TILMA: Northwest Territories Association of Communities passes resolution urging Territorial Government not to sign trade agreement

The beleaguered Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) took another well deserved hit recently when the Northwest Territories Association of Communities passed a resolution at its 2007 Annual General Meeting urging 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 Premier of the Northwest Territories is Joe Handley. He began his term on December 11, 2003.

The 41st Annual General Meeting of the NWT Association of Communities was held May 14-17, 2007, in Norman Wells. The host venue was the Denis Droulet Community Centre.

The NWTAC has been recognized as the unified voice of municipal (community) governments within the NWT since 1967. Mayor Gordon Van Tighem, City of Yellowknife, is the current president.

The resolution pertaining to TILMA is as follows:

2007-07 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; and

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.; and

WHEREAS TILMA would accord private individuals and corporations that 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;

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.

CATEGORY A
CONCURRENCE

TILMA: Saskatoon StarPhoenix support unconscionable for reckless trade scheme

“The change in the architecture of the TILMA is considered to be an improvement, in terms of the coverage of the measures included, when compared to the AIT. It is also more transparent since future negotiations can focus on the removal of the exceptions from the explicit exclusion list.”
– The Conference Board of Canada, An Impact Assessment of the BC/Alberta Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (September 2005) p. 14


“Even though the TILMA is an improvement on the AIT, it is not perfect. The agreement has too many exceptions and exclusions, although many of them expire by April 2009. There should be no exclusions or exceptions unless a government can demonstrate that there is no other way to protect public health and safety or the environment in its jurisdiction.”
– Robert Knox, Trade Analyst, BC and Alberta Challenge the Rest of Canada on Internal Trade, Fraser Forum (July/August 2006) p. 23


“The TILMA is not a perfect agreement. Part V of the agreement lists exceptions for both parties, as well as exceptions for the two individual provinces. The general exceptions include: measures regarding water services; regulated rates established for the public good; and social policy, including labour standards and codes, social assistance, and workers’ compensation. The TILMA also includes a series of exemptions for certain business subsidies, such as direct subsidies to book and magazine publishers, sound recordings, and film development, production, and distribution. It also includes exemptions for assistance given to recreation, academic research, and non-profit organizations. Finally and not surprisingly, there are also government procurement exemptions for the health and social services sectors. Thankfully, however, both governments have already committed to reducing these exceptions.”
– Jason Clemens, Milagros Palacios, & Martin Massé, TILMA: An Extraordinary Achievement for BC and Alberta, Fraser Forum (July/August 2006) p. 20
Jason Clemens and Milagros Palacios are analysts in The Fraser Institute’s fiscal studies department. Martin Massé is an intern in the same department.


“I have no idea what’s scary about what B.C. and Alberta are doing...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.”
– Brad Wall, Saskatchewan Party Leader, Deal interests Sask. Premier, Regina Leader-Post, June 7, 2006

SP support unconscionable for reckless TILMA scheme

The StarPhoenix
Tuesday, May 29, 2007

The editorial, TILMA gives clout to Sask. (SP, May 15) neglected to tell readers about the agreement's destructive side.

The SP claims "TILMA's success is based on the notion of including everything unless there's a darn good reason to leave out a sector. And those exceptions are rare."

TILMA's exceptions include: water; measures that relate to aboriginal peoples; regulated rates established for the public good or public interest; social policy that includes labour standards and codes, minimum wages, Employment Insurance, social assistance benefits and worker's compensation; 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, academic research or to non-profit organizations; the management and disposal of hazardous and waste materials; and the management or conservation of forests, fish and wildlife.

A measure includes any legislation, regulation, standard, directive, requirement, guideline, program, policy, administrative practice or other procedure. Article 17 of the agreement requires a ministerial committee to "review annually the exceptions listed ... with a view to reducing their scope."

This means the list of exceptions will shrink over time, eventually exposing them to the full force of the agreement. In fact, a February 2007 TILMA publication ominously states "ongoing efforts continue to reduce exceptions."

An October 2006 TILMA brochure states "if a measure is not clearly identified as an exception, it is subject to the rules of the agreement." Since health and education measures are not clearly identified as exceptions, it would seem that they, too, could be at risk.

This is merely a sample of TILMA's potential impact. It's unconscionable that The SP would support such a reckless scheme that threatens to jeopardize important social policies, programs and services, so private profits can be put ahead of the public interest.

Joe Kuchta
Saskatoon

©The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) 2007

TILMA: Trade act could destroy social policies–Ottawa Citizen; health, education, Aboriginal peoples, labour standards, EI, social assistance at risk

The following letter to the editor appeared in the Sunday, May 27, 2007, edition of the Ottawa Citizen (Page A11). It is in response to the May 15 editorial Trading with the neighbours.


Trade act could destroy social policies

The Ottawa Citizen
Sunday, May 27, 2007

Re: Trading with the neighbours, May 15.

The editorial did not tell readers about the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement’s (TILMA) potential impact on important social policies and programs.

TILMA’s list of exceptions, which are not now subject to the agreement, include measures relating to Aboriginal peoples; water; regulated rates established for the public good or the public interest; social policy, including labour standards and codes, minimum wages, employment insurance, social assistance benefits and worker’s compensation; 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, academic research or to non-profit organizations; the management and disposal of hazardous and waste materials; and the management or conservation of forests, fish and wildlife.

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

Article 17 of TILMA requires a ministerial committee to “review annually the exceptions listed…with a view to reducing their scope.” This means the list of exceptions will shrink over time, eventually exposing them to the full force of the agreement. A February 2007 TILMA publication ominously states that “ongoing efforts continue to reduce exceptions.”

An October 2006 TILMA brochure states that “if a measure is not clearly identified as an exception, it is subject to the rules of the agreement.”

Since health and education measures are not clearly identified as exceptions, it would seem they too could be at significant risk.

This is merely a sample of TILMA’s potential negative impact.

