TILMA: Agreement targets subsidies, non-profit organizations could be at risk; CFIB and Leader-Post not telling whole story

“Subsidies are seen as inconsistent with TILMA.”
– Shawn Robbins, Director of Internal Trade, Ministry of International and Intergovernmental Relations, Government of Alberta

In Free-trade agreement's impact on 'Riders is debatable (Apr. 27, 2007) the Regina Leader-Post reports that, according to a local labour representative, under the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) the Saskatchewan Roughriders football club “could face impending doom” because of a clause in the agreement “preventing the subsidization of for-profit businesses by government.”

In a recent post to his blog, Larry Hubich, the president of the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour (SFL), cited the following passage from UBC professor Dr. John Helliwell’s review of the Conference Board of Canada’s Report titled Assessing the Impact of Saskatchewan Joining the BC-Alberta Trade Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement:

“[A] professional football franchise in one province could launch an objection, subject to binding panel arbitration, against the government of a city in another province if they were to provide government subsidized infrastructure for the local team…”

TILMA architect Shawn Robbins, the director of internal trade under the ministry of international and intergovernmental relations of the government of Alberta reportedly disputed the claim saying “I’m not sure if TILMA would apply (to the Roughriders). The provisions do not affect not-for-profit enterprises.”

The Leader-Post noted that the “Roughriders are classified as a non-profit corporation, according to Deb McEwen, the director of communications for Sask Justice.”

What Shawn Robbins and the Leader-Post failed to mention, though, is that while subsidies to non-profit corporations are presently listed as “exceptions” in TILMA, Article 17 of the agreement requires that the “exceptions listed in Part V” be reviewed annually “with a view to reducing their scope.”

The list of “exceptions” in TILMA is meant to shrink over time not increase.

In the article, Robbins went on to say that “Subsidies are seen as inconsistent with TILMA.”

Well, there you have it coming directly from the Alberta government – subsidies are a target.

It seems clear, then, that under TILMA subsidies to non-profit corporations will eventually be exposed and risk being challenged with possible lawsuits and damage awards. Supporters of TILMA, like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce and Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall, always seem to steer clear of discussing the devastating impact Article 17 of TILMA would have on Saskatchewan should it sign the agreement.

“It's hard to imagine another CFL team that would pursue this,” said Marilyn Braun-Pollon, the Director of Provincial Affairs for the CFIB in Saskatchewan.

Can Braun-Pollon promise that? TILMA does not contain that type of guarantee.

It should be noted that not all CFL franchises are publicly-owned. Some, like the Calgary Stampeders, are private.

Grievances from other CFL teams might be the least of the worries since TILMA appears to expand foreign investor (US and Mexican) rights that can be asserted under NAFTA provisions to challenge a measure.

Can the Edmonton Oilers, Calgary Flames and Vancouver Canucks of the National Hockey League be assured that no one out there would file a claim against them? Can Braun-Pollon give that assurance to the thousands of businesses her organization represents?

In the article Braun-Pollon once again complains about the existence of “unnecessary rules and red tape” even though on April 3, 2007, the Edmonton Journal editorial board said there is “little in the way of genuine trade barriers remaining between the two westernmost provinces,” and Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall said Saskatchewan has “fewer trade barriers and restrictions than either B.C. or Alberta.”

TILMA's damage would not begin or end with subsidies to non-profit organizations. It could also affect other “exceptions” listed in Part V of the agreement such as:

– Measures adopted or maintained relating to: Aboriginal peoples; water; regulated rates established for the public good or public interest; labour standards and codes; minimum wages; employment insurance; social assistance benefits and worker’s compensation.

– Business subsidy measures adopted or maintained to provide: Compensation to persons for losses resulting from calamities such as diseases or disasters; assistance for book and magazine publishers, sound recordings, and film development, production and distribution; assistance for recreation and assistance for academic research.

– Subject to Article 4, measures adopted or maintained relating to: the licensing, certification, registration, leasing or other disposition of rights to energy or mineral resources; exploration and development of energy or mineral resources; or management or conservation of energy or mineral resources and measures adopted or maintained to promote renewable and alternative energy.

– Measures relating to the licensing of a motor vehicle operated by or on behalf of a person who may charge or collect compensation for the transportation of passengers in that vehicle.

– Measures adopted or maintained relating to: the licensing, certification, registration, leasing or other disposition of rights to the harvesting of forest or fish resources; the management or conservation of forests, fish and wildlife; or requirements that timber be used or manufactured within the territory of a Party.

– Measures adopted or maintained relating to the management and disposal of hazardous and waste materials.

The breath of TILMA is astounding with subsidies being only a small part.

Article 3 of TILMA is crystal clear that there are to be “No Obstacles” and that “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.”

“[The agreement’s] provisions are seen as levelling the playing field for businesses between provinces,” said Robbins.

It’s obvious the creators of TILMA see subsidies as an obstacle that must be removed at all cost – regardless of the magnitude of harm it would likely cause in the process.

TILMA is about putting private profits ahead of the public interest.


NOTE:

TILMA defines a “business subsidy” as: “a financial contribution by a Party, namely: cash grants, loans, debt guarantees or an equity injection, made on preferential terms; a reduction in taxation and other forms of revenue generation, including royalties and mark-ups, or government levies otherwise payable, but does not include a reduction resulting from a provision of general application of a tax law, royalties, or other forms of a Party’s revenue generation; or any form of income or price support that results directly or indirectly in a draw on the public purse that confers a benefit on a specific non-government entity, whether organized as one legal entity or as a group of legal entities, but does not include generally available infrastructure, assistance to provide generally available infrastructure, or subsidies defined as non-actionable under Article 8 of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.”

A “measure” includes any legislation, regulation, standard, directive, requirement, guideline, program, policy, administrative practice or other procedure.

Articles of impeachment filed against warmongering U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney

Kucinich Files Impeachment Bill

By Dave Lindorff

04/25/07 "ICH" -- -- Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, has dropped the first impeachment shoe, filing a bill calling for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Kucinich, defying the leadership of the Democratic Party, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who have been struggling mightily to prevent impeachment from occurring during the waning years of the Bush presidency, on Tuesday filed three articles of impeachment, claiming that Cheney violated his oath of office and the Constitution, for deceiving Congress and the American people about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, about alleged but nonexistent links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, and finally for making threats to invade Iran.

The bill now goes to the House Judiciary Committee, where Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and the rest of the committee's members will have to decide whether go hold formal hearings on the charges.

The move by Kucinich comes as impeachment is gaining ground among the broader public. Today, the Vermont House of Representatives will hold a floor debate and vote on a resolution calling for Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against both President Bush and Cheney. That measure would be a companion to a similar resolution passed last week by Vermont's state Senate. If the state's lower house passes its version, Vermont will be the first state in history to pass a bi-cameral resolution on impeachment.

