pay $5 million in compensation to the corporation.
TILMA also eliminates local purchasing or favouring local suppliers or government support for rural development or small business, or assistance to economically depressed regions.
In effect, the provinces and all governing bodies lose their right to react to the political choice of their populations. Democratic decision-making is second-guessed by an unelected trade panel. Democracy takes a back seat to corporate interests.
TILMA booster Todd Hirsch of the Canada West Foundation says, "TILMA (is the) erasing of the provincial boundary for all purposes except voting and the colour of the license plate."
If TILMA spreads to other provinces, we could presumably eliminate provincial elections and just have referenda on the colour of our licence plates.
Governments of other provinces should look once, twice and three times before they leap into a dangerous deal they will undoubtedly regret.
Instead, any real trade barriers should simply be dealt with on a pragmatic case-by-case basis.
Larry Brown, Ottawa
Beware downside to latest trade deal
The Ottawa Citizen
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Re: Trading with the neighbours, May 15.
The Citizen editorial's extravagant enthusiasm for the B.C.-Alberta Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) is seriously misplaced.
The debate about TILMA is a good example of unquestioning adherence to conventional wisdoms. In this case it's the all-too-familiar bromide that eliminating trade barriers will increase economic prosperity and equality.
Throwing cold water on this manufactured truth, though, are the facts about trade barriers and TILMA. The fact is there are very few obstacles to interprovincial trade and labour mobility. TILMA supporters in government and business are falsely claiming that differences in public interest regulation amount to trade barriers. There's no evidence that differences in regulation results in significant economic costs. In fact, the most credible research on interprovincial barriers finds they cost less than 1/20th of one per cent of GDP.
There are, however, significant downsides associated with TILMA. The agreement gives enormous power to corporations to challenge, via a disputes panel, all existing and future government regulations, including health, safety and environmental standards.
If the disputes panel decides the law or regulation "impairs" or "restricts" a corporation's investment, then the law is struck down and the government can be forced to pay $5 million in compensation to the corporation.
TILMA also eliminates local purchasing or favouring local suppliers or government support for rural development or small business, or assistance to economically depressed regions.
In effect, the provinces and all governing bodies lose their right to react to the political choice of their populations. Democratic decision-making is second-guessed by an unelected trade panel. Democracy takes a back seat to corporate interests.
TILMA booster Todd Hirsch of the Canada West Foundation says, "TILMA (is the) erasing of the provincial boundary for all purposes except voting and the colour of the license plate."
If TILMA spreads to other provinces, we could presumably eliminate provincial elections and just have referenda on the colour of our licence plates.
Governments of other provinces should look once, twice and three times before they leap into a dangerous deal they will undoubtedly regret.
Instead, any real trade barriers should simply be dealt with on a pragmatic case-by-case basis.
Larry Brown, Ottawa
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Saskatchewan and TILMA
TILMA is the Trade Investment and Labor Mobility Agreement. The Conference Board figures show great benefits for BC but the data and the technique for calculation of benefits were as this article points out quite suspect. Critics worry that these agreements are part of deep integration with the US and curtail the powers of municipalities.
Saskatchewan and TILMA
Posted by Erin Weir under TILMA , economic models
Today, the Government of Saskatchewan initiated a process of legislative consultations on TILMA and released the Conference Board’s assessment of this agreement’s potential impact on Saskatchewan. This document is the sequel to the Conference Board’s BC assessment, which Marc and I critiqued on this blog and in our paper.
I have not yet read through the 55-page document, but will provide some initial impressions. The Conference Board has retained its matrix of industries and regions, but dropped its GDP-impact scale in favour of simply treating the final “score” as a percentage of GDP. This “methodology” is still completely arbitrary, but produces appreciably less extreme results. Whereas the Board projected gains equal to 3.8% of GDP and 78,000 jobs for BC, it projects 0.92% of GDP and 4,400 jobs for Saskatchewan. These Saskatchewan estimates are still unbelievably high, but also so dramatically different from the BC estimates as to constitute a repudiation of the Conference Board’s previous work.
Interestingly, the provincial government has released the Conference Board’s document in conjunction with other materials. Brian Copeland’s excellent paper, which Marc and I cited and which used to only exist in hardcopy, is now available online. The government has also provided reviews of the Conference Board’s assessment by two academic economists, Dr. John Helliwell and Dr. Eric Howe.
