August 27, 2008

Stop me if you've heard this one. The president of the
United States and the prime minister of Canada meet in a bar
and the president says "I've got a trade agreement that will
benefit Canadians." And the prime minister says "Where do I
sign?"

NAFTA is a joke because, despite its name, it is not a trade
agreement. It's not even about free trade. "Free" hardly
describes the extensive restrictions in the form of tariffs,
quotas, patents, and property rights so zealously guarded by
investors. "Trade" can't be construed to describe the
circumstances where most international imports and exports
amount to internal transfers between branch offices in
Canada and their head offices in the U.S.

Have you heard the one about TILMA? It's supposed to be an
agreement between Alberta and B.C. that removes barriers to
labour mobility and interprovincial trade. But there never
have been any barriers or border crossings that prevent
Canadians from traveling between provinces to get a job.

TILMA supposedly creates consistent certifications between
provinces but most construction trade workers are already
recognized in both B.C. and Alberta. And most of the 60
occupations named in the agreement still require some
further upgrading or certification for out-of-province
workers.

It's hard to see how TILMA will improve trade between
provinces when interprovincial trade increased by 25 per
cent in the five years before the agreement. Supporters of
TILMA claim that there are barriers to trade and investment
that undercut competitiveness.

"This is nonsense", says senior economist for the Canadian
Centre for Policy Alternatives, Mark Lee, "Few examples of
trade impediments are ever offered by supporters of TILMA.
There is no evidence that any Alberta company has been
stopped from doing business at the B.C. border, or that they
have been discriminated against by provincial or municipal
governments in BC."

The 36 page document is full of vagaries: "Each Party shall
ensure that any charges it applies to persons, good,
services, investments or investors of the other Party are
the same as those charges to its own, in like circumstances,
except to the extent that any difference can be justified by
an actual cost-of-service differential." Lawyers will see a
benefit to TILMA.

Ellen Gould of the CCPA warns that: "This agreement is
extremely broad. It will create pressure to deregulate in
important areas of public policy. The true meaning of its
provisions will not be fully understood until the limits are
tested by dispute panels."

While the meaning is vague, the intent is not. TILMA
intends to reduce the powers of municipal governments. So
when the Union of British Columbia Municipalities votes
against TILMA, you know something stinks.

Kamloops city councilor Arjun Singh was there during the
vote and expressed his concerns to Minister of Economic
Development Colin Hansen over the erosion of the powers of
municipal governments. "Does this mean that if we have a
higher standard in what we expect from a private developer
(for example, a higher contribution to funding parkland),
that we would have to drop our standard to the lowest
standard present in Alberta," Singh wonders in his blog.

Hansen told Singh not to worry, even though there is no
written protection in TILMA for municipal lands and
autonomy. Singh's concerns are not eased. "We have been in
fact subject to TILMA for the past 6 months, without really
knowing what it all means."

Hansen was more candid when Vancouver city councilors
expressed concerns about TILMA. He told them they "might as
well save their breath."

Mayor Terry Lake is also concerned but will those concerns
evaporate if he is elected to provincial government?

Anita Strong, chair of the local Council of Canadians, is
opposed to TILMA not just because the agreement was signed
without due public consultation and not just because the
dispute-settling boards are publicly unaccountable. Strong
worries that the agreement takes municipal control away from
local governments.

"If the City wanted to promote downtown revitalization,"
says Strong, "those land-use provisions could be up for
debate." Under TILMA, private developers could challenge
public projects if they conflicted with their own plans.

The joke of TILMA is a double-entendre. While it pretends
to improve trade and labour mobility, it is really about
reducing the ability of governments to protect consumers, to
set labour standards, regulate pollutants and protect the
environment.

TILMA would be more aptly titled the Bill of Rights for
Investors.
 

David Charbonneau is the owner of Trio Technical.
He can be reached at dcharbonneau13@shaw.ca

go back to my Columns in the