Under Thomas Jefferson's Manual for the Rules of the House, under which the US House of Representatives has operated for over 200 years, such a resolution would require the House to take up the impeachment issue, just as would a member's bill of impeachment.

The speaker of the Vermont House of Representatives, Lynn Symington, had strenuously opposed the resolution, and has been keeping it bottled up in the House Judiciary Committee, but following passage of the resolution in the state Senate, and a massive grassroots campaign by Vermont impeachment activists, she has been forced to relent and let the measure go forward. Passage is not a sure thing, however.

Similar measures are being pushed in at least 10 other state legislatures, while two such efforts, in New Mexico and Washington state, were killed thanks to pressure from the national Democratic Party leadership.

On April 28, demonstrations are planned in Washington, DC and all around the nation, calling for impeachment to begin against both Bush and Cheney. To find the location nearest you, click on the Impeachment banner to the right of this article.

The mainstream corporate media, which has so far been largely ignoring the issue of impeachment, will have to go to extra lengths of censorship to block out the popular movement now, with a bill on the floor of the House, and with impeachment resolutions passing in the Vermont state legislature. It will be interesting to see how the nation's news gatekeepers handle the story now that it is breaking out into the open so forcefully.

Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. His n book of CounterPunch columns titled "This Can't be Happening!" is published by Common Courage Press. Lindorff's newest book is "The Case for Impeachment", co-authored by Barbara Olshansky.

He can be reached at: dlindorff@yahoo.com


110TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. RES. 333

RESOLUTION

Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United
States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:

(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction:

(A) ‘‘We know they have biological and chemical weapons.’’ March 17, 2002, Press Conference by Vice President Dick Cheney and His Highness Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain at Shaikh Hamad Palace.

(B) ‘‘...and we know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.’’ March 19, 2002, Press Briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem.

(C) ‘‘And he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time...’’ March 24, 2002, CNN Late Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.

(D) ‘‘We know he’s got chemicals and biological and we know he’s working on nuclear.’’ May 19, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(E) ‘‘But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons... Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.’’ August 26, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention.

(F) ‘‘Based on intelligence that’s becoming available, some of it has been made public, more of it hopefully will be, that he has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons, that he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there are efforts under way inside Iraq to significantly expand his capability.’’ September 8, 2002 NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(G) ‘‘He is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.’’ September 8, 2002 NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(H) ‘‘And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.’’ March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and Congress of the United States.

(A) Vice President Cheney and his Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, made multiple trips to the CIA in 2002 to question analysts studying Iraq’s weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration’s policy objectives accounts.

(B) Vice President Cheney sought out unverified and ultimately inaccurate raw intelligence to prove his preconceived beliefs. This strategy of cherry picking was employed to influence the interpretation of the intelligence.

(3) The Vice President’s actions corrupted or attempted to corrupt the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, an intelligence document issued on October 1, 2002 and carefully considered by Congress prior to the October 10, 2002 vote to authorize the use of force. The Vice President’s actions prevented the necessary reconciliation of facts for the National Intelligence Estimate which resulted in a high number of dissenting opinions from technical experts in two Federal agencies.

(A) The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate stated ‘‘Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute it’s nuclear weapons program INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result INR is unable to predict that Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.’’.

(B) The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate also stated that ‘‘Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR’s assessment, highly dubious.’’.

(C) The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate references a Department of Energy opinion by stating that ‘‘INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the US Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose.’’.

The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.

In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Article II

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:

(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda:

(A) ‘‘His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.’’ December 2, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference.

(B) ‘‘His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.’’ January 30, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to 30th Political Action Conference in Arlington, Virginia.

(C) ‘‘We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization.’’ March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(D) ‘‘We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons...’’ September 14, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(E) ‘‘Al Qaeda had a base of operation there up in Northeastern Iraq where they ran a large poisons factory for attacks against Europeans and U.S. forces.’’ October 3, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney at Bush-Cheney ’04 Fundraiser in Iowa.

(F) ‘‘He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs.’’ October 10, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to the Heritage Foundation.

(G) ‘‘Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services have worked together on a number of occasions.’’ January 9, 2004, Rocky Mountain News interview with Vice President Cheney.

(H) ‘‘I think there’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government’’ January 22, 2004, NPR: Morning Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.

(I) ‘‘First of all, on the question of—of whether or not there was any kind of relationship, there clearly was a relationship. It’s been testified to; the evidence is overwhelming.’’ June 17, 2004, CNBC: Capital Report interview with Vice President Cheney.

(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no credible evidence existed of a working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, a fact articulated in several official documents, including:

(A) A classified Presidential Daily Briefing ten days after the September 11, 2001 attacks indicating that the United States intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was ‘‘scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda’.’

(B) Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02, issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, which challenged the credibility of information gleaned from captured al Qaeda leader al-Libi. The DIA report also cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy: ‘‘Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.’’.

(C) A January 2003 British intelligence classified report on Iraq that concluded that ‘‘there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network’’.

The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.

In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Article III

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit:

(1) Despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States and despite the turmoil created by United States invasion of Iraq, the Vice President has openly threatened aggression against Iran as evidenced by the following:

(A) ‘‘For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.’’ March 7, 2006, Speech of Vice President Cheney to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference.

(B) ‘‘But we’ve also made it clear that all options are on the table.’’ January 24, 2007, CNN Situation Room interview with Vice President Cheney.

(C) ‘‘When we—as the President did, for example, recently—deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.’’ January 29, 2007, Newsweek interview with Vice President Cheney.

(D) ‘‘But I’ve also made the point and the President has made the point that all options are still on the table.’’ February 24, 2007, Vice President Cheney at Press Briefing with Australian Prime Minister in Sydney, Australia.

(2) The Vice President, who repeatedly and falsely claimed to have had specific, detailed knowledge of Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities, is no doubt fully aware of evidence that demonstrates Iran poses no real threat to the United States as evidenced by the following:

(A) ‘‘I know that what we see in Iran right now is not the industrial capacity you can [use to develop a] bomb.’’ Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.

(B) Iran indicated its ‘‘full readiness and willingness to negotiate on the modality for the resolution of the outstanding issues with the IAEA, subject to the assurances for dealing with the issues in the framework of the Agency, without the interference of the United Nations Security Council’’. IAEA Board Report, February 22, 2007.

(C) ‘‘...so whatever they have, what we have seen today, is not the kind of capacity that would enable them to make bombs.’’ Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.

(3) The Vice President is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran that are further destabilizing the world as evidenced by the following:

(A) The United States has refused to engage in meaningful diplomatic relations with Iran since 2002, rebuffing both bilateral and multilateral offers to dialogue.