JOE KUCHTA, Saskatoon

©The Ottawa Citizen 2007

TILMA: Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall's shameless promotion of trade deal at Leader’s Dinner in Saskatoon and Regina

“There is a widespread belief, especially among members of the business community, that internal barriers to trade in goods, services and flows of capital are undermining the Canadian economy and jeopardizing the competitiveness of Canadian industry. This view has been given a thorough airing in ongoing hearings into the internal market being held by the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. Yet there remains a scarcity of hard data and good research to substantiate the impression that barriers do, in fact, impose a significant cost on our economy.”
– Kathleen Macmillan and Patrick Grady for Industry Canada and Human Resources and Social Development Canada, Inter-Provincial Barriers to Internal Trade in Goods, Services and Flows of Capital: Policy, Knowledge Gaps and Research Issue (March 31, 2007), 1


“Academic studies have, by and large, concluded that internal trade barriers have a minimal effect on overall gross domestic product (GDP). International institutions such as the International Monetary Fund also regard Canada’s internal market as functioning relatively free from impediments. Internal trade practitioners have a similar view.”
– Kathleen Macmillan and Patrick Grady for Industry Canada and Human Resources and Social Development Canada, Inter-Provincial Barriers to Internal Trade in Goods, Services and Flows of Capital: Policy, Knowledge Gaps and Research Issue (March 31, 2007), 2


“It is very difficult to assess the effect of government standards and regulations on internal trade. Much of the difficulty arises from the lack of consensus on what constitutes a trade barrier. What the business community perceives as excessive and unnecessary regulation, others might perceive as discretionary provincial and territorial regulation in areas of legitimate jurisdiction. Very few barriers remain that were explicitly designed as protectionist measures.”
– Kathleen Macmillan and Patrick Grady for Industry Canada and Human Resources and Social Development Canada, Inter-Provincial Barriers to Internal Trade in Goods, Services and Flows of Capital: Policy, Knowledge Gaps and Research Issue (March 31, 2007), 9


“Without reliable and up-to-date estimates of the cost of internal trade barriers, it is hard to make real progress on internal trade liberalization. Those opposed to reductions in barriers can claim that trade impediments are inconsequential and not worth worrying about. Those in favour of radical reductions can create an atmosphere of crisis that does not help advance Canada’s reputation among foreign and domestic investors. There is no doubt that credible estimates would greatly assist the policy debate by allowing policy makers to focus their energies on those barriers that cause the most economic damage.”
– Kathleen Macmillan and Patrick Grady for Industry Canada and Human Resources and Social Development Canada, Inter-Provincial Barriers to Internal Trade in Goods, Services and Flows of Capital: Policy, Knowledge Gaps and Research Issue (March 31, 2007), 15


“Along with the National Post, the C.D. Howe Institute serves as a kind of spiritual home for neoconservatives and others who want deeper social spending cuts and more U.S.–Canada integration.”
– Linda McQuaig, Holding the Bully’s Coat: Canada and the U.S. Empire (2007), 52-53

The Saskatchewan Party recently posted on its website transcripts of two dinner speeches given by leader Brad Wall in Saskatoon and Regina earlier this year.

Both show Wall continuing to shamelessly promote the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) and peddle as fact the deeply flawed and discredited Conference Board of Canada economic estimates for British Columbia and Saskatchewan.

That Wall supports the trade deal and if elected would sign the horrific agreement seem certain.

The Saskatchewan Party’s agenda also appears to include a commitment to explore deeper ties with several U.S. states and paying less attention to safeguarding social policies and programs.

At the 2007 Saskatoon Saskatchewan Party Leader’s Dinner on March 8, 2007, at TCU Place in Saskatoon, Wall said his party believes that “we should be a leading partner in the New West” and that “we need to be at the table…when BC and Alberta are discussing the reduction of inter-provincial barriers.”

The legitimacy of trade barriers as a concern was exposed as largely false less than a month later when 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 in a news release that Saskatchewan has “fewer trade barriers and restrictions than either B.C. or Alberta.”

Like the Conference Board of Canada, Wall made no attempt in his speeches to list the barriers that supposedly exist that would justify the heavy-handed approach of TILMA.

In his speech Wall said “Saskatchewan is on the outside looking in as these two provinces are building what the Conference Board of Canada says will create Canada’s second largest economic region…creating 71,000 new jobs and adding over four billion to the GDP in BC alone.”

Wall once again ignored the fact that the survey results and methodology used by the Conference Board had been thoroughly discredited in detailed analyses by Erin Weir & Marc Lee for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and Patrick Grady, a former senior official in the federal finance department. (The Conference Board would later use the same flawed process to conduct its impact assessment for the Government of Saskatchewan).

Wall said the “NDP refuse to partner with Alberta and BC” whose “cabinets meet together on a regular basis to look for mutual opportunities to work together” and are “waiting for Saskatchewan” to join. Wall went on to say he “met with the Premiers and officials in both provinces” and that Saskatchewan “would be welcomed.”

“We need to stop settling for observer status…the Saskatchewan Party will not stop working we will not be satisfied until Saskatchewan has leadership status,” Wall said.

It’s abundantly clear that in Wall’s world being a “leading partner” and having “leadership status” means signing TILMA.

The Saskatchewan Party also appears to be in lock step with Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s trade agenda.

At the Saskatoon dinner Wall said, “Then there is PNWER (the Pacific Northwest Economic Region). Another regional dynamic group of northwestern states together with Alberta and BC who are cooperating to build the Asia Pacific Gateway…I have asked our critic for Western Economic Cooperation Mike Chisholm to focus on this opportunity.”

A few weeks later Prime Minister Harper had this to say at a May 4, 2007, press conference in Vancouver: “It’s hard to overstate the importance of Asia-Pacific trade to Canada’s economic future. The Gateway Initiative is obviously critical to realizing our potential as a country.”

“Our Government has now committed over $1 billion to this Initiative…And in the longer term, we intend to develop an Atlantic Gateway on the East Coast.”

The press conference also gave Harper the opportunity to showcase his support for TILMA: “This is a bold step that has been undertaken by two forward-looking provinces committed to successfully competing in global markets, and I believe their success will set an example other provinces will find hard to resist.”

Wall’s agenda seems to go well beyond signing TILMA and could include joining PNWER who are studying the BC-Alberta trade agreement as well.

On July 18, 2006, PNWER’s Trade & Economic Development Work Group resolved to “embrace the opportunity to educate and explore the possibility of expanding the B.C.-Alberta Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) concept throughout the PNWER region.”

Finally, during his Saskatoon stop Wall said “municipalities, cities in particular, provide the front line for all economic development.” He went on to say that his party supported increasing the basic food allowance “for the most vulnerable among us” and “establishing designated provincial conservation areas and protected wild spaces within Provincial Park.”

This is despite the fact that TILMA would seriously undermine municipal governments and their right to local choice, which is something the Saskatchewan Party supported in 2002 when it voted in favour of The Cities Act. Surely, Wall is aware of the concerns raised by the City of Saskatoon, the City of Regina and the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association.