The following are some key quotes from pages 6 and 7 of Helliwell’s piece:
“The principal source of data for the paper was a survey that asked representatives of firms, organizations and government agencies and departments to list what they thought to be the most important barriers to inter-provincial trade in their company, region or industry, and then provide qualitative rankings of winners and losers by region and industry. The latter were then converted to measures of long-term changes in income and employment by Conference Board staff. Since there was no research or quantitative base for this translation, it has no empirical basis, and hence cannot be treated as evidence. . . . In my view, this is an inappropriate use of the survey instrument, akin to estimating national GDP by asking households how they think everyone else is doing these days. . . . there is no empirical support for the Conference Board estimates of GDP and employment changes.”
Saskatchewan and TILMA
Posted by Erin Weir under TILMA , economic models
Today, the Government of Saskatchewan initiated a process of legislative consultations on TILMA and released the Conference Board’s assessment of this agreement’s potential impact on Saskatchewan. This document is the sequel to the Conference Board’s BC assessment, which Marc and I critiqued on this blog and in our paper.
I have not yet read through the 55-page document, but will provide some initial impressions. The Conference Board has retained its matrix of industries and regions, but dropped its GDP-impact scale in favour of simply treating the final “score” as a percentage of GDP. This “methodology” is still completely arbitrary, but produces appreciably less extreme results. Whereas the Board projected gains equal to 3.8% of GDP and 78,000 jobs for BC, it projects 0.92% of GDP and 4,400 jobs for Saskatchewan. These Saskatchewan estimates are still unbelievably high, but also so dramatically different from the BC estimates as to constitute a repudiation of the Conference Board’s previous work.
Interestingly, the provincial government has released the Conference Board’s document in conjunction with other materials. Brian Copeland’s excellent paper, which Marc and I cited and which used to only exist in hardcopy, is now available online. The government has also provided reviews of the Conference Board’s assessment by two academic economists, Dr. John Helliwell and Dr. Eric Howe.
The following are some key quotes from pages 6 and 7 of Helliwell’s piece:
“The principal source of data for the paper was a survey that asked representatives of firms, organizations and government agencies and departments to list what they thought to be the most important barriers to inter-provincial trade in their company, region or industry, and then provide qualitative rankings of winners and losers by region and industry. The latter were then converted to measures of long-term changes in income and employment by Conference Board staff. Since there was no research or quantitative base for this translation, it has no empirical basis, and hence cannot be treated as evidence. . . . In my view, this is an inappropriate use of the survey instrument, akin to estimating national GDP by asking households how they think everyone else is doing these days. . . . there is no empirical support for the Conference Board estimates of GDP and employment changes.”
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Analysis of TILMA for OFL
An analysis of TILMA done for OFL (Ontario Federation of Labor) can be downloaded at this site as a Pdf document.
Here is an excerpt showing TILMA's effects on public policy etc.
VI. TILMA’s Chilling Effects on Public Policy, Law and Action
Another important consequence of empowering individuals and companies to invoke dispute
resolution under TILMA is that doing so negates the political, strategic and economic
constraints that may temper a province’s inclination to seek recourse to formal dispute
resolution. Provinces will have an incentive to seek a balanced interpretation of TILMA rules
because they must also observe them. Private parties, on the other hand, have no obligations
under TILMA, and are therefore free of the moderating influence of having reciprocal
obligations.39
The notoriety, cost, and potential liability associated with complaints and potential damage
awards are likely to produce a “chill” over the development of domestic policy and law.
Moreover, the inclination of governments to engage in self-censorship to avoid such risks is
accentuated because the parameters of TILMA obligations are ill-defined, often unprecedented,
dispute has been
brought concerning these investment rules - http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/tna-nac/NAFTA-en.asp.
28
and at the mercy of panel interpretations that may reject the views of other panels on the same
question.
In fact, the threat of investor-state litigation under NAFTA investment rules continues to exert a
chilling influence over such diverse public policy initiatives as plain packaging regulations for
cigarettes, public automobile insurance, and even the future of Medicare. As pointed out by a
prominent Canadian trade lawyer in a report prepared for the Romanow Commission, investorstate
claims are now an obstacle to expanding the publicly funded health care system.40 TILMA
is likely to have similar effects and for the same reasons.
Here is an excerpt showing TILMA's effects on public policy etc.
VI. TILMA’s Chilling Effects on Public Policy, Law and Action
Another important consequence of empowering individuals and companies to invoke dispute
resolution under TILMA is that doing so negates the political, strategic and economic
constraints that may temper a province’s inclination to seek recourse to formal dispute
resolution. Provinces will have an incentive to seek a balanced interpretation of TILMA rules
because they must also observe them. Private parties, on the other hand, have no obligations
under TILMA, and are therefore free of the moderating influence of having reciprocal
obligations.39
The notoriety, cost, and potential liability associated with complaints and potential damage
awards are likely to produce a “chill” over the development of domestic policy and law.
