BC residents search for trade barriers at BC/AL border and "Alberta Investors" Sue Lower Mainland Municipalities for TILMA Violations

[Stop TILMA!]

All,

A group of Lower Mainland residents dressed up as "Alberta investors"
and appeared today at city hall locations in the area. They handed out
"notices of legal action" for decisions made by municipalities that
are in violation of the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility
Agreement (TILMA).

At the same time, a group of Golden residents traveled to the
provincial border armed with a magnifying glass to challenge one of
TILMA's core premises. Upon close examination of the border, they
concluded that there are no significant trade barriers to justify an
agreement that undermines local democracy.

Tuesday, April 1, 2008 marks one year since TILMA was forced onto the
provinces of BC and Alberta and there's one year left before the
'transition period' is over and the pact is fully implemented -
meaning that the harmonization of standards between all government
entities in both provinces is completed.

TILMA, which was came into law without public debate or legislative
oversight April 007, is a legally binding agreement between B.C. and
Alberta that gives businesses and individuals the right to sue either
province, including municipalities and school boards, when they feel
that any regulation and local government policy "restricts or impairs"
investment. This corporate investment model controversially allows
investors to sue governments for upwards of $5 million.

The "Alberta investors" visited city council members in Vancouver,
Surrey, Langley, Port Coquitlam and North Vancouver. "Although today's
actions are an April Fools joke" said Caelie Frampton, B.C. STOP TILMA
campaign coordinator. "TILMA is no laughing matter for the effect it
could have on local decision making."

"Important initiatives for municipalities like fighting climate change
on the local level will necessarily involve a lot of regulation from
governments," said Frampton. "TILMA however is an instrument for
deregulation which is a perfect example of why TILMA should never have
been signed in the first place. It removes the ability for local
governments to address issues of concern with local solutions"

"Several studies show that genuine trade barriers are quite small and
exist in only a few areas between provinces, said Carleen Pickard, the
Council of Canadians' regional organizer for BC and the Yukon. When
asked to provide examples of these 'barriers' proponents of TILMA are
hard pressed to come up with any."

Failing to find fences, inspection stations or customs check points,
at the BC/AL border the group from Golden concluded that TILMA had
been sold to the people of both provinces as a solution to a problem
that simply does not exist.

"While the premiers and other proponents of the deal insist that
TILMA will eliminate 'trade barriers', these barriers are in fact
differences across provinces in government procurement systems, labour
standards, consumer-protection measures, environmental regulations,
and taxes," said Pickard.

Community and labour organizations have been particularly concerned
about the provisions in TILMA that grant corporations the right to sue
local governments for up to $5 million when regulations are deemed an
investment 'barrier'. Examples of regulations that might be subject to
a TILMA challenge are local purchasing policies such as 'buy local'
initiatives, height restrictions on new development and non-smoking
bans in public spaces.

To see photos of these actions go to: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stoptilma/