Furthermore, Wall failed to acknowledge that Article 17 of TILMA could jeopardize provincial parks and wildlife. While this area appears to be currently exempt TILMA requires an annual review of all exceptions “with a view to reducing their scope.” Measures adopted or maintained relating to the management or conservation of forests, fish and wildlife just so happen to be on the agreement’s hit list.

On April 24, 2007, Wall spoke at the 2007 Regina Saskatchewan Party Leader’s Dinner at the Queensbury Convention Centre in Regina. The pro-TILMA message conveyed to that audience was much the same as the one given in Saskatoon a month earlier.

On the question of exceptions Wall went a little further saying the “agreement explicitly exempts health policy, social programs, water policy, First Nations policy from being a part of the agreement…”

Wall’s comments continue the often used tactic by TILMA supporters who suggest these important social policies and programs are somehow safe but always seem to fail to mention Article 17 of the agreement which says the list of exemptions will be reviewed annually “with a view to reducing their scope”. This means the list of exemptions in TILMA will shrink over time eventually exposing them to the full force of the agreement.

A February 2007 TILMA brochure distributed by the BC and Alberta governments confirm this stating “ongoing efforts continue to reduce exceptions.”

Furthermore, a TILMA fact sheet from October 2006 states “if a measure is not clearly identified as an exception, it is subject to the rules of the agreement.”

Since health and education measures are not clearly identified as exceptions, it would seem they too could be at risk. This is something TILMA supporters like Wall seem to avoid discussing like the plague.

The Saskatchewan Party’s true colours shone in a March 19, 2007, letter Brad Wall sent to the City of Saskatoon that 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 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 open season and fair game to dismantle.

If Brad Wall and the Saskatchewan Party cannot come right out and say that it supports a permanent exemption for important social policies, programs and services then it seems reasonable to assume that they have no intention of protecting them let alone enhance them.

In his Regina speech Wall claims TILMA “improves labour mobility and streamlines skills certification.”

However, on September 7, 2006, the Committee of Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers responsible for Internal Trade announced that “by April 1, 2009, Canadians will be able to work anywhere in Canada without restrictions on labour mobility.” It’s unclear just how much more mobility Wall requires.

Wall said TILMA would provide Saskatchewan a “level playing field” with BC and Alberta. Again, this ignores Wall’s April 3, 2007, press release saying Saskatchewan has “fewer trade barriers and restrictions than either B.C. or Alberta.”

The so-called “level playing field” really has nothing to do with trade barriers and everything to do with hammering standards and regulations down to the lowest denominator. The recent report by the City of Regina solicitor identified several areas where standards could be lowered as a result of TILMA. This is something Wall does not care to mention.

Wall again brought up the Conference Board of Canada saying it had “completed its analysis of the impact of this agreement on Saskatchewan and it is predicting thousands of jobs and new investment.”

He neglected to tell his audience, though, that in its analysis for the Government of Saskatchewan, the Conference Board used a survey and methodology that was virtually identical to the one utilized in BC which was found to be deeply flawed and not credible. This did not seem to deter Wall from shamefully citing it, however.

At the Regina dinner Wall said “We should have been at the table years ago consulting with municipalities and other third parties to ensure that their concerns are heard and accommodated.”

That was not the message Wall conveyed in May 2006 when he berated NDP Premier Lorne Calvert in the legislature and in a news release for not being a part of closed-door negotiations with BC and Alberta and dutifully signing the agreement, which by the way was done without any public or local government consultation. Wall’s sudden support for consultation is shallow at best.

The Saskatchewan Party’s hypocrisy seems to know no bounds.

In one of his strongest pro-TILMA statements since last year Wall said: “If given the chance…we would proudly send a powerful message to the other western capitals serving notice that [Saskatchewan] is stepping up…getting to the table…to be a full partner, a leader in the New West, that we will take our rightful place within confederation as a permanent member of the club of ‘have’ provinces, that we will give back more to Canada then we ever need to get in return.”

“Should we be asked to form the next government, I will assume the ministerial duties for Inter-governmental affairs. This will be my priority. We will follow up on projects already begun.”

The Saskatchewan Party’s agenda couldn’t be much clearer than that. The National Post and C.D. Howe Institute must be very happy, indeed.

TILMA: City of Regina identifies potential impact; report says trade agreement “vague and general,” may weaken standards and regulations

In a report to the Executive Committee for its May 23, 2007, meeting the City of Regina identified those clauses within the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) “dealing with standards and regulations; investment; subsidies; and procurement have the most potential to impact the City’s operations.”

There also appears to be concern that some aspects of TILMA could result in weaker standards and regulations.

The eleven-page report Implications of TILMA on City Operations (May 2007) was prepared by the Office of the City Solicitor.

While the report discusses several areas of concern in detail it attempts to do so in a neutral manner.

The report states, “Whether or not the implications of TILMA on municipalities are positive or negative either taken individually or when viewed collectively are political determinations for City Council. This report does not advocate a position in this regard; it is merely intended to be responsive to the Executive Committee’s request for information on the effect of TILMA on City operations.”

“Items of concern to one city may not reflect concerns to all cities,” added the solicitor.

The report advises that the significant economic benefits of TILMA touted by some are not likely nor are the potential effects of the agreement on municipal operations to be as significant or catastrophic as others suggest.

“In summary, the only definite conclusions that can be made are that the agreement is vague and general and there are no precedents to look at to determine how municipalities may be affected. Ultimately, the implications for the City of Regina are unclear.”

With respect to specific areas of concern the City of Regina notes that TILMA requires the two provinces [BC & Alberta] to mutually recognize or reconcile existing standards and regulations. “New standards or regulations that operate to restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility would be caught by TILMA,” the solicitor warns.

According to the report “there is some potential” that the “requirement for mutual recognition of each province’s regulations could result in the application of the weaker regulations of the two regimes (which could mean no regulation if one jurisdiction did not have any regulation in an area). However, nothing in TILMA obligates either province to accept a lower standard as equivalent or acceptable.”

That a province is not obliged to accept a lower standard would entail overlooking the considerable pressure it might be under to do so if faced with fines of up to $5-million under the dispute resolution process for any measures ruled to be in violation of the agreement. The costs could eventually become too great to ignore.

The solicitor notes that “Article 6 allows a Party to adopt or maintain a measure that is inconsistent with TILMA if the Party can demonstrate that the purpose of its measures are to achieve a “legitimate objective.” Examples of a legitimate objective include public security and safety and public order.

The “burden” however, “would be on the municipality to show how the regulation would fit within the legitimate objective.”

