Public Forum on T.I.L.M.A (Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement)
BC and Alberta have inked a new pact:
Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA)
that will increase privatization, allow private investores to challenge
public programs, policies and regulations, and restrict governments'
ability to act in the public interest.
Discuss what social activists can do about it.
7:30pm - Wednesday, January 17th
Maritime Labour Centre, 1880 Triumph at Victoria
Vancouver, BC
Background info...
www.winnipegfreepress.com/westv...c.html
Agreement cuts provincial powers to govern
Winnipeg Free Press
Fri Nov 3 2006
By Murray Dobbin
WHAT if a provincial government signed an agreement forcing it to make
most of its regulations identical to those of another province? What if
this government voluntarily made itself, and every municipality within
its borders, open to lawsuits over virtually anything it did that
restricted investment? What if it tied its own hands so that, no matter
how much a region was suffering economically, it could not provide
assistance that might "distort investment decisions?"
Well, there are no "what ifs" about it. This past spring, B.C.'s Gordon
Campbell and Alberta's Ralph Klein signed an agreement with exactly
these sweeping constraints on the ability to govern. It is called the
Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement. B.C. and Alberta trade
officials are now shopping it around to other provinces to get them to
sign on. The agreement comes into effect next April.
According to Todd Hirsch of the Canada West Foundation, the agreement
could erase the borders between B.C. and Alberta so that the only
differences between them will be "voting and the colour of the licence
plate."
Except, once the agreement comes into full force, voting provincially in
B.C. and Alberta could be a waste of time.
Under the agreement, the B.C. or Alberta government will be barred from
doing anything that could "impair or restrict" trade, not only between
the provinces but also through them to another province or country. One
article just flatly decrees that there shall be "No Obstacles" to this
trade.
Governments will be prohibited from providing subsidies that either
directly or indirectly "distort investment decisions."
Click here to find out more!
Some exceptions, such as for water, are permitted but even these are to
be reviewed annually to get them reduced.
The agreement also requires B.C. and Alberta to "mutually recognize or
otherwise reconcile their existing standards and regulations" if these
"impair or restrict" trade, investment or labour mobility. Then it
prohibits new regulations from being introduced that would have these
effects. Since regulation always restricts investment in some way, the
result will be that all future B.C. and Alberta governments will be
prevented from strengthening their regulations.
How exactly is this going to work? What would happen, for example, if
B.C. voters decided they had had enough of leaky condos and voted for a
party committed to tougher construction regulations? A government
elected on such a commitment would quickly find it had to betray its
promise or be vulnerable to a trade investment challenge.
Plus if either province considers any new initiatives, it has to give
the other party to the agreement the right to comment in advance and is
then obligated to "take the other province's comments into
consideration." In sharp contrast, citizens in B.C. and Alberta were
never consulted by their own governments on this astonishing agreement.
As part of their sales job, Alberta's Gary Mar and B.C.'s Colin Hansen
have claimed the agreement will not result in lower provincial standards
-- just ones that are "appropriate." In reality, however, the agreement
can only lead to deregulation because businesses are only likely to sue
governments over regulations they think are too high, not ones that are
too weak. In a vastly expanded version of provisions in NAFTA, any
resident of B.C. or Alberta will gain extensive new grounds to sue
government. A dispute panel will be empowered to make binding decisions
and grant compensation of up to $5 million for any government action
that violates the agreement. Repeated complaints can be taken about the
same government policy or regulation.
Governments can go on bended knee to trade investment panels and argue
that their regulations were "necessary," but trade dispute panels rarely
accept such arguments. Plus, this agreement only recognizes a limited
list of regulatory objectives as "legitimate."
For example, a city's desire to prevent urban blight is not on the list
of legitimate objectives, so municipal bans on billboards would likely
be a violation.
No wonder Gary Mar could tell a business audience in Richmond that the
dispute process is "everything Canadian business asked for."
The pact creates endless potential for litigation against government
right down to the school board level, without any demonstrable benefit.
A 1998 study done for the B.C. government found that: "efforts to
liberalize interprovincial trade will have almost no effect on trade
flows. The reality is that interprovincial trade barriers are already
very low."
As for labour mobility, all of provisions for increased labour mobility
will already be covered in Premier Gary Doer's initiative to see
professional requirements harmonized across Canada.
To sum up, the agreement pretty much bans new regulation and government
assistance for economic development. Perhaps in anticipation of the
pact, the B.C. legislature's fall sitting was cancelled with the
government claiming there was not enough to do. When asked about the
constitutionality of the agreement, Steven Shrybman, a partner in the
law firm of Sack, Goldblatt, and Mitchell, commented that "a basic
principle of constitutional law is that a government cannot fetter its
own legislative prerogatives by abandoning its authority to govern."
Sounds like what the Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement is
all about.