Moreover, the inclination of governments to engage in self-censorship to avoid such risks is
accentuated because the parameters of TILMA obligations are ill-defined, often unprecedented,
dispute has been
brought concerning these investment rules - http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/tna-nac/NAFTA-en.asp.
28
and at the mercy of panel interpretations that may reject the views of other panels on the same
question.
In fact, the threat of investor-state litigation under NAFTA investment rules continues to exert a
chilling influence over such diverse public policy initiatives as plain packaging regulations for
cigarettes, public automobile insurance, and even the future of Medicare. As pointed out by a
prominent Canadian trade lawyer in a report prepared for the Romanow Commission, investorstate
claims are now an obstacle to expanding the publicly funded health care system.40 TILMA
is likely to have similar effects and for the same reasons.
Monday, April 9, 2007
TILMA: Trade Investment and Labor Mobility Agreement
The mainstream press has had little or nothing to say about this agreement. THe Council of Canadians has tried to alert the public about it. This is taken from a Canadian Progressive Economists blog.
TILMA and the environment
Posted by Marc Lee under TILMA , environment
1 Comment
Last week, the Sierra Legal Defence Fund published a legal analysis on the environment and TILMA. Below is an excerpt from the press release, and the full document is here. This is an important analysis as BC’s point man on the file, Colin Hansen, has been claiming that the environment has been set aside as a “legitimate objective”.
April Fools’ Day trade pact undermines measures to fight climate change
BC–Alberta agreement also creates hurdles for endangered species and curbing pollution
VANCOUVER, BC – Key aspects of environmental regulation from municipal to provincial lawmaking will be turned upside down this Sunday April 1st when the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) comes into force. Although the aim of the agreement is to turn Alberta and BC into an economic powerhouse, a legal analysis of TILMA by Sierra Legal reveals it could seriously threaten the provinces’ endangered species and jeopardize potential initiatives to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
TILMA sets rules for all governments within the trade zone (including, in 2009, municipalities) and allows individuals and corporations to sue BC or Alberta for up to $5 million if its rules are broken, even if a government, including local governments, is acting to help the environment. The agreement does include some environmental exemptions regarding water and the promotion of renewable and alternative energy, but other government measures (laws, programs, policies) aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants, or protecting endangered species cannot overly restrict trade or investment. No input from environmental groups or the public is required in coming to such a decision.
“It’s scary to think that a dispute panel created under an agreement aimed exclusively at boosting trade and investment can make such profound decisions on our environment,” said Keith Ferguson, Staff Lawyer with Sierra Legal. “In this time of increased awareness for the need to protect our environment, I find it unbelievable that the governments of BC and Alberta are pushing this.”
TILMA and the environment
Posted by Marc Lee under TILMA , environment
1 Comment
Last week, the Sierra Legal Defence Fund published a legal analysis on the environment and TILMA. Below is an excerpt from the press release, and the full document is here. This is an important analysis as BC’s point man on the file, Colin Hansen, has been claiming that the environment has been set aside as a “legitimate objective”.
April Fools’ Day trade pact undermines measures to fight climate change
BC–Alberta agreement also creates hurdles for endangered species and curbing pollution
VANCOUVER, BC – Key aspects of environmental regulation from municipal to provincial lawmaking will be turned upside down this Sunday April 1st when the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) comes into force. Although the aim of the agreement is to turn Alberta and BC into an economic powerhouse, a legal analysis of TILMA by Sierra Legal reveals it could seriously threaten the provinces’ endangered species and jeopardize potential initiatives to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
TILMA sets rules for all governments within the trade zone (including, in 2009, municipalities) and allows individuals and corporations to sue BC or Alberta for up to $5 million if its rules are broken, even if a government, including local governments, is acting to help the environment. The agreement does include some environmental exemptions regarding water and the promotion of renewable and alternative energy, but other government measures (laws, programs, policies) aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants, or protecting endangered species cannot overly restrict trade or investment. No input from environmental groups or the public is required in coming to such a decision.
“It’s scary to think that a dispute panel created under an agreement aimed exclusively at boosting trade and investment can make such profound decisions on our environment,” said Keith Ferguson, Staff Lawyer with Sierra Legal. “In this time of increased awareness for the need to protect our environment, I find it unbelievable that the governments of BC and Alberta are pushing this.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)