Larry Brown presents submission on behalf of NUPGE to Senate committee
Ottawa (7 June 2007) - The B.C. and Alberta governments are misleading citizens by suggesting that a new inter-provincial trade agreement will create savings and vast numbers of jobs, says Larry Brown, national secretary-treasurer of the 340,000-member National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE).
"The claim that (it) will somehow magically create 78,000 jobs is fascinating," Brown said in a presentation Wednesday to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. "There is no evidence for, nor any logic to, that claim. It is simply dangled out there for the gullible to latch on to," he argued.
Brown was discussing the B.C.-Alberta Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA), a domestic free trade pact that was negotiated secretively and came into effect between the two provinces on April 1.
Look before leaping
"Governments should look once, twice and three times, before they leap into a deal they will undoubtedly regret," Brown said in reference to the potential for similar agreements between other Canadian provinces.
"Governments need to actually study this agreement, not just accept the cheerleading statements of the ministers and business interests who have so enthusiastically welcomed this agreement which meets only their self interests. We are pleased that the Senate has decided to study the issue closely."
Unlike the secrecy that surrounded the negotiation of the B.C.-Alberta agreement, there should be full public debate and consultation before anything that is so sweeping and so potentially limiting of provincial powers is adopted elsewhere, Brown told the committee.
"We are of the view that public debate will lead to the inevitable conclusion that TILMA is not a good deal, not a good way to deal with inter-provincial trade barriers, whatever those may be. And we’re confident that after careful and thoughtful examination this committee will reach the same conclusion."
Brown cited three key areas of concern with TILMA.
1. This agreement gives private businesses the right to seek compensation for virtually every action they disagree with. And they are given access to a special Disputes Panel of appointed experts to make the process easier.
TILMA will allow companies to complain to a Disputes Panel, and the Panel can award up to $5 million compensation if any level of government introduces, on behalf of the people they serve, any regulations, policies, or programs they deem to “impair or restrict” investment, trade or labour mobility.
So, each time a governmental body makes any decision, they will know that any company, from either of the two provinces, can seek damages of up to $5 million if the company thinks its right to act in its own interest has been interfered with. A province, or a school board or municipality, is going to be very careful not to tread on any companies’ toes if they know the companies can challenge them for $5 million apiece.
2. TILMA covers every level of government within the provinces’ boundaries. The agreement applies to the provincial governments and “their government entities”. It will therefore include municipal governments, school boards, and health and social service agencies.
That is to say, not only the provinces themselves but also all the governing bodies within those provinces will lose their right to react to the political choice of their populations. They will be extremely limited in what they can do even if the people are strongly demanding action.
3. TILMA seriously restricts democratically elected governments from acting in the interests of their populations.
The core of TILMA is in Section 3: “Each party shall ensure that its measures do not operate to restrict or impair trade between or through the territory of the Parties, or investment or labour mobility between the Parties.”
It goes on to say: “Parties shall not establish new standards or regulations that operate to restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility.”
Private individuals and corporations from either B.C. or Alberta can take complaints forward, and the Disputes Panel can make binding rulings. Even if a regulation is accepted as being for a legitimate reason, it can still be overturned if the Disputes Panel feels it is not the least restrictive way to achieve the objective.
That is to say, democratically elected governments will have to prove to an appointed panel of “experts” that their proposed law or regulation is legitimate, and that the measure is not more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the objective. A whole lot, in fact most, of what governments do can be argued to “restrict trade” in some way or another. NUPGE
More information:
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