(B) The United States is currently engaged in a military buildup in the Middle East that includes the increased presence of the United States Navy in the waters near Iran, significant United States Armed Forces in two nations neighboring to Iran, and the installation of anti-missile technology in the region.

(C) News accounts have indicated that military planners have considered the B61-11, a tactical nuclear weapon, as one of the options to strike underground bunkers in Iran.

(D) The United States has been linked to anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organization.

(E) News accounts indicate that United States troops have been ordered into Iran to collect data and establish contact with anti-government groups.

(4) In the last three years the Vice President has repeatedly threatened Iran. However, the Vice President is legally bound by the U.S Constitution’s adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force.

(A) Article VI of the United States Constitution states, ‘‘This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.’’ Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States.

(B) The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, ‘‘All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.’’ The threat of force is illegal.

(C) Article 51 lays out the only exception, ‘‘Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.’’ Iran has not attacked the United States; therefore any threat against Iran by the United States is illegal.

The Vice President’s deception upon the citizens and Congress of the United States that enabled the failed United States invasion of Iraq forcibly altered the rules of diplomacy such that the Vice President’s recent belligerent actions towards Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the United States.

In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

U.S. military building five-kilometre wall in Baghdad; time to impeach President Bush & Vice-President Cheney as illegal occupation grinds on

“[M]ay God guide the actions of the President of the United States and the American people; may God save the Queen, her Prime Minister and all her subjects; and may God continue to bless Canada.”

“We firmly believe that this intervention is legal under international law.”

“It is unfortunate, but it is now up to our allies, our historical allies, namely the Americans and the British, to act. We support their action.”
– Stephen Harper, Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance, House of Commons, March 20, 2003

Sunnis, Shiites unite to oppose divisive wall

The Sydney Morning Herald
Edmund Sanders in Baghdad
April 21, 2007

A US military brigade is building a five-kilometre concrete wall to cut off one of Baghdad's most restive Sunni districts from the Shiite neighbourhoods that surround it, raising concern about the further Balkanisation of Iraq's most violent city.

The Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, said an "open battle" was being waged for control of the country, and a senior US politician said the war for Iraq was "lost".

A suicide bomber slipped past security barriers on Thursday to kill 12 people in the capital, a day after more than 230 people died in the worst wave of mass killings since January, when the US President, George Bush, announced his plan to increase US troop levels by 30,000.

Mr Maliki said militants had "proven their spite by targeting humanity. It is an open battle and it will not be the last in the war we are fighting for the sake of the nation, dignity, honour and the people." He was speaking at a ceremony marking the 50th anniversary of the founding of his Islamic Dawa Party.

The US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, was in Baghdad and was expected to increase pressure on Mr Maliki to bridge the sectarian divide.

In Washington, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said on Thursday that he had told Mr Bush at a meeting the previous day that "this war is lost" and Mr Bush's troop build-up plan was "not accomplishing anything".

Mr Reid said his message for Mr Bush was to recall the Vietnam War, when President Lyndon Johnson dispatched thousands more troops even though he knew the conflict was unwinnable.

"The war can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically, and the President needs to come to that realisation," Mr Reid said.

US commanders in northern Baghdad said the 3.6-metre-high barrier would make it more difficult for suicide bombers, death squads and militia fighters from sectarian factions to attack one another and slip back to their home turf.

Construction began last week and is expected to be completed by the end of the month. However, officials said the barrier was not a central tactic of the continuing security crackdown.

"We defer to commanders on the ground, but dividing up the entire city with barriers is not part of the plan," a US military spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Christopher Garver, said.

Although Baghdad is replete with blast walls, checkpoints and other temporary barriers, including a massive wall around the green zone, the wall being constructed in Adhamiya would be the first to essentially divide a neighbourhood by sect.

A largely Sunni district, Adhamiya is one of Baghdad's main flashpoints, avoided not only by Shiites but also by Sunni outsiders. The area is almost completely surrounded by Shiite-dominated districts.

Sunnis and Shiites living in the shadow of the barrier are united in their contempt for it.

"Are they trying to divide us into different sectarian cantons?" said Abu Ahmed, a Sunni shop owner in Adhamiya. "This will deepen the sectarian strife and only serve to abort efforts aimed at reconciliation."

Some of his customers come from Shiite or mixed neighbourhoods that are now cut off by the barrier.

Several residents likened the wall to the barriers built by Israel around some Palestinians areas. "Are we in the West Bank?" asked Abu Qusay, a pharmacist, who said access to his favourite kebab restaurant in Adhamiya had been cut off.

Los Angeles Times, Associated Press, Reuters


The Nation

Impeachment Fever Rises
by JOHN NICHOLS

[from the May 7, 2007 issue]

When Nancy Pelosi announced last fall that impeachment was "off the table," official Washington accepted that the primary avenue for holding lawless Presidents to account had been closed off by the new Speaker of the House. But the Republic's citizenry has not been so inclined. And now, with the Administration's troubles mounting, they're preparing to tell Pelosi that America and the world cannot wait until January 20, 2009, to put an end to Bush's reign of error. When Pelosi arrives at the California Democratic Convention in San Diego on April 28--the same day that activists nationwide will rally for presidential accountability--she'll find on the agenda a resolution that declares that the actions of President Bush and Vice President Cheney "warrant impeachment and trial, and removal from office." Delegates are expected to endorse the measure.

Pelosi fears that impeachment would distract from the Democratic legislative agenda and provoke an electoral backlash. History suggests she is wrong: The Watergate Congress was highly efficient, and Democrats had one of their best years ever at the polls after pressuring Richard Nixon out of office. But aside from Dennis Kucinich, who is particularly fired up about Cheney's misdeeds, few in Congress have even hinted at bucking Pelosi's ban.

Outside Washington, however, an "impeachment from below" movement is gathering steam. The President's troop surge into Iraq and his refusal to consider exit strategies has caused many to react like GOP Senator Chuck Hagel, who has observed, "The President says...he's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him." Hagel's remarks go to the heart of the surge in interest in impeachment: It stems from Bush's ongoing disregard for the demands of the electorate, the Congress and the Constitution. Legitimate impeachment initiatives are organic responses to the realities of a moment rather than purely legal procedures. Talk of impeachment gains traction when it becomes clear that an Administration is unwilling to respect the system of checks and balances or the rule of law. This explains why the allegation that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, apparently with White House approval, pressured US Attorneys to politicize prosecutions has added so much fuel to the fire, with activists like Vermont's Dan DeWalt now saying, "I don't have any trouble getting people to agree that impeachment is necessary."