The solicitor acknowledges that “Critics of TILMA…state that under other trade treaties, governments have not been very successful in defending their actions based on clauses that are similar to the “legitimate objectives” clause. Because TILMA is new and there are no precedents, it is impossible to say how much a municipality will be able to rely on the legitimate objective clause to justify its standards and regulations that exist in its bylaws, orders or resolutions.”

“Given that the City enacts many bylaws under provincial legislation for the purpose of regulating certain activities, there is the potential for City bylaws, orders or resolutions to conflict with the spirit and intent of TILMA,” the solicitor said.

Fire and building bylaws are two areas the City says “relate to public security and safety and public order” and that “given the objectives of both of these types of regulations, it is assumed that any restrictions on trade caused by these regulations or more stringent requirements in these areas could be justified.”

The solicitor cautions though, that “there are National Codes which most jurisdictions have adopted so there is already likely a fairly high level of harmonization between jurisdictions. To the extent that the City’s bylaws require more stringent requirements than another jurisdiction and to the extent that these more stringent requirements could not be justified on the basis of public safety, there is the potential for conflict with TILMA.”

Land use regulation is another area that the City of Regina has identified as a concern. The solicitor points out that some opponents of TILMA “argue that it will constrain land use restrictions, green space requirements to provide recreational areas for residents, building height restrictions and sign bylaws to preserve scenic views.”

“It is possible that some of these types of regulations would restrict trade,” the report confirms. “To the extent that these types of regulations in The Regina Zoning Bylaw do not work towards the enhancement of sustainable development, consumer and environmental protection and health, safety and labour standards or cannot be justified as a legitimate objective as defined in TILMA, there would be the potential for these regulations to conflict with the spirit and intent of TILMA. In such a case, the least restrictive land use regulations would apply.”

Another potential impact is business licensing.

“It is likely that some of the provisions of The Licensing Bylaw would restrict trade and that TILMA would require that the least restrictive business licensing rules (of all the jurisdictions) apply. It is less likely that these regulations could be justified under the auspices of public security and safety and public order than many of the fire and building standards. Where the City of Regina requires licensing and another jurisdiction does not, there would be an expectation that the differences in licensing would be minimized and that consequently the City of Regina’s licensing provisions (where more restrictive) might not apply.”

Once again it appears that the lowest standard would prevail.

The report does mention that over the last few years City Council has been reducing the business licensing requirements.

The solicitor states on page six that “One of the most significant provisions that would affect the City of Regina is the provision in TILMA that deals with business subsidies.”

“The City of Regina has a number of tax abatement and tax exemption programs which are undertaken to promote local economic development. These programs are intended to encourage businesses to locate in Regina and in some cases to even locate in specific areas in Regina. The provisions in TILMA, particularly Article 12, would prohibit these types of programs unless they could fit within one of the exceptions in TILMA or could be justified as having a legitimate objective as defined [in the agreement]. For the most part, where a tax exemption program exists to attract business to Regina or an area within Regina, the program would not likely fall into one of the exceptions or fit within the definition of legitimate objective.”

The concerns expressed by the City of Regina with respect to TILMA’s potential impact on business subsidies appears to concur with those raised by Saskatoon City Solicitor, Theresa Dust, in her February 2007 report to Saskatoon City Council.

Unfortunately, this section of Regina’s report also contains one significant oversight.

Although the solicitor acknowledges that subsidies or grants to aboriginal people or to individuals for social policy reasons and assistance for academic research, to non-profit entities and disaster relief are “exempted and therefore permitted” the report does not mention that Article 17 of TILMA requires a Ministerial Committee to “review annually the exceptions listed…with a view to reducing their scope.”

The exemptions in TILMA are meant to shrink over time and eventually be exposed to the full force of the agreement. It is disappointing that this important fact is not included in the report.

On the matter of procurement under TILMA the City of Regina states: “Additional costs for the City would come as a result of the additional time and costs involved in adhering to an open tendering process for contracts where the procurement value is low. Lower value contracts have traditionally been addressed by less formal competitive measures.”

Finally, the question of dispute resolution is addressed, more specifically “how would the Provinces ensure compliance with TILMA by government entities such as municipalities.”

The solicitor offers two scenarios. One would be for the Provinces to enact provincial legislation that would require municipalities to comply with TILMA. Another would be to make individual regulatory or legislative changes on a case by case basis to require compliance.

“In terms of indemnity, the Provinces could demand indemnity from a municipality that contravenes a TILMA provision that results in the Province having to pay a monetary award,” the solicitor said.

At up to $5-million per infraction this could prove to be expensive and is a compelling reason why some feel TILMA will create pressure on governments to weaken or abandon existing provincial regulations and standards that serve the public interest. This appears to be one area the City of Saskatoon did not address in its report.

Though it tries to be neutral the message that comes though loud and clear in the City of Regina’s TILMA report is that the agreement would definitely have an impact on local government and diminish the right to local choice.

River Landing Parcel “Y” secrecy, Saskatoon city manager’s office refuses to release Cameco letter

SP Business editor Murray Lyons reported yesterday that Cameco Corporation would like to put its corporate headquarters downtown, preferably on Parcel “Y” in River Landing Phase I. This was according to a letter that Cameco apparently sent to Saskatoon city council.

In the article Cameco president and CEO Jerry Grandey appeared to downplay the contents of the letter saying it is speculation on other people's part that Cameco will only consider a downtown site if it gets to be on the riverbank land known as Parcel Y, where a previous hotel-spa proposal has been withdrawn.

“We’ve never said that at all. That’s speculation,” Grandey said. “We've just said to the city, ‘Preserve the options. Don't foreclose anything.’

“Whether it’s there or in another location, I'm certainly open minded and willing to talk to anybody.”

As for Cameco’s letter it hasn’t made it to a public meeting of city council. I checked with the city clerk’s office on May 18 to see if they would release a copy. I was advised that the StarPhoenix was mistaken. The letter was addressed to city manager Phil Richards not city council. I called the city manager’s office and asked if I could obtain a copy. I was told that it had been dealt with at an in-camera meeting of the Executive Committee of City Council and that it would not be made public. I was also told that the StarPhoenix did not have a copy of the letter.

The secrecy surrounding Parcel “Y” can be quite disturbing at times. On May 1, 2006, I submitted an Access to Information (ATI) request for all documents and records between June 1, 2004, and December 12, 2005, regarding the proposed spa hotel and site (Parcel “Y”) within River Landing Phase I – with the exception of those records that had been tabled at a public meeting of city council.

