Ok. now I know that this post isn't directly relating to the Workless Party, but it effects everyone working and living and paying taxes in BC so and i am posting everywhere I can. please read. and then email and talk to everyone you know about it and what to do about it.
Here is some information about the unheard of Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement between BC and Alberta.
I want to make two points and then a plee before you read the article.
1)"The Agricultural Land Commission, the
Island Trusts, regional districts and land use restrictions in
provincial parks will all be vulnerable to a TILMA challenge as of next
April (2007)." - This is for any evironmentalist on the culture jamming list and beyond.
2 )"They could then be challenged for
regulating the size and location of commercial signs and billboards,
imposing height restrictions on buildings, or requiring green space
allocations from developers." - For all you cultural jammers out there, you are going to have a lot of work on your hands. all those new billboards, popping up everywhere.
My plee: I don't know of any actions/campaigns against this agreement, yet. I hope i will find some to inform you all of. But from where I stand, we need to do something. What? Don't know that part yet. But I think we might be able to angle it from the illegitimacy of the agreement (" no legislation introduced to give it legitimacy")
I just really want to get a discussion on this going. So any thoughts would be great.
I will attach the original article as well on the bottom.
fighting till my last breath,
jax
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 13, 2006
Murray Dobbin
Last April the governments of B.C. and Alberta signed an agreement
called the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA).
There was no public notice, little media coverage, no legislation
introduced to give it legitimacy and no debate in the legislature. The
Alberta-based think tank, the Canada West Foundation, says TILMA will
rid the provinces of barriers that "frustrate business".
The most draconian aspect of TILMA is its investment provisions. Once
the agreement enters into force on April 1, 2007, individuals and
businesses will gain the right to launch complaints and get up to $5
million in awards against governments just because they “restrict”
investment. Since pretty much everything a government does in some way
restricts investment, the two provinces are in for a wild ride.
TILMA claims will be decided by NAFTA-like panels.
What are some examples of government restrictions on investment that
could be challenged under TILMA? TILMA has some exceptions, but land use
planning is not one of them. The Agricultural Land Commission, the
Island Trusts, regional districts and land use restrictions in
provincial parks will all be vulnerable to a TILMA challenge as of next
April. Municipalities will have a two-year grace period before the
government extends TILMA to them. They could then be challenged for
regulating the size and location of commercial signs and billboards,
imposing height restrictions on buildings, or requiring green space
allocations from developers. And they can be challenged starting in
April if they introduce bylaws that are stricter than their existing ones.
We can get some idea of what we might be in for by looking at Oregon. A
ballot measure approved in 2004 gives property owners there the right to
sue for compensation for anything the state or local governments do that
restricts the value of their property. The result is the effective end
of land use planning. According to Sheila Martin, Director of the
Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies, the ballot measure has
resulted in over 6,000 claims totalling over $6 billion.
“The biggest impact of the measure,” says Martin, “has been on Oregon’s
land use regulations which seek to protect farm and forest land.” Land
use deregulation outside the cities has Martin especially worried: “The
urban growth boundary will become ‘leaky,’ releasing pressure for higher
density in the cities.” Many challenges have been filed against “sign
ordinances” regulating the size and location of commercial signs.
Like the dilemma BC and Alberta will face under TILMA, Oregon is now
having to decide whether to pay compensation to keep their regulations,
or waive them for the complainant. The trouble is, there is no limit to
the number of claims that can be made against a single regulation - so
if you want to keep it, you have to keep paying.
How many claims will BC get? Oregon allows anyone with property in the
state to sue over land use regulation. TILMA gives Albertans the right
to sue BC over restrictions on their BC investments, and vice versa. But
Gordon Campbell is hocking TILMA to all the other provinces to get them
to sign on, which would expand the potential number of complaints
against BC. And under TILMA complaints can be made against a wide range
of government regulations or programs, not just land use planning.
TILMA allows for a limited number of “Legitimate Objectives” so
governments can try to defend themselves before a dispute panel, arguing
their regulations were "necessary." But nothing in TILMA recognizes the
kind of quality of life objectives served by land use planning.
Moreover, a government would also have to demonstrate that its measure
is not more restrictive to business than necessary to achieve its
objectives.
BC officials are making extravagant claims about trade barriers between
the provinces, suggesting that TILMA could “save” BC $4.8 billion - an
eye-popping figure, equivalent to what BC earns annually from its
softwood exports to the US. In October, federal officials told a Senate
committee that reliable studies have estimated inter-provincial trade
barriers to be about one tenth the amount BC is claiming, and vary
depending on what is defined as a trade barrier. Is the removal of land
use restrictions part of the "benefits" to be gained by TILMA? What
about the drop in property values that could result from uncontrolled
development?