DeWalt engineered a campaign in March to get town meetings in his state to pass resolutions calling on Congress to impeach and remove Bush and Cheney. Three dozen towns did so, including Middlebury, where GOP Governor Jim Douglas found himself presiding over a meeting that voted overwhelmingly in favor of going after the two for misleading the nation about the threat posed by Iraq, condoning torture and approving illegal electronic surveillance. The goal of the town meeting movement was to get the state legislature to forward articles of impeachment to the US House. Citing Thomas Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice, which makes reference to the authority of state legislatures to propose impeachment, legislators in at least ten states, including Vermont, have now done so. But the real success of the initiative was to illustrate the popular appeal of impeachment--an effort helped along by Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau, who devoted a week of strips to the town meeting votes--and to tell members of Congress like Vermont's Peter Welch that they might want to take their cues from constituents rather than Pelosi. Welch has responded by meeting with activists and asking them for more details of Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors.

DC Democrats still put forth anti-impeachment arguments--particularly the old saw that going after Bush would just give the presidency to Cheney. Activists have countered with an "Impeach Cheney First!" campaign and a reminder that the Constitution in no way prohibits holding more than one official to account at the same time. They've also picked up an argument made by Daniel Ellsberg, of Pentagon Papers fame, who says it was the threat of impeachment that got Richard Nixon to bend to pressure from Congress to wind down the Vietnam War. "If you want to move Bush on Iraq," says Ellsberg, "get serious about impeachment." Millions of Americans are doing just that.

City of Yellowknife opposes TILMA; decision calls for Northwest Territories Association of Communities to urge Territorial Government not to sign deal

With only one councillor opposed Yellowknife City Council sent a clear message on April 10, 2007, that it was not impressed with the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) when it resolved that the Northwest Territories Association of Communities (NWTAC) “urge the Territorial Government not to sign on to any such agreement, and should it do so anyway, that it negotiate a clear, permanent exception from TILMA restrictions for NWT municipalities and municipal organizations.”

The motion that was passed by Yellowknife City Council reflects the growing concern that some municipalities are having about the negative impact TILMA will have on communities should their respective provincial or territorial government sign the horrific trade deal.

The Council minutes will be presented for adoption on Monday, April 23, 2007.

The TILMA resolution reads as follows:

Councillor Montgomery moved
Councillor Kennedy seconded,

Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement

WHEREAS the BC/Alberta Trade, Investment And Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA), which was signed without appropriate consultation with local governments or the public, will expose to challenge all government measures that “restrict or impair” trade, investment or labour mobility, unless such measures are specifically exempted from TILMA;

WHEREAS the Alberta/B.C. Trade Agreement will function like a municipal North American Free Trade Agreement, by giving extensive new grounds to the private sector to sue local governments for trade “infractions” such as municipal construction regulations, zoning, quality densification standards, etc.;

WHEREAS TILMA would accord private individuals and corporations the extraordinary right to challenge local government land use planning and other public interest decisions that they allege offend the agreement’s rules, and to seek up to $5,000,000 in damages arising from each alleged TILMA violation; and,

WHEREAS political pressure may be growing to encourage the GNWT to sign on to such an agreement without consulting either municipalities or the territorial legislature;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the NWTAC urge the Territorial Government not to sign on to any such agreement, and should it do so anyway, that it negotiate a clear, permanent exception from TILMA restrictions for NWT municipalities and municipal organizations.

MOTION CARRIED
(Councillor Wind opposed)

It is interesting that the Yellowknife motion should mention that “political pressure may be growing to encourage the GNWT to sign” an agreement like TILMA when the Alberta/NWT office of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) recently sent NT Premier Joseph Handley a letter mentioning the trade deal.

The CFIB's February 7, 2007, correspondence to Premier Handley included results of a survey it conducted with its 250 Northwest Territory members “on a variety of policy issues.”

One survey question asked “if the Northwest Territories should join the recently signed British Columbia-Alberta agreement to remove inter-jurisdictional barriers to trade, investment and labour mobility (TILMA).”

The results show “Fifty-two percent of NWT members were in support as removing trade barriers will enhance investment and employment opportunities. It will also reduce costs and enhance the competitiveness of the region as a place to do business, work and live. Sixteen per cent of NWT members disagreed and 32 per cent were undecided or had no interest in the issue.”

What is disturbing is that it appears the CFIB provided its members with just two seemingly benign reasons why some people oppose TILMA:

1) Governments would lose some policy flexibility to manage their own economies; and
2) Businesses would face more competition from outside their jurisdiction.

This does not even begin to come close to describing the true damage an agreement like TILMA would cause. Just ask Yellowknife City Council or the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association that have chosen to oppose TILMA for some very real and legitimate reasons.


Rather than getting the whole story it seems businesses in the Northwest Territories were instead spoon fed two feel good reasons why they should support TILMA:

1) Removing trade barriers will enhance investment and employment opportunities; and
2) It will reduce costs and enhance the competitiveness of the region as a place to do business, work and live.

With such leading questions and the near complete absence of quality information its little wonder that a majority of businesses surveyed in the Northwest Territories support TILMA. This begs the question: How many other businesses and organizations across Canada aren’t getting the straight goods on TILMA either?

TILMA would lower standards to "lowest common denominator"; Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall says "nothing to be worried about"

'There is growing interest in Saskatchewan in the landmark agreement between Alberta and British Columbia to cut red tape between the two provinces as a spur to economic growth.

Saskatchewan Party Opposition Leader Brad Wall…was in Calgary Monday for a meeting with [Alberta Premier Ralph] Klein where the main topic of discussion was the deal.

"His advice was, 'well, the province need only say. We want to sit down and start talking and it will happen,'" said Wall, an enthusiastic proponent of the deal who has castigated the NDP government for not being involved in the original agreement.

"I have no idea what's scary about what B.C. and Alberta are doing," he said.

"What it excludes is important, health and social (policy) is excluded, labour laws are excluded ... there is opportunity for us in our view and nothing to be worried about."'
– Deal interests Sask. Premier, Regina Leader-Post, June 7, 2006

TILMA provisions geared to settle on low standard

The StarPhoenix

Thursday, April 19, 2007

The SP has reported twice now that the Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) between the governments of British Columbia and Alberta, which came into effect on April 1, "forces both governments to harmonize rules and regulations to the higher of the two standards."

The agreement actually states: "Parties shall mutually recognize or otherwise reconcile their existing regulations that operate to restrict or impair trade, investment, or labour mobility"

However, Rick Earle, director of finance for the City of Burnaby, in his report on the effects of TILMA on municipal governments, states: "This section provides the incentive for reconciliation at the lowest common denominator."