In its June 6, 2006, response the city – citing various sections of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act – listed 81 documents that it was not willing to release. This decision has since been appealed to the Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner for review.

The StarPhoenix is aware of this but has not reported it.

If I were to submit a follow-up ATI request covering December 2005 to present the list would no doubt be a lot longer.

According to Mayor Don Atchison’s webpage he “is committed to a responsible, accountable city government that will work in partnership with the community.”

Just don’t ask too many questions about Parcel “Y” though.

TILMA: Saskatoon StarPhoenix editorial board lacks credibility, adopts Saskatchewan Party hypocrisy

In TILMA gives clout to Sask. (SP May 15) the StarPhoenix editorial board does an admirable job of scuttling its own credibility and adopting Saskatchewan Party-style hypocrisy along the way.

The editorial states:

The Calvert government deserves congratulations for establishing a committee to study TILMA and should be encouraged to push for Saskatchewan's inclusion as soon as possible.

The StarPhoenix congratulates the Calvert government for establishing a committee to study TILMA yet pre-determines the outcome saying the province should sign the agreement as soon as possible. This line of thinking robs the committee’s public hearings and final report of any credibility. The genuineness of the StarPhoenix’s support for the committee rings hollow at best.

It appears the StarPhoenix shares the same hypocrisy as Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall who in the legislature on April 2, 2007, criticized NDP Premier Lorne Calvert saying “Why is he only starting consultations now?”

Wall went on to call the Premier’s plan “inadequate” and said “will he at least ensure that the consultations are done by an all-party standing committee of this legislature?”

This would be the same Brad Wall that on May 1, 2006, in the legislature and in a news release ridiculed and condemned the Premier for not being at the table with BC and Alberta during their closed-door negotiations – a process that ignored public and legislative debate – and criticized the Premier for not dutifully signing the agreement.

Both the Saskatchewan Party and StarPhoenix lack credibility.

The StarPhoenix editorial states:

TILMA increasingly is becoming a political football for the usual anti-trade and protectionist suspects. They see the deal as an extension of an American plot to take over this country, an instrument to sell off Canada's water and a "race to the bottom" precipitated by businesses who would do away with labour laws, unions, social legislation and environmental rules through litigation and backroom deals.

BC Premier Gordon Campbell and former Alberta Premier Ralph Klein made TILMA a political football when it signed the agreement on April 28, 2006, without any public consultation or legislative debate.

The StarPhoenix conveniently ignores the fact that concerns with TILMA have been raised by the City of Saskatoon Solicitor’s Office, the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association, the City of Yellowknife, the City of Burnaby, the City of Coquitlam, the District of Kent, the British Columbia School Trustees Association and to some extent the City of Edmonton. No doubt more will follow.

While the StarPhoenix is more than willing to accept without reservation the so-called expert opinion of the Conference Board of Canada as dependable and trustworthy it rejects out-of-hand the carefully researched work conducted by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Council of Canadians, Marc Lee, Erin Weir, Ellen Gould and Steven Shrybman. This is despite the fact that the survey and methodology used in the impact assessments prepared by the Conference Board for the BC and Saskatchewan governments were deeply flawed and have been thoroughly discredited. This does not seem to stop the Saskatchewan Party or StarPhoenix, though, from shamefully citing its findings.

It is also interesting to note that 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 in a news release said Saskatchewan has “fewer trade barriers and restrictions than either B.C. or Alberta.”

The StarPhoenix scoffs at the “race to the bottom” theory but provides no evidence to support its inference that TILMA would not harm labour laws, social legislation or environmental rules.

Where the critics of TILMA attempt to provide evidence to support their arguments the StarPhoenix provides none, only name-calling in an attempt to frame the entire issue as one of business vs. union.

The “race to the bottom” scenario was well presented by Steven Shrybman of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP in his independent analysis of TILMA for the Ontario Federation of Labour.

In his report Shrybman states:

“[I]t is reasonable to expect significant pressure to reconcile such 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.

“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 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.”

The local media ignores this.

The StarPhoenix editorial states:

Saskatchewan could be perpetually disadvantaged if the scaremongers already among us have their way.

In its report Saskatchewan’s Internal Trade at a Glance (April 2007), Saskatchewan Government Relations notes, “Empirically, Canada ’s and the West’s internal trade growth and their overall economic growth have mirrored each other - some economists cite this as evidence that few impediments to internal trade exist in Canada.”

“According to the OECD, Canada is amongst the most ‘open’ of all industrialized countries, both in terms of its international trade and in terms of its domestic economic and administrative regulatory ‘restrictiveness,’” the report states.

Furthermore, within Canada, Saskatchewan is currently the second most export-oriented province in Canada; and, the second most ‘open’ province to internal trade in Canada.

Finally, Government Relations states, “While SK’s average (and current) productivity level is lower than its main internal trade partners (i.e. ON, AB, BC, QC), with the sole exception of Manitoba, its productivity growth rate has recently exceeded both the national and western rates: that is, SK’s faster productivity growth rate is already closing the ‘gap’ in levels.”

In his analysis Steven Shrybman states:

“As most Canadians will readily recognize, Canada is a free society in which they are free to live, work and invest anywhere in the country. There are no customs stations along provincial borders and no tariffs of any kind on interprovincial trade. Moreover, inter-provincial trade is a federal responsibility and provincial measures that interfere even indirectly with such trade have been consistently struck down by the courts.

“Nevertheless, the Conference Board of Canada has produced two recent reports promoting the TILMA cause. Neither report offers substantive empirical evidence that significant and unwarranted barriers to internal trade and investment actually exist in Canada. While certain provincial procurement rules and subsidy programs still favour local contractors and hiring practices, most of the examples cited by the reports concern the remnants of international trade, investment and services measures that have survived free trade, such as foreign ownership limits for Canadian broadcasting companies. Few, if any, of these examples are relevant to Canada’s internal market.”

In a province that is said to be booming this hardly seems to depict one that is disadvantaged and at risk of slipping into an abyss.

The StarPhoenix editorial states:

TILMA's success is based on the notion of including everything unless there's a darn good reason to leave out a sector. And those exceptions are rare.

TILMA’s exceptions include measures relating to Aboriginal peoples; water; regulated rates established for the public good or public interest; social policy, including labour standards and codes, minimum wages, employment insurance, social assistance benefits and worker’s compensation; 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, academic research or to non-profit organizations; the management and disposal of hazardous and waste materials; and the management or conservation of forests, fish and wildlife.

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

Article 17 of TILMA requires a Ministerial Committee to “review annually the exceptions listed…with a view to reducing their scope.”