Alberta cabinet minister Gary Mar told a Richmond business audience the
easy process TILMA provides for complaints to be taken against
governments is "everything Canadian business asked for." He was right
about that. But what about everyone else?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
www.winnipegfreepress.com/westv...c.html
Agreement cuts provincial powers to govern
Winnipeg Free Press
Fri Nov 3 2006
By Murray Dobbin
WHAT if a provincial government signed an agreement forcing it to make
most of its regulations identical to those of another province? What if
this government voluntarily made itself, and every municipality within
its borders, open to lawsuits over virtually anything it did that
restricted investment? What if it tied its own hands so that, no matter
how much a region was suffering economically, it could not provide
assistance that might "distort investment decisions?"
Well, there are no "what ifs" about it. This past spring, B.C.'s Gordon
Campbell and Alberta's Ralph Klein signed an agreement with exactly
these sweeping constraints on the ability to govern. It is called the
Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement. B.C. and Alberta trade
officials are now shopping it around to other provinces to get them to
sign on. The agreement comes into effect next April.
According to Todd Hirsch of the Canada West Foundation, the agreement
could erase the borders between B.C. and Alberta so that the only
differences between them will be "voting and the colour of the licence
plate."
Except, once the agreement comes into full force, voting provincially in
B.C. and Alberta could be a waste of time.
Under the agreement, the B.C. or Alberta government will be barred from
doing anything that could "impair or restrict" trade, not only between
the provinces but also through them to another province or country. One
article just flatly decrees that there shall be "No Obstacles" to this
trade.
Governments will be prohibited from providing subsidies that either
directly or indirectly "distort investment decisions."
Click here to find out more!
Some exceptions, such as for water, are permitted but even these are to
be reviewed annually to get them reduced.
The agreement also requires B.C. and Alberta to "mutually recognize or
otherwise reconcile their existing standards and regulations" if these
"impair or restrict" trade, investment or labour mobility. Then it
prohibits new regulations from being introduced that would have these
effects. Since regulation always restricts investment in some way, the
result will be that all future B.C. and Alberta governments will be
prevented from strengthening their regulations.
How exactly is this going to work? What would happen, for example, if
B.C. voters decided they had had enough of leaky condos and voted for a
party committed to tougher construction regulations? A government
elected on such a commitment would quickly find it had to betray its
promise or be vulnerable to a trade investment challenge.
Plus if either province considers any new initiatives, it has to give
the other party to the agreement the right to comment in advance and is
then obligated to "take the other province's comments into
consideration." In sharp contrast, citizens in B.C. and Alberta were
never consulted by their own governments on this astonishing agreement.
As part of their sales job, Alberta's Gary Mar and B.C.'s Colin Hansen
have claimed the agreement will not result in lower provincial standards
-- just ones that are "appropriate." In reality, however, the agreement
can only lead to deregulation because businesses are only likely to sue
governments over regulations they think are too high, not ones that are
too weak. In a vastly expanded version of provisions in NAFTA, any
resident of B.C. or Alberta will gain extensive new grounds to sue
government. A dispute panel will be empowered to make binding decisions
and grant compensation of up to $5 million for any government action
that violates the agreement. Repeated complaints can be taken about the
same government policy or regulation.
Governments can go on bended knee to trade investment panels and argue
that their regulations were "necessary," but trade dispute panels rarely
accept such arguments. Plus, this agreement only recognizes a limited
list of regulatory objectives as "legitimate."
For example, a city's desire to prevent urban blight is not on the list
of legitimate objectives, so municipal bans on billboards would likely
be a violation.
No wonder Gary Mar could tell a business audience in Richmond that the
dispute process is "everything Canadian business asked for."
The pact creates endless potential for litigation against government
right down to the school board level, without any demonstrable benefit.
A 1998 study done for the B.C. government found that: "efforts to
liberalize interprovincial trade will have almost no effect on trade
flows. The reality is that interprovincial trade barriers are already
very low."
As for labour mobility, all of provisions for increased labour mobility
will already be covered in Premier Gary Doer's initiative to see
professional requirements harmonized across Canada.
To sum up, the agreement pretty much bans new regulation and government
assistance for economic development. Perhaps in anticipation of the
pact, the B.C. legislature's fall sitting was cancelled with the
government claiming there was not enough to do. When asked about the
constitutionality of the agreement, Steven Shrybman, a partner in the
law firm of Sack, Goldblatt, and Mitchell, commented that "a basic
principle of constitutional law is that a government cannot fetter its
own legislative prerogatives by abandoning its authority to govern."
Sounds like what the Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement is
all about.
Murray Dobbin is a Vancouver-based writer.
Here is some information about the unheard of Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement between BC and Alberta.
I want to make two points and then a plee before you read the article.
1)"The Agricultural Land Commission, the
Island Trusts, regional districts and land use restrictions in
provincial parks will all be vulnerable to a TILMA challenge as of next
April (2007)." - This is for any evironmentalist on the culture jamming list and beyond.
2 )"They could then be challenged for
regulating the size and location of commercial signs and billboards,
imposing height restrictions on buildings, or requiring green space
allocations from developers." - For all you cultural jammers out there, you are going to have a lot of work on your hands. all those new billboards, popping up everywhere.