He says reconciling standards to higher levels would be contrary to Article 3.1 -- "measures do not operate to restrict or impair trade" -- and Article 6.1b -- "not more restrictive to trade, investment, or labour mobility than necessary to achieve that legitimate objective."

Rick Sawa
Council of Canadians

© The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) 2007

Further evidence is provided by The Council of Canadians in its publication Facing the Facts about TILMA (February 2007) that states:

"TILMA enables private investors to sue governments for up to $5-million if existing regulations "restrict or impair investment" (Article 3); if regulations are not "reconciled" between the provinces (Article 5.1); and if new regulations are introduced that "restrict or impair investment" (Article 5.3). Since someone is more likely to sue because regulations are too high than if they are too low, TILMA will inevitably result in lower standards.

"Article 13.2 of TILMA obligates governments to recognize the qualifications of workers certified by another province without requiring any "additional training or examinations." This means that a province must accept that a worker is certified even if his or her certification was based on lower standards in another province. A province is prohibited from imposing training and examination requirements on an out-of-province worker whose qualifications are less than what are required in his or her new province. A government will be unlikely to continue to impose heavier certification requirements on its own residents than it applies to residents from another province. TILMA will effectively push provinces to adopt the lower standard across the board."

Additionally, in his February 2007 legal opinion concerning the potential impact of Ontario entering into a Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement prepared for the Ontario Federation of Labour, Steven Shrybman of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell wrote:

"[I]t is reasonable to expect significant pressure to reconcile…measures in favour of a lower common denominator of government regulation, because in many ways TILMA is by intent, design and structure no more than an instrument for de-regulation - after all, the entire regime is based on the premise that government regulation is the problem.

"For example…British Columbia requires five years of teacher education, but Alberta only four…Because it has the higher regulatory standard…the focus of reconciliation efforts under Article 13(4) is on BC to justify its higher standard, not on Alberta to explain why its teachers receive less training.

"The pressure that TILMA creates to reduce regulatory standards to the lowest common denominator was recently described by the Executive Vice-President of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants in testimony before the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce:

"Although we support the merits of trying to enhance labour mobility, we bring to your attention the important need to recognize that provisions such as article 13.1 of TILMA could lead inevitably to the risk that standards of qualification for professionals are thereby reduced to the lowest level prevailing in the country.

"As provincial standards for regulation of professions are not uniform to begin with, this provision essentially makes the lowest of the standards that may exist in Canada acceptable as the base of qualification — essentially a race to the bottom, if you will. We do not believe that this is consistent with the obligation of legislators and governments nor of the professions themselves to ensure that the public is protected."

"Given the broad prohibition on regulatory intervention set out by Articles 3 and 5.3, it is inevitable that various efforts for reconciling or harmonizing provincial standards (see Articles 5.1, 5.5, 11.1 and 13.6) will create real pressure to reduce standards and regulations to the lowest common denominator, or abandon them altogether. If further evidence of TILMA’s deregulatory intent is needed, it can be found in the fact that it fails to incorporate AIT provisions intended to moderate the “race to the bottom” effect of trade liberalization."

Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall said last year that there was "nothing to be worried about." The excellent work done by The Council of Canadians and Steven Shrybman show otherwise.

Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper it seems that "we'll do our nation-building with body bags"

Prime Minister Stephen Harper addresses war veterans
at a dinner in Verlinghem, France on Sunday, April 8, 2007.
CP/Fred Chartrand

“The four divisions of the Canadian corps – serving together for the first time at Vimy – made a powerful statement in defence of our values, the timeless, universal values of all civilized nations, the values we still cherish today: freedom, democracy and human rights.

“Canadians did not go to war then – nor will we ever – to conquer or to enslave.

“But when the cause is just, Canada will always be there to defend our values and to help our fellow human beings.

“As Prime Minister, my thoughts these days are never far from Afghanistan, where a new generation of Canadian soldiers carry Colonel McCrae’s torch.

“Sadly today has been a difficult day in Afghanistan.

“We have learned that an incident has claimed the lives of six Canadian soldiers, and injured a number of others.

“Our hearts ache for them and their families. And as we are gathered here on Easter Sunday, our thoughts and prayers are with them.

“Today’s events once more remind us of the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform continue to make to defend against those who threaten freedom, democracy and human rights.

“For these men and women, the terrain of Kandahar province today looks as desolate and dangerous as Flanders Fields did 90 years ago.”

– Prime Minister Stephen Harper speaks at an Easter dinner with veterans in Verlinghem, France, 8 April 2007

Building a nation with body bags

TheStar.com - opinion

The Toronto Star - Opinion
April 13, 2007
Linda McQuaig

The old refrain "War, what is it good for?" raised a valid question. But it's a question that doesn't much trouble the Harper crowd.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government – and the military lobby with which it is closely associated – isn't squeamish about war. It promotes war as the stuff of nation-building.

Last week was a big week for war. First there was the full-court commemoration of the almost 3,600 Canadians who died at Vimy Ridge 90 years ago.

Then there were the tragic deaths of eight Canadian soldiers killed by roadside bombs in Afghanistan.

Our political and military leaders wasted few opportunities to draw comparisons between Vimy and Kandahar, in an attempt to equate the puzzling, unpopular Afghan mission in the minds of Canadians with the country's most celebrated military battle.

Of course, the personal sacrifice and bravery of the Canadians who died – both at Vimy and Kandahar – deserve our gratitude and respect.

At issue is not their laudable courage, but the Harper government's use of it to glorify war, to cultivate the notion of war as the great nation-builder.

What's striking in this way of thinking is how little attention is paid to the purpose of any particular war and how much is paid to the idea of waging war.

Consider the current slogan of the Canadian Forces: "Fight with the Canadian Forces." No mention is made of what or whom is being fought, or why. The message instead is just get out there and fight.

How's that for a notion to instil in our young people! Hopefully they'll know not to try it out at home or school, but to confine their aggression to fighting unidentified foreign people in faraway lands.

For that matter, despite the heroism at Vimy, it has never been particularly clear what World War I was all about. Few wars, with the exception of World War II, have a clear and compelling purpose.

Yet, rather than war being seen for what it generally is – the ultimate human failure and the ultimate human agony – war is held up as the stuff of greatness, as the tie that binds us together. Only through the sacrifice of war do we come to see ourselves as a nation.

Of course, there's always a much-hyped enemy lurking in the background to get everyone's blood boiling, whether Kaiser Wilhelm II or the Taliban, and an endless chronicling of the enemy's misdeeds.

Conveniently left out of the narrative are the misdeeds committed by our side.

So we hear lots about the barbarism of those who resist our Western invasions (of Afghanistan and Iraq) and little about the suffering we impose when we bomb their villages.