This means the list of exceptions will shrink over time eventually exposing them to the full force of the agreement. In fact, a February 2007 TILMA publication ominously states “ongoing efforts continue to reduce exceptions.”

An October 2006 TILMA fact sheet states “if a measure is not clearly identified as an exception, it is subject to the rules of the agreement.”

Since health and education measures are not clearly identified as exceptions, it would seem they too could be at risk.

Proponents of TILMA like the StarPhoenix, Saskatchewan Party, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Canada West Foundation and Fraser Institute never seem to mention these things, though.

The StarPhoenix editorial states:

As University of Saskatchewan economist Eric Howe notes in a recent report on TILMA's economic potential…“If Saskatchewan does not sign TILMA, it will forgo an economic opportunity.”

According to UBC economist Dr. John Helliwell, whose critique of Dr. Eric Howe’s report for the Saskatchewan government has been completely ignored by the StarPhoenix and Saskatchewan Party, “Saskatchewan, as one of the smaller provinces, has the most to gain by making sure that any and all efforts to expedite interprovincial trade are national in scope, and are implemented through the AIT. To avoid regional Balkanization, any trial moves initiated by pairs of provinces should explicitly be made freely available for all other provinces to join in, and should be designed for this to be easy to achieve.”

Helliwell goes on to say “In the three-province community of British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, it is realistic to think that the agreed standards would be set to match the preferences of the larger provinces, so that any cost reductions are only achieved by accepting the standards of the other provinces. Given the different resource endowments, growth prospects and sometimes political orientations in the three provinces, Saskatchewan would almost surely be better to wait for the greater gains flowing from harmonization at the level of the AIT.”

“[T]he size of the cost reductions likely to be made available by TILMA are so small as to make it essentially costless to use whatever leverage Saskatchewan may have to improve the AIT rather than join TILMA,” Helliwell said.

The StarPhoenix editorial states:

As Howe says: “If Saskatchewan decides to not sign TILMA, it will tend to further the isolation of our businesses and make them more insular relative to their competitors to the west.”

In his report Howe also said “We don’t want to get this wrong. We need to weigh the tradeoff between the social advantages and disadvantages.”

Howe’s report does not do that. In fact, Howe inexplicably devotes just two measly sentences to describe the trade agreement’s negative impact: “The disadvantage of signing TILMA is reduced sovereignty. TILMA will restrict some abilities of provincial and local governments to enact certain laws and requires that some regulations be standardized across the signing provinces.”

“[T]here is very little discussion of future social policies for Saskatchewan that will be prohibited by signing TILMA. In the absence of such discussion of anticipated future social policies, it is nearly impossible to objectively quantify what the social disadvantage of signing TILMA will be,” Howe said.

Those discussions have not taken place in Saskatchewan. They certainly did not happen in British Columbia and Alberta where TILMA was signed without public consultation or legislative debate.

Howe says non-tariff barriers are extremely heterogeneous in nature. “It is difficult to know how signing TILMA will affect current government policies,” he said.

The absence of such information did not seem to deter Howe, though, from concluding that Saskatchewan must join TILMA anyway.

Unfortunately, Howe appears to have fallen into a trap similar to that of the StarPhoenix and Saskatchewan Party. He cites the need for further debate but has pre-determined the outcome suggesting Saskatchewan must sign the agreement regardless of what the impact might be, what the public might think or whether enough quality information has been gathered to make an informed decision.

The StarPhoenix editorial states:

TILMA is too important to become a political football. With other provinces already clambering to join, Saskatchewan has to decide whether our twinned highways are to be used to connect us to the modern world or serve as a faster way to pass us by.

Which provinces are “clambering” to join? The StarPhoenix names two – Saskatchewan and Ontario. The former is leery and deservedly so while Ontario has shown little sign of wanting to engage the public in consultation or have legislative debate. A lot of the “clambering” appears to be coming from business lobby groups and conservative think tanks like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, The Fraser Institute, C.D. Howe Institute and Atlantic Institute for Market Studies.

It is too late to stop TILMA from becoming a political football. The CanWest family of conservative, pro-business newspapers in western Canada in conjunction with the governments of British Columbia and Alberta along with the Saskatchewan Party and federal government, through its Budget 2007 comments in support TILMA, has already allowed that to happen.

TILMA: Burnaby, Kent, Coquitlam and Delta voice concerns at Lower Mainland Local Government Association 2007 AGM in Whistler, BC

The Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) has received another blow, this time at the Lower Mainland Local Government Association (LMLGA) 2007 Annual General Meeting and Conference held May 9-11 in Whistler, BC where delegates debated resolutions from the City of Burnaby, District of Kent, City of Coquitlam, and the Corporation of Delta expressing significant concerns with the agreement.

The City of Burnaby said TILMA “was negotiated…without sufficient consultation with local government” and resolved that “the Provincial Government be asked to exempt local government from the terms and conditions of TILMA until there has been comprehensive and open consultation with local government and the general public into the need for, terms of, and consequences of the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement.”

The District of Kent echoed Burnaby’s concern saying TILMA “was signed without appropriate consultation with local governments and the public” adding it “would accord private individuals and corporations the extraordinary right to challenge local government...and to seek up to $5,000,000 in damages arising from each alleged TILMA violation." Kent resolved to ask the Union of British Columbia Municipalities to “request that the provincial government negotiate a clear, permanent exception from TILMA for municipalities and municipal organizations or withdraw from the agreement.”

The City of Coquitlam resolved that “the provincial government ensure that local governments have the right to choose whether or not to be bound by TILMA and further, that Council encourage the Provincial Government to establish Public Hearings to promote the understanding of TILMA.”

The Corporation of Delta concern focused on municipal procurement procedures resolving “that the Province be requested not to enact legislation to impose AIT or TILMA procurement requirements on municipalities.”

The resolutions, in part, appear to contradict statements made earlier this year by the Hon. Colin Hansen, BC Minister of Economic Development in editorials to various newspapers claiming local governments were consulted.

One example is a January 30, 2007, letter to the Barriere Star Journal, where Hansen stated: “Consultations were held with ministries, local governments, business groups and academic institutions.”

Hansen’s letters, which are posted on the Ministry of Economic Development website, do not say which local governments were consulted or in what way.

A February 2007 report from City Solicitor Theresa Dust to Saskatoon City Council appears to support what BC municipalities have been saying. In it Dust wrote: “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.”

Given the number of BC municipalities saying they weren’t consulted suggest Hansen’s claim might be less than legitimate.