Murray Dobbin is a Vancouver-based writer.
fighting till my last breath (in action and words),
jax
(jaxfitzgibbon@yahoo.ca)
BC and Alberta have inked a new pact:
Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA)
that will increase privatization, allow private investores to challenge
public programs, policies and regulations, and restrict governments'
ability to act in the public interest.
Discuss what social activists can do about it.
7:30pm - Wednesday, January 17th
Maritime Labour Centre, 1880 Triumph at Victoria
Vancouver, BC
Background info...
www.winnipegfreepress.com/westv...c.html
Agreement cuts provincial powers to govern
Winnipeg Free Press
Fri Nov 3 2006
By Murray Dobbin
WHAT if a provincial government signed an agreement forcing it to make
most of its regulations identical to those of another province? What if
this government voluntarily made itself, and every municipality within
its borders, open to lawsuits over virtually anything it did that
restricted investment? What if it tied its own hands so that, no matter
how much a region was suffering economically, it could not provide
assistance that might "distort investment decisions?"
Well, there are no "what ifs" about it. This past spring, B.C.'s Gordon
Campbell and Alberta's Ralph Klein signed an agreement with exactly
these sweeping constraints on the ability to govern. It is called the
Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement. B.C. and Alberta trade
officials are now shopping it around to other provinces to get them to
sign on. The agreement comes into effect next April.
According to Todd Hirsch of the Canada West Foundation, the agreement
could erase the borders between B.C. and Alberta so that the only
differences between them will be "voting and the colour of the licence
plate."
Except, once the agreement comes into full force, voting provincially in
B.C. and Alberta could be a waste of time.
Under the agreement, the B.C. or Alberta government will be barred from
doing anything that could "impair or restrict" trade, not only between
the provinces but also through them to another province or country. One
article just flatly decrees that there shall be "No Obstacles" to this
trade.
Governments will be prohibited from providing subsidies that either
directly or indirectly "distort investment decisions."
Click here to find out more!
Some exceptions, such as for water, are permitted but even these are to
be reviewed annually to get them reduced.
The agreement also requires B.C. and Alberta to "mutually recognize or
otherwise reconcile their existing standards and regulations" if these
"impair or restrict" trade, investment or labour mobility. Then it
prohibits new regulations from being introduced that would have these
effects. Since regulation always restricts investment in some way, the
result will be that all future B.C. and Alberta governments will be
prevented from strengthening their regulations.
How exactly is this going to work? What would happen, for example, if
B.C. voters decided they had had enough of leaky condos and voted for a
party committed to tougher construction regulations? A government
elected on such a commitment would quickly find it had to betray its
promise or be vulnerable to a trade investment challenge.
Plus if either province considers any new initiatives, it has to give
the other party to the agreement the right to comment in advance and is
then obligated to "take the other province's comments into
consideration." In sharp contrast, citizens in B.C. and Alberta were
never consulted by their own governments on this astonishing agreement.
As part of their sales job, Alberta's Gary Mar and B.C.'s Colin Hansen
have claimed the agreement will not result in lower provincial standards
-- just ones that are "appropriate." In reality, however, the agreement
can only lead to deregulation because businesses are only likely to sue
governments over regulations they think are too high, not ones that are
too weak. In a vastly expanded version of provisions in NAFTA, any
resident of B.C. or Alberta will gain extensive new grounds to sue
government. A dispute panel will be empowered to make binding decisions
and grant compensation of up to $5 million for any government action
that violates the agreement. Repeated complaints can be taken about the
same government policy or regulation.
Governments can go on bended knee to trade investment panels and argue
that their regulations were "necessary," but trade dispute panels rarely
accept such arguments. Plus, this agreement only recognizes a limited
list of regulatory objectives as "legitimate."
For example, a city's desire to prevent urban blight is not on the list
of legitimate objectives, so municipal bans on billboards would likely
be a violation.
No wonder Gary Mar could tell a business audience in Richmond that the
dispute process is "everything Canadian business asked for."
The pact creates endless potential for litigation against government
right down to the school board level, without any demonstrable benefit.
A 1998 study done for the B.C. government found that: "efforts to
liberalize interprovincial trade will have almost no effect on trade
flows. The reality is that interprovincial trade barriers are already
very low."
As for labour mobility, all of provisions for increased labour mobility
will already be covered in Premier Gary Doer's initiative to see
professional requirements harmonized across Canada.
To sum up, the agreement pretty much bans new regulation and government
assistance for economic development. Perhaps in anticipation of the
pact, the B.C. legislature's fall sitting was cancelled with the
government claiming there was not enough to do. When asked about the
constitutionality of the agreement, Steven Shrybman, a partner in the
law firm of Sack, Goldblatt, and Mitchell, commented that "a basic
principle of constitutional law is that a government cannot fetter its
own legislative prerogatives by abandoning its authority to govern."
Sounds like what the Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement is
all about.
Murray Dobbin is a Vancouver-based writer.
fighting till my last breath (in action and words),
jax
(jaxfitzgibbon@yahoo.ca)
posted by:
|
Vancouver
|