We go on at length about the plight of the 15 British hostages in Iran, even after Iran released video footage showing them being served tea and sitting comfortably watching soccer games on TV.

Of course, nobody likes being held captive. But let's just say that if one had to choose, one would probably opt for that Iranian "ordeal" over, say, that other ordeal with the electrodes and the forced stacking of naked bodies in front of snarling dogs, presided over by grinning U.S. troops.

The notion of war as nation-builder is being used as a convenient substitute for the other sort of nation-building, the kind that involves creating strong public programs, institutions and facilities that provide real benefit to citizens, rather than just giving our young people the experience of killing others or being killed or maimed themselves.

The same crowd that loves to wallow in the glories of war loves to cut off funding for this other sort of nation-building.

Even as the Harper government has dramatically increased military spending, it has eliminated the national child-care program that was finally put in place, and it has allowed private, for-profit medicine to push ever deeper into Canada, undermining the strength and viability of our public health-care system.

The significance of Vimy is said to be that Canadians fought together as a coherent unit, rather than merely as part of the British army.

But bringing Canadians together as a coherent unit to fight poverty and homelessness, to build a stronger public health-care or child-care system, or for that matter, to devise a national energy strategy or a real plan for participating in the worldwide battle against global warming – there's little interest in that sort of nation-building.

It seems that under Harper, we'll do our nation-building with body bags.

---

Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and commentator. lmcquaig@sympatico.ca

TILMA: Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall continues to back peddle; recent letter to City of Saskatoon hypocritical

#C6 of Information Items (Page 659)
April 16, 2007, Saskatoon City Council Online Agenda

The agenda for Saskatoon City Council’s April 16, 2007, meeting includes a letter from Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall thanking the City Clerk for sending him a copy of the City Solicitor’s report on the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA).

The letter, dated March 19, 2007, states:

“The Saskatchewan Party supports TILMA in principle because it is consistent with the growth agenda that we have called for. That being said, a Saskatchewan Party government would not sign on to the agreement unless certain it was in the best interests of Saskatchewan people. It would be in the best interest of the Saskatchewan people if it removed barriers to growth without negatively impacting on the public ownership of the major Crowns, environmental standards in the province and well-being of workers.”

So according to Wall only three criteria would have to be met in order for his party to sign TILMA:

1) That it not negatively impact on the public ownership of the major Crowns
2) That it not negatively impact environmental standards
3) That it not negatively impact the well-being of workers.

Everything else it seems is fair game – municipal governments, school boards, social policies, health boards, education and a whole host of other things. This is important to know because TILMA's reach would extend far beyond the three areas listed in Wall's letter.

The conditions outlined in Wall’s letter should be taken with a grain of salt since he does not define what the Saskatchewan Party considers “negatively impact” to mean. Their idea of a workers well-being or environmental standard is likely to be quite different from that of someone who does not support the party and its conservative ideology.

Like the Conference Board of Canada’s An Impact Assessment of TILMA (Sept. 2005) for the BC government, Wall’s letter makes no attempt to list the “barriers” he believes exist. Perhaps it’s because there really isn’t that many.

In an April 3, 2007, Saskatchewan Party news release leader Brad Wall himself said Saskatchewan has “fewer trade barriers and restrictions—than either B.C. or Alberta.”

Even the Conference Board grudgingly admits “There has been little research to date on the many interprovincial barriers to competition in Canada…No comprehensive listing of these barriers seems to exist…”

Wall has often quoted the Conference Board’s impact assessment, which was found deeply flawed by two analyses conducted independent of each other: The Myth of Interprovincial Trade Barriers and TILMA’s Alleged Economic Benefits (Feb. 2007) by Marc Lee & Erin Weir for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and; The Conference Board of Canada’s $4.8 Billion Estimate of the Impact of the BC-Alberta TILMA is not Credible (Apr. 2007) by Patrick Grady, a former senior official in the federal Department of Finance.

This does not appear to be good enough though for groups like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) who shamelessly continue to cite the study’s findings to further its claims.

TILMA includes “exceptions” for labour standards and codes, minimum wages, employment insurance, social assistance benefits and assistance for academic research or to non-profit organizations, and environmental measures relating to hazardous and waste materials, but the fine print reveals that “the exceptions listed” will be reviewed annually “with a view to reducing their scope.”

TILMA’s hit list of so-called exemptions is meant to shrink over time. Wall and proponents of TILMA don’t seem to ever mention this. Perhaps they’d prefer people not know about it.

The hypocrisy of Wall’s letter is that he suggests his party only supports TILMA “in principle” and would not sign it unless “it was in the best interests of the Saskatchwan people.”

Wall’s comments and sudden transformation into a voice of moderation and reason is completely inconsistent with what he and his party have said in the past.

For the better part of 2006 the Saskatchewan Party and leader Brad Wall ridiculed and condemned NDP Premier Lorne Calvert for not being at the negotiating table with British Columbia and Alberta. Calvert was berated for not accepting former Alberta premier Ralph Klein’s invitation to get on board and sign the agreement.

British Columbia and Alberta negotiated TILMA behind closed doors. There were no public consultations, stakeholder meetings or legislative debate. TILMA was signed in secrecy.

This has been confirmed by others:

“We asked the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities to share with us their position papers, research, etc. on the effect of TILMA on municipalities. We were advised that they have no such information. They were told of TILMA shortly before signing, and advised that they would be consulted during the two-year transition period. No consultations have occurred to date,” wrote Saskatoon city solicitor Theresa Dust in a February 2007 report to City Council.

“It is our understanding from a City of Burnaby council report that in British Columbia, leading up to TILMA, consultations were carried out by the Provincial Government with government departments and agencies, business groups, academic institutions and provincial regulatory bodies. No consultations were done with municipalities and no apparent analysis was done of the real impact of TILMA on municipalities,” Dust said.

In an April 14, 2007, letter to the Regina Leader-Post, Allan Earle, president of the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association had this to say: “If the current or future Saskatchewan government develops a serious interest in TILMA, SUMA wants to be involved in the negotiations and not just “consulted” after a deal is done, as municipalities were treated in B.C. and Alberta.”

Brad Wall and the Saskatchewan Party wanted NDP Premier Lorne Calvert at the table in those closed-door meetings with British Columbia and Alberta.

Brad Wall and the Saskatchewan Party wanted Premier Calvert’s signature on the agreement which likely would have meant no public consultations, stakeholder meetings or legislative debate in Saskatchewan.

In that regard a Saskatchewan Party government under Brad Wall would have been no different than that of BC Premier Gordon Campbell or former Alberta Premier Ralph Klein. Secrecy would have prevailed.