A further concern is the request by local governments to be permanently exempt from TILMA. This would appear to be inconsistent with the agreement's overall intent for “no obstacles” and to “eliminate barriers that restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility.” It would also be at odds with the January 24, 2007, joint letter sent to municipalities by BC Economic Development Minister Colin Hansen and Alberta Intergovernmental Minister Guy Boutilier that states “Once the TILMA is fully implemented in April 2009, it will also apply to local governments.”

Although the letter goes on to say that the two-year transitional period will provide time to negotiate “any required special provisions or exclusions for local governments” it is difficult to imagine a scenario where local governments and measures relating to them are completely exempt from TILMA.

According to an April 11, 2007, letter Hansen wrote to the Invermere Valley Echo “The TILMA ensures that there is a level playing field for everybody.”

If local governments were granted an exemption then Crown corporations, school boards, and publicly funded academic, health and social service entities might attempt to seek the same.

In fact, it has already begun. At its 103rd Annual General Meeting, held April 19-22 in Victoria, the British Columbia School Trustees Association passed a resolution requesting “That BCSTA call upon the Provincial Government to exempt school districts completely from the provisions of the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement.”

It will be interesting to see how these competing interests are dealt with.

The Lower Mainland Local Government Association (LMLGA) is one of the five area associations within the UBCM and it includes 31 member municipalities (from Lillooet to Hope) and 3 regional districts (Squamish Lillooet RD, Greater Vancouver RD, and Fraser Valley RD).

The LMLGA is a non-profit organization whose purpose includes promoting and advancing to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) on behalf of the membership, proposed changes in legislation, regulations, or Government policies.

The UBCM was formed to provide a common voice for local government. UBCM initiates, monitors, interprets and reacts where such changes could have an effect on local governments and the communities they serve.

The following are the full text of the LMLGA 2007 Annual General Meeting and Conference motions relating to TILMA:

R28 TRADE INVESTMENT AND LABOUR MOBILITY AGREEMENT
City of Burnaby

WHEREAS the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) was negotiated and executive the Provincial Government without sufficient consultation with local government:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Provincial Government be asked to exempt local government from the terms and conditions of TILMA until there has been comprehensive and open consultation with local government and the general public into the need for, terms of, and consequences of the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement.


R31 TRADE, INVESTMENT AND LABOUR MOBILITY AGREEMENT (TILMA)
District of Kent

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

AND 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:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Union of BC Municipalities request that the provincial government negotiate a clear, permanent exception from TILMA for municipalities and municipal organizations or withdraw from the agreement.


R32 TRADE, INVESTMENT AND LABOUR MOBILITY AGREEMENT
City of Coquitlam

WHEREAS the British Columbia – Alberta, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) consists of a set of General Rules and Special Provisions that apply to all government measures such as legislation, regulations, standards, policies, procedures and guidelines that affect trade, investment and labour mobility;

AND WHEREAS the ultimate goal of TILMA is to reconcile all differences in standards between the Provinces of British Columbia and Alberta;

AND WHEREAS the Provincial Government indicates that a two-year transition period applies however, TILMA contains a provision that states that no new measures can be introduced after April 3, 2007:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the UBCM review and respond to the following concerns:

i) Ensuring that the TILMA include a clause guaranteeing that any difference in standards be reconciled to the higher standard;
ii) Why and does the TILMA force lower procurement threshold limits on municipalities;
iii) What impact will TILMA have on regional district and municipalities?;
iv) The decisions regarding harmonizing of standards, bylaws, policies and other measures are to be determined by dispute panels. How can local governments ensure that the provincial government will represent their interests before the dispute panel so that regulatory measures cannot be overturned?;
v) Clarification regarding the proposed two year transition period when some aspects of TILMA apply to local governments beginning April 1, 2007:

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the provincial government ensure that local governments have the right to choose whether or not to be bound by TILMA and further, that Council encourage the Provincial Government to establish Public Hearings to promote the understanding of TILMA.


R35 MUNICIPAL PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES
Corporation of Delta

WHEREAS the Agreement on International Trade (AIT) and the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) have been entered into by the Province and may be extended to municipalities;

AND WHEREAS municipalities generally comply with the intent of the AIT and TILMA procurement provisions, however, in certain instances it may be proper and advantageous for municipalities not to carry out a formal tender process:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Province be requested not to enact legislation to impose AIT or TILMA procurement requirements on municipalities.

Harper government made Canada complicit in torture in Afghanistan;country being sucked into maw of depravity by involvement in Bush's "war on terror "

"Mr. Speaker, a real friend of George Bush would be with George Bush and Tony Blair in the United States today."

– Stephen Harper, Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance in the House of Commons, March 27, 2003, referring to President Bush and Prime Minister Blair's Press Conference at Camp David, Maryland and Canada's decision not to participate in the illegal U.S.-led invasion, overthrow and occupation of Iraq.

Afghan furor shows we're slipping into U.S. orbit

TheStar.com - opinion

May 11, 2007

Linda McQuaig

It was almost enough to revive one's faith in Canada as a functioning democracy, not to mention a member of the civilized world.

After two weeks of unrelenting pressure – led by the media and the opposition parties in Parliament – the Harper government was forced to abandon a deal that made Canada complicit in torture in Afghanistan.

Before we go farther, let's emphasize that the much-improved deal governing the treatment of our detainees in Afghanistan came about despite the sustained and determined efforts of the Harper government to thwart such monitoring of human rights.

For more than a year, the Conservatives had been content to hand over detainees to Afghan custody, despite ample evidence – including from Canadian officials – that Afghanistan routinely tortures those in its custody.

Even after controversy erupted over the situation last month, the Harper government was evasive and unco-operative, dismissing detailed reports of torture as mere "allegations of the Taliban." This dismissive approach was echoed by Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Wente who made clear that her sympathies lay with Canadian military leaders, not with Afghans who reported being hung upside down and punched so hard their teeth fell out.

"I have deep sympathy for our military leaders," wrote Wente, explaining what she saw as the difficult bind our generals are in. "They can fight a war. Or they can babysit `our detainees' ..."

To Wente, ensuring that our detainees aren't tortured – a requirement of the Geneva Conventions, which Canada has signed – is the equivalent of "babysitting" them.

Then there was our top general, Rick Hillier, whose fingerprints are all over the original deal, and who made light of the furor last week by diligently trying to divert attention onto the flashy arrival of the Stanley Cup and a group of NHL old-timers in Kandahar.