My plee: I don't know of any actions/campaigns against this agreement, yet. I hope i will find some to inform you all of. But from where I stand, we need to do something. What? Don't know that part yet. But I think we might be able to angle it from the illegitimacy of the agreement (" no legislation introduced to give it legitimacy")
I just really want to get a discussion on this going. So any thoughts would be great.
I will attach the original article as well on the bottom.
fighting till my last breath,
jax
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 13, 2006
Murray Dobbin
Last April the governments of B.C. and Alberta signed an agreement
called the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA).
There was no public notice, little media coverage, no legislation
introduced to give it legitimacy and no debate in the legislature. The
Alberta-based think tank, the Canada West Foundation, says TILMA will
rid the provinces of barriers that "frustrate business".
The most draconian aspect of TILMA is its investment provisions. Once
the agreement enters into force on April 1, 2007, individuals and
businesses will gain the right to launch complaints and get up to $5
million in awards against governments just because they “restrict”
investment. Since pretty much everything a government does in some way
restricts investment, the two provinces are in for a wild ride.
TILMA claims will be decided by NAFTA-like panels.
What are some examples of government restrictions on investment that
could be challenged under TILMA? TILMA has some exceptions, but land use
planning is not one of them. The Agricultural Land Commission, the
Island Trusts, regional districts and land use restrictions in
provincial parks will all be vulnerable to a TILMA challenge as of next
April. Municipalities will have a two-year grace period before the
government extends TILMA to them. They could then be challenged for
regulating the size and location of commercial signs and billboards,
imposing height restrictions on buildings, or requiring green space
allocations from developers. And they can be challenged starting in
April if they introduce bylaws that are stricter than their existing ones.
We can get some idea of what we might be in for by looking at Oregon. A
ballot measure approved in 2004 gives property owners there the right to
sue for compensation for anything the state or local governments do that
restricts the value of their property. The result is the effective end
of land use planning. According to Sheila Martin, Director of the
Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies, the ballot measure has
resulted in over 6,000 claims totalling over $6 billion.
“The biggest impact of the measure,” says Martin, “has been on Oregon’s
land use regulations which seek to protect farm and forest land.” Land
use deregulation outside the cities has Martin especially worried: “The
urban growth boundary will become ‘leaky,’ releasing pressure for higher
density in the cities.” Many challenges have been filed against “sign
ordinances” regulating the size and location of commercial signs.
Like the dilemma BC and Alberta will face under TILMA, Oregon is now
having to decide whether to pay compensation to keep their regulations,
or waive them for the complainant. The trouble is, there is no limit to
the number of claims that can be made against a single regulation - so
if you want to keep it, you have to keep paying.
How many claims will BC get? Oregon allows anyone with property in the
state to sue over land use regulation. TILMA gives Albertans the right
to sue BC over restrictions on their BC investments, and vice versa. But
Gordon Campbell is hocking TILMA to all the other provinces to get them
to sign on, which would expand the potential number of complaints
against BC. And under TILMA complaints can be made against a wide range
of government regulations or programs, not just land use planning.
TILMA allows for a limited number of “Legitimate Objectives” so
governments can try to defend themselves before a dispute panel, arguing
their regulations were "necessary." But nothing in TILMA recognizes the
kind of quality of life objectives served by land use planning.
Moreover, a government would also have to demonstrate that its measure
is not more restrictive to business than necessary to achieve its
objectives.
BC officials are making extravagant claims about trade barriers between
the provinces, suggesting that TILMA could “save” BC $4.8 billion - an
eye-popping figure, equivalent to what BC earns annually from its
softwood exports to the US. In October, federal officials told a Senate
committee that reliable studies have estimated inter-provincial trade
barriers to be about one tenth the amount BC is claiming, and vary
depending on what is defined as a trade barrier. Is the removal of land
use restrictions part of the "benefits" to be gained by TILMA? What
about the drop in property values that could result from uncontrolled
development?
Alberta cabinet minister Gary Mar told a Richmond business audience the
easy process TILMA provides for complaints to be taken against
governments is "everything Canadian business asked for." He was right
about that. But what about everyone else?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
www.winnipegfreepress.com/westv...c.html
Agreement cuts provincial powers to govern
Winnipeg Free Press
Fri Nov 3 2006
By Murray Dobbin
WHAT if a provincial government signed an agreement forcing it to make
most of its regulations identical to those of another province? What if
this government voluntarily made itself, and every municipality within
its borders, open to lawsuits over virtually anything it did that
restricted investment? What if it tied its own hands so that, no matter
how much a region was suffering economically, it could not provide
assistance that might "distort investment decisions?"
Well, there are no "what ifs" about it. This past spring, B.C.'s Gordon
Campbell and Alberta's Ralph Klein signed an agreement with exactly
these sweeping constraints on the ability to govern. It is called the
Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement. B.C. and Alberta trade
officials are now shopping it around to other provinces to get them