The following is a selection of comments extracted from Saskatchewan Party material showing what appears to be the party’s unequivocal support of TILMA and its firm belief that Saskatchewan must be part of the agreement.

“Alberta and BC have made some serious progress in streamlining regulations between the two provinces in a precedent-setting agreement, the Alberta-British Columbia Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement,” [Saskatchewan Party Economic Development Critic Lyle] Steward said. “One of the key aspects of this agreement is the merging of standards so workers and professionals who are certified or licensed in one province can work in the other without having to recertify.”

Stewart said a Saskatchewan Party government would seek a similar agreement with other western provinces.
– Sask. Party Concerned Job Growth Not Sustainable With Population Losses, News Release, August 4, 2006

'Western Trade Pact Signed by B.C. and Alberta

Why isn't Saskatchewan part of this inter-provincial trade agreement? Doesn't the NDP want us to benefit like the province to our west? Alberta and B.C. each expect thousands of new jobs and a multi-billion dollar jump in economic activity...why wouldn't we want this, too? Brad Wall thinks we do.'
– The Horizon - The Saskatchewan Party Newsletter - Volume 4, Issue 4, Summer 2006

“Last month I had the welcomed opportunity to meet with Premier Ralph Klein.

“I wanted to ask him about the new trade agreement signed between Alberta and BC that economists say will add thousands of new jobs to their economies, attract $4.9 billion in new investment over the next number of years and create Canada’s second largest economic region.

“I informed Premier Klein that although he will soon be stepping down as Premier, that a Saskatchewan Party government would, on a priority basis, get to the table with Alberta and BC.”
– The New West and My Meeting with Premier Klein, Brad Wall, MLA Report, July 2006

“Our province can be a leader in the New West, with a strong voice and a strong presence along side our neighbours as they rip down trade barriers to encourage job creation,” [Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad] Wall said. “We need to be at that table, negotiating with our western partners.”

Wall, who on Monday met with Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, has committed to fast tracking Saskatchewan’s full partnership in the New West should the Saskatchewan Party win the next election.
– Anemic NDP Job Growth Numbers Mean Saskatchewan Is Dead Last in West, News Release, June 9, 2006

“The province of Saskatchewan should be there as a part of [the BC-Alberta] accord, not Johnny-come-lately, not maybe we’ll get to it if we work out into a national deal that also has to find the synergy between the Newfoundland economy and the Saskatchewan economy and the BC economy and the Alberta economy. That’s ridiculous. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

“And the Premier wants to know, what’s the difference between him and myself? What’s the difference between his party’s economic vision and our party’s economic vision? We believe this province should be leading the West. We believe we should be at this table. We believe we should be negotiating these kinds of interprovincial agreements.”
– Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall, Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan Hansard, May 18, 2006

“What we know today is that these two provinces have agreed to an interprovincial arrangement with respect to interprovincial trade that has the potential to attract money and people through new job creation to their areas.

“My question…is very simple. Did the Government of Saskatchewan not know about these discussions between our two western neighbours, BC and Alberta? Did they not know about the arrangements? If they did know about them, why didn’t they get to that table and represent Saskatchewan that deserves to be a leader within the new West, Mr. Speaker?”

“Why won’t this government now accept the invitation of the Premier of Alberta for other provinces to get on board, for this province, Saskatchewan, to be a leader in the new West, Mr. Speaker?”
– Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall, Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan Hansard, May 2, 2006

Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall wants to know why Saskatchewan is not part of a new agreement on inter-provincial trade between Alberta and British Columbia. Last Friday, the governments of Alberta and BC signed the Alberta-British Columbia Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement with the goal of making the two provinces the dominant economic region in Canada.

Today in the Legislature, Wall asked Lorne Calvert to explain why Saskatchewan wasn’t part of the new deal.

“We believe Saskatchewan should be a leader in the new west, to have a strong voice and presence in this arrangement,” Wall said. “If we want to be competitive, Saskatchewan needs to have a place in this trade pact. Instead, the NDP seems intent on turning Saskatchewan into an economic island.”

Premier Klein has said he hopes other western provinces see the potential of this agreement and sign on.

“The Saskatchewan Party believes we should accept this invitation to be a leader in the new west,” Wall said.
– Saskatchewan Party Calls On NDP To Join In Western Trade Pact, News Release, May 1, 2006

“At this table, British Columbia and Alberta are working to reduce barriers to trade interprovincially which the Conference Board of Canada says costs our country tens of billions of dollars.

“The question to the Premier is this: why wasn’t he there? Why wasn’t he at this table? Was he invited to be there? Was he invited to participate in this emerging new West? And if not, why not, Mr. Speaker?”
– Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall, Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan Hansard, May 1, 2006

“The Premier of Alberta informed me of high level meetings between his province and BC to look at ways of reducing inter-provincial barriers to growth and trade.

“Saskatchewan though invited …did not attend. That is going to change.

“I have tasked Sask. Party Cutknife-Turtleford MLA Michael Chisholm to focus exclusively on the opportunities of western economic cooperation so that we may send a clear but, unpretentious message to other western capitals that a new government in Saskatchewan means a leading partner for them in the emerging New West….and a strong new voice for Saskatchewan at the Council of the Federation of this country.”
– Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall, 2006 Regina Leader’s Dinner Speech, Queensbury Convention Centre, April 4, 2006

Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall says it's time for our province to be a leading partner in a new west.

“The Saskatchewan Party believes our province can and must be a leading partner in that new west," Wall said.

Wall announced that the Saskatchewan Party's MLA from Cutknife-Turtleford, Michael Chisholm will now focus exclusively on developing the opportunities that will come from western economic cooperation.

“We want to send a clear message to other western capitals that a new government in Saskatchewan will mean a leading partner for them in this emerging new west," Wall said.

“Inter-provincial trade barriers, regulations and barriers to growth will be the focus of this Saskatchewan Party initiative. We want to continue to build relationships with other western officials in the event that we are asked to form a new government in Saskatchewan.”
– Sask. Party Leader Brad Wall Says Saskatchewan Must Not Be Left Behind In The New West, News Release, March 3, 2006

“The Premier of Alberta informed me of high level meetings between his province and BC to look at ways of reducing inter-provincial barriers to growth and trade.

“Saskatchewan though invited …did not attend. That is going to change.

“I am announcing tonight that I have tasked Sask. Party Cutknife-Turtleford MLA Michael Chisholm to focus exclusively on the opportunities of western economic cooperation so that we may send a clear but unpretentious message to other western capitals that a new government in Saskatchewan means a leading partner for them in the emerging New West and a strong new voice for Saskatchewan at the Council of the Federation of this country.”
– Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall, 2006 Saskatoon Leader’s Dinner Speech, TCU Place, March 2, 2006

“I want Saskatchewan to work with our neighboring provinces and take a leadership role in the new west. I say today that a new Saskatchewan Party government will make this a top priority.

