Taking on TILMA on April 1, 2008

[Stop TILMA!]

All,

To ring in April Fools 2008, we want to challenge the myth of trade
barriers that have been manufactured in promoting the Trade,
Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA). It is important that
we let the provincial government know that we don't believe their
rhetoric on so called inter-provincial trade barriers. Tuesday, April
1, 2008 marks 1 year since the TILMA was forced onto the provinces of
BC and Alberta. And there's 1 year left before the transition period
is over and TILMA is fully implemented.

Despite attempts from the provincial government to convince the public
otherwise, there is no evidence that any Alberta company has been
stopped from doing business at the BC border, or that they have been
discriminated against by provincial or municipal governments in BC.
Few examples of trade impediments are ever offered by supporters of
TILMA. TILMA is a solution in search of a problem.

What TILMA really does is to create and codify investor rights, and
provides a mechanism for private enforcement. This has huge
consequences for public interest regulation in BC, as TILMA's private
dispute panels can award up to $5 million to an Alberta investor if a
decision made by a BC government body "restricts or impairs" their
investment.

*** Hop in the van if you live in the Lower Mainland! ***

This is an invitation to join stop TILMA activists on April 1. As the
Council of Canadians chapter in Golden hits the pavement magnifying
glass in hand to look for inter provincial trade barriers at the BC/AL
boarder and the Lethbridge chapter holds a "letters to fools" letter
writing party, a van full of stop TILMA activists to head out to city
halls in the Lower Mainland.

We encourage you to join us dressed up as an Alberta investor as we
show up at city halls in the Lower Mainland to hand city council
members this document:
http://tinyurl.com/35bqhp

If you can't spend the day in the van, please join us along the
route.

9:00 am Leave Downtown Vancouver from the Dominion Building (207 West
Hastings)
9:30 am Vancouver City Hall
11:00 am Surrey City Hall
12:30 pm Langley City Hall
1:30 pm Port Coquitlam
3:30 pm North Vancouver

Please contact us at stop...@gmail.com to let us know you will be
participating.

*** Write a letter-to-the editor on Provincial Trade Barriers for
April 1, 2008 ***

We also encourage you to pull out your pens and paper to spread the
word about TILMA and the myth of interprovincial trade barriers. As
Murray Dobbin writes in the Globe and Mail: "Talk about extraordinary:
A public policy debate has broken out over an issue that, normally,
would not even warrant discussion. For well over a year, an enormous
public relations effort has been aimed at convincing Canadians, and
their provincial governments, that Canada faces a virtual economic
crisis. The crisis? Massive, intractable, destructive trade barriers
between the provinces." Most credible trade research demonstrates
there are very few obstacles to trade and investment among provinces.

A short letter to your local newspaper on TILMA making key points
about the pact and the manufacturing of trade barriers will help to
spread the word about the agreement and demonstrate opposition to
TILMA. Let's show the provincial government that TILMA is no April
Fools joke and not welcomed in our communities.


Key points on TILMA:

* TILMA gives corporations the right to be compensated for up to $5
million for government policies that cost them money, even when these
policies serve the public interest. TILMA is an agreement signed
behind closed doors by the BC and Alberta governments.

* The agreement is about reducing the scope of acceptable government
action. TILMA turns governance on its head by forcing the provinces
and their official agencies (i.e. municipalities, public school
boards, hospitals, etc) to prove that the rules and regulations they
enforce do not "restrict or impair" trade and investment (i.e.
profits). Under TILMA, even rules designed to protect public health or
the environment are vulnerable to legal challenges demanding
compensation of up to $5-million.
* Most of the agreement came into effect on April 1, 2007, with
additional areas covered by April 1, 2009.

* TILMA imposes extreme limitations on what governments can do to
solve urgent problems, such as global warming.

* TILMA threatens the ability of local governments to maintain
planning and other regulations necessary for the well being of their
communities. There are some exclusions or exceptions to the agreement
(laws affecting First nations, water, energy, forests and mines) but
there is no exclusion for laws and regulations intended to enhance the
quality of life of communities - things like green space requirements
of developers, height limits on buildings, the banning of pesticides,
limits on size and location of business signs and billboards.

* TILMA prevents governments from providing targeted grants and loans
to foster local economic development and severely restricts efforts to
support local businesses through government purchasing decisions.