First stop for the hockey celebrities was the local Tim Horton's that Hillier famously brought to Afghanistan. Sadly, it seems Hillier's taste for Canadian traditions doesn't necessarily extend beyond hockey and doughnuts to include respect for human rights and the rule of law.

Surely it doesn't need to be noted that torture is among the lowest forms of human depravity. While it has lost its acceptability in civilized circles in recent centuries, it's made a disturbing revival under U.S. President George W. Bush.

Invoking the atrocities of 9/11 as a justification – as if there were no atrocities on this scale in history – the Bush administration has demonstrated a comfort level with torture that would befit the most brutal medieval king.

If we needed any evidence that Canada was being sucked into this maw of depravity by our involvement in Bush's "war on terror," we've now got it. Indeed, the detainee transfer agreement that Hillier signed with the Afghan government in December 2005 had overtones of Bush's "extraordinary rendition" program, under which terror suspects are handed over to a brutal country for detention and interrogation.

In both cases, there was clear knowledge that torture would occur, and no steps taken to prevent it.

That 2005 deal, put in place during Paul Martin's Liberal government reign, also illustrates how far we've drifted from our European allies in NATO, who insisted on considerably more stringent monitoring of detainees they handed over to Afghanistan.

All this suggests a chasm between the values traditionally espoused by Canada – fairness, decency and the rule of law – and the nefarious post-9/11 set of notions in which the leader of the "free world" is given a free hand to do as he wants with "evil-doers."

Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Martin wrote last week that the "new Canada has abandoned the independent strain we had" and that, in our growing closeness to Bush's America, we are "consorts now."

That sort of subordinate role is clearly what the Harper government, as well as some elite military and media types, have in mind for us.

But it doesn't seem to be what the Canadian public is willing to accept.

This Afghan saga reminds me of the case of Maher Arar, the Canadian engineer tortured in Syria. In both cases, Ottawa tried to downplay a growing scandal about Canadian complicity in torture. But Canadians demanded accountability and eventually forced Ottawa to abide by the rule of law, not the lawless ways of the Bush administration.

It seems that, while our political leaders may be comfortable accommodating Bush, most Canadians have yet to develop a taste for toadying.

---

Linda McQuaig is author of Holding the Bully's Coat: Canada and the U.S. Empire. lmcquaig@sympatico.ca

TILMA: Canada West Foundation and Canadian Federation of Independent Business misleading people when they omit important facts

The following letter to the editor of the National Post was submitted today in response to the May 11, 2007, article Trade deal seen as boon or 'end of world' by NP columnist Kevin Libin.


Dear Editor:

Re: Trade deal seen as boon or 'end of world', Kevin Libin, May 11

The Canada West Foundation and Canadian Federation of Independent Business continue to mislead people about the impact the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) will have on communities.

The article states that TILMA exempts non-profit corporations, regulations governing water, taxation and standards for health and social services.

What the CWF and CFIB don’t say though is that the exemptions listed in TILMA are subject to annual review “with a view to reducing their scope.” The list is meant to shrink over time not to expand.

TILMA’s negative impact goes far beyond the exemptions mentioned in the article. Also at risk are measures related to Aboriginal peoples, labour standards and codes; minimum wages; employment insurance; social assistance benefits and worker’s compensation; regulated rates established for the public good or public interest; 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, academic research and environmental measures relating to hazardous and waste materials.

It’s time people were told the truth about TILMA.

Joe Kuchta
Saskatoon

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's team has disgraced itself; Conservatives have shamed Canadians on Afghan prisoner-transfer file

Harper's shabby Afghan shuffle

TheStar.com - opinion

TheStar.com - opinion

May 04, 2007

After weeks of uproar in Parliament, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has finally taken ownership of the Afghan prisoner-transfer file.

But the damage was done by the time Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay belatedly stood yesterday in the Commons to confirm that Ottawa has signed a frantically improvised "enhanced agreement" with the Afghans that will at last give Canada "full, unrestricted and private access" to detainees to ensure they are not tortured.

The Tories' healthy lead in opinion polls last month, which was close to the 40 per cent mark needed to form a majority government, has collapsed to 30 per cent, tied with the Liberals, Decima Research reports.

Little wonder, given that the Conservatives have been sloppy managers of Canada's most significant foreign policy commitment, involving more than $1 billion in aid and 2,500 combat troops. Their attempt to shuffle off responsibility for detainees has tarnished our image as a staunch defender of international law and human rights. That has not enhanced our credibility with the Afghan people and has raised fears our troops might be violating the Geneva Conventions by delivering prisoners to torture.

Nor can the Tories claim they weren't warned. More than a year ago, the Star asked: "Will Canadian troops in Afghanistan find themselves handing over Taliban or Al Qaeda suspects to torture, or worse, as they play a bigger role there? The answer should be obvious, but unfortunately isn't."

At the time, the Star urged Ottawa to strengthen a weak 2005 prisoner transfer pact negotiated under the Liberals. The Dutch have always required the Afghans to keep records of detainees, to allow "full access," and to serve notice of trials, transfers and releases.

Yet it took an uproar in Parliament over claims by Taliban detainees that they had been beaten and shocked to shake the Tories from their torpor to draw up a Dutch-style "supplementary arrangement." That, plus the Tory slump in the polls and Amnesty International's court challenge.

For days, the Conservatives tried to deny a problem existed. They accused the Liberals and other opposition parties of being disloyal, of being Taliban dupes, of sapping troop morale. They claimed no knowledge of "specific" instances of torture, when they had evidence that torture was pervasive. And they trotted out farcically incoherent, contradictory and dissembling explanations of our policy.

However, the new prisoner transfer pact, with its improved protections, shatters their claim that all was well.

While the new deal is welcome, Harper's team disgraced itself in this fiasco. Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor was missing in action, when he wasn't sowing confusion. Public Security Minister Stockwell Day hid behind obtuse non-replies. MacKay seemed confused, for the most part.

Even now, Canadians still do not know how many detainees our troops have taken, how exactly they have been handled, who those detainees are or where they may be. Canadians have no assurance they have not been abused. The Tories themselves do not know, because they chose not to know. They handed off that job to the understaffed and ineffective Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. Only under intense pressure have the Tories grudgingly assumed moral ownership of this file.

Better late than never, but it was unconscionably late.

The Conservatives have shamed Canadians and undermined their own credibility with this shabby performance. Their casual disregard for human rights is at odds with Canada's honourable tradition of advancing such rights. If the Afghan debacle is a dismal chapter in Conservative party history, it is also an instructive one.