“When I met with the Premier of Alberta, he told me his province and BC were looking at ways of reducing inter-provincial barriers to trade and investment.

“But Saskatchewan was not at the table. That is going to change. I have already signaled that to the Premier and to many of those seeking to be the Premier of Alberta, and it has been warmly welcomed on every occasion.

“Later this year we will go to BC to make the same case for a new Saskatchewan and its role in the new west.”
– Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall, Keynote Address: “It’s Never Too Late”, 2006 Saskatchewan Party Convention, Saskatoon, February 11, 2006

“I have spoken to many of those seeking to replace Mr. Klein in Alberta, and to Mr. Klein himself and they welcome the day when Saskatchewan will join Alberta and B.C. at the table to earnestly work together in areas of public policy including energy policy and the reduction of inter-provincial trade barriers.

“They are waiting. I have already told them that a Brad Wall government will be at that table.”
– Speech Delivered by Brad Wall, Leader of the Official Opposition Saskatchewan Party, North Saskatoon Business Association, Delta Bessborough, Saskatoon, December 8, 2005

River Landing hotel spa debacle continues; Saskatoon Mayor Don Atchison insists one is still needed

At its April 16, 2007, meeting Saskatoon City Council will consider a recommendation from its Administration “that the redevelopment of Parcel “Y” on River Landing Phase I continue to employ a mixed-use strategy incorporating a hotel, residential housing, restaurant(s), retail, and spa/destination attraction; that City Council approve a two-stage process outlined in this report for the disposition of Parcel “Y”; and, that the Request for Expressions of Interest document (Attachment 1) be approved for distribution.”

This comes as no surprise since at the March 12, 2007, City Council meeting the city manager said that Administration still supports the “vision” that Council adopted for the South Downtown i.e. the concept plan. Mayor Don Atchison has always wanted a hotel spa on the former Gathercole site and continues to believe the idea is viable.

The following letter was submitted to City Council for the April 16, 2007, meeting:

April 13, 2007


His Worship the Mayor
And Members of City Council
222 Third Avenue North
Saskatoon , SK S7K 0J5

Dear Mayor Atchison and Members of Council:

Re: Agenda Item F2 – River Landing Hotel/Residential Site

At its March 12, 2007, meeting City Council resolved “that Administration report to City Council on a strategy and options for continuing the development of Parcel “Y”, River Landing Phase I.”

I feel City Administration has not complied with Council’s resolution. The report submitted by the city manager contains just one option – a variation of the Expressions of Interest (EOI) that was issued in 2004. The report leaves Council with nothing to choose from.

At Council’s March 12 meeting some council members asked about keeping the land public and opportunities for meaningful citizen engagement – something that was absent last time around. Administration said these things would be addressed but the report that was submitted does not.

I feel the matter should be referred back to Administration for a report that reflects what Council resolved on March 12, 2007.

EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST

Section 1 'Introduction' of the proposed EOI states:

“The City of Saskatoon requests Expressions of Interest (EOI) from qualified companies to purchase and develop a parcel of land known as Parcel Y, located in the prestigious River Landing redevelopment area.”

Approving the EOI essentially commits to selling the land – again. No options are presented for keeping it publicly owned.

Section 5 'Concept Summary' of the proposed EOI states:

“City Council considers the hotel and publicly accessible spa/destination attraction as essential,” and;

“Proponents should be aware that City Council’s preference is for a publicly accessible spa.”

“A destination attraction is suggested as a potential alternative and will be evaluated accordingly.”

Section 13 'Evaluation Criteria' shows that 60 points of a possible 100 will be allotted for the Development Concept Summary.

The City makes it quite clear that it prefers and considers a hotel spa as essential. EOI’s submitted without these components risk receiving a lower score than those that do. This restricts options and ties developer’s hands almost forcing them to ensure that a hotel and spa are included in their submissions.

In Market to shape River Landing (SP Apr. 13, 2007) it was reported that:

“People seem to have latched onto the idea of a large hotel with 150 to 250 rooms anchoring the River Landing site, “and perhaps that's not what it is,” Mayor Don Atchison said in an interview Thursday.

“Only the marketplace will tell us in the end.””

It should be noted that as far back as September 2003, Don Atchison has been pushing for a hotel spa and condominiums on the former Gathercole site. The process initiated by the previous City Council was clearly designed to ensure that outcome.

What is before Council now is simply a continuation of the heavy-handed top-down driven approach to the South Downtown that has been employed since the fall of 2003.

In his letter to the City consultant Gwyn Symmons states: “We have not analysed the hotel market in Saskatoon …” Instead it is to be left up to the “development industry” to decide.

Would it not be a good idea to analyze the hotel market before rushing into a decision to seek proposals for another one? How about asking the citizens of Saskatoon what they want to see instead of relying solely on what the market dictates?

Regarding the two open houses held in April 2004 the city manager’s report states: “The concept of a hotel/restaurant/retail/residential component on River Landing Phase I was part of the proposed “mix of land uses” which received an approval rating of 87%.”

It should be noted that the public input form that was distributed by Administration did not say “hotel/restaurant/retail/residential.” It merely said “Mix of Land Uses – Please circle the word that best reflects your opinion: strongly support, support, neutral, oppose, strongly oppose.” A box was provided for “comments or suggestions.”

The input form certainly did not say that “approval” was being sought by the City for a “hotel/restaurant/retail/residential” development.

Furthermore, the public input form did not ask whether the public thought the land should be sold or remain publicly owned. City Council decided that on its own at its August 16, 2004, meeting.

By the time the public open houses were held on April 27 & 28, 2004, the question of roadway design, demolition of a potential heritage building and land uses had already been determined. The public input forms were clearly designed to evoke the positive feedback that Council was seeking. The results were then used to justify Council’s actions. The open houses were hypocritical to say the least. And yet the City continues to cite them to push its decisions through.

It is difficult to understand how the City can expect the public to buy into a plan, to feel a sense of ownership and pride in one when it has been excluded from the outset in participating in any meaningful way. This is one crucial element that is missing from the 12 planning principles Council lists in its concept plan.

On March 17, 2007, I attended a public input meeting at the SIAST Kelsey Campus concerning the future use of the 50-metre pool at the Harry Bailey Aquatic Centre. Although not perfect this type of meeting format is something Council might wish to consider as a starting point to involve the public in a more meaningful and sincere way before any decisions on the EOI/RFP process is made. Given the importance of River Landing such meetings could be held downtown and in the east, west and north parts of the city. Community Assocations and other stakeholders might also like to be consulted.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Joe Kuchta
Saskatoon, SK