TILMA... What is it? That's what many people, even those generally interested in political matters, have been asking (including myself, two weeks ago).

It's the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement. Think of it as NAFTA for British Columbia and Alberta.

So far, it is only between these two provinces, but already there has been interest in bringing more provinces into this race to the bottom- before the public has even heard about it!

I'd like to start some discussion on this, and get the ball rolling on preventing it (it is supposed to come into effect April 1, 2007). It affects every person living in BC and Alberta.

Here is an article on TILMA by Murray Dobbin:

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

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

TILMA claims will be decided by NAFTA-like panels.

What are some examples of government restrictions on investment that could be challenged under TILMA? TILMA has some exceptions, but land use planning is not one of them. The Agricultural Land Commission, the Island Trusts, regional districts and land use restrictions in provincial parks will all be vulnerable to a TILMA challenge as of next April. Municipalities will have a two-year grace period before the government extends TILMA to them. They could then be challenged for regulating the size and location of commercial signs and billboards, imposing height restrictions on buildings, or requiring green space allocations from developers. And they can be challenged starting in April if they introduce bylaws that are stricter than their existing ones.

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

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

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

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

TILMA allows for a limited number of “Legitimate Objectives” so governments can try to defend themselves before a dispute panel, arguing their regulations were "necessary." But nothing in TILMA recognizes the kind of quality of life objectives served by land use planning. Moreover, a government would also have to demonstrate that its measure is not more restrictive to business than necessary to achieve its objectives.

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

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

(To put it succinctly: WTF?)

http://tribes.tribe.net/tilma