* TILMA creates grave new threats to the public nature of our health
care, education and other services by allowing commercial challenges
to these services. While "social services" are excluded, there is no
exclusion for education or health care so private health care
companies, for example, could use TILMA to challenge the laws limiting
for-profit health care companies.

* The BC Premier's interest in harmonizing provincial standards
through the BC-Alberta Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement
(TILMA) could prove to be a thorn in the government's side,
undermining its ability to take necessary measures on the climate
change file. The basic problem is this: fighting climate change will
necessarily involve a lot of regulation, while TILMA is fundamentally
a deregulatory initiative.

* The BC government claims that article 6 of TILMA protects a
municipality or school board's right to pursue protection of the
environment and buy local policies. Under TILMA a government entity
such as a municipality or board of education will have justify its
measures in order to it to be a "legitimate objective". Three
requirements have to be met in order for governments to justify their
measures. As Article 6 explains, one would have to demonstrate that
the measure is not merely restrictive but necessary to achieve the
objective; and that one is not disguising a restriction to trade,
investment or labour mobility. Further, a local government would have
to prove that they could not have done it in another way. The
municipality will have to establish that it fully considered a whole
constellation of alternative actions that might have addressed the
problem with less impact on trade, investment and labour mobility--and
that the course chosen was not more restrictive than necessary. In six
cases brought to the AIT, governments have lost each time in
attempting to prove that what they were doing was necessary.

* A similar kind of law in Oregon - this one affecting only land use
regulations - has in just two years resulted in over 6,000 claims
worth over $6 billion. Because the Oregon government has no fund to
pay these claims they have instead waived the offending laws and
regulations in virtually every case - making land use regulation
virtually impossible.

* Municipalities and school boards in BC have both passed resolutions
at their AGM's stating that the consequences for local democracy far
outweigh the purported benefits.

* On March 16, 2007 the Liberal government introduced a bill - Bill 17
- which gives the dispute resolution mechanism set up in TILMA an
enforceable means to collect fines - instilling the most one of the
most egregious aspects of the agreement into law. The enforcement
mechanism of Bill 17 died at the end of the fall 2007 session and so
the government is not able to pass its TILMA legislation.

* In July 2007, Saskatchewan's Calvert and Manitoba's Doer governments
opposed joining the TILMA. In January 2008, the newly elected
provincial election in Saskatchewan again said NO to joining TILMA.



What trade barriers?

* Those favoring TILMA say there are so many barriers to trade and
investment that Albertans are not interested in cross boarder business
with British Columbians. When TILMA's cheerleaders have been asked
what barriers to trade exist between the two provinces, there has been
no answer on the question on why such a heavy handed agreement is
needed. Minister Colin Hansen uses the same example over and over
again to symbolize the need for TILMA.

* A truck from Saskatchewan was reloaded at BC/AB border because of
different stacking regulations between the provinces. This means that
trucking standards are more rigorous in mountainous BC than in flat
Saskatchewan - this is common sense, not a restriction on trade. In
many other areas provinces make regulatory decisions based on what
makes the most sense in the local context.

* What corporate Canada calls "trade barriers" are in fact differences
across provinces in government procurement systems, labour standards,
consumer-protection measures, environmental regulations, and taxes.
Genuine trade barriers are quite small and exist in only a few areas.

* Proponents of the BC-Alberta Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility
Agreement (TILMA) claim that it will provide large economic benefits
through the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers. In fact,
there are very few obstacles to trade and investment among provinces,
and no evidence that such obstacles entail significant economic
costs.

* Research conducted for the 1985 Macdonald Commission concluded that
interprovincial barriers cost no more than 0.05% of Gross Domestic
Product (GDP).

* Relative to distance and market size, Canadian provinces are far
more likely to trade with each other than with American states.

* Since 2000, interprovincial trade has been growing much faster than
Canada's international trade.

* The Conference Board of Canada's Impact Assessment vastly overstates
TILMA's likely economic benefits. Since interprovincial trade barriers
are already very low, the gains from further reducing them would be
minute. However, as Gould demonstrates, TILMA's costs could be
frighteningly high. By giving investors wide latitude to sue
provincial governments over differ-ences in public-interest
regulation, this agreement will place downward pressure on provincial
standards.



For more information please contact stop...@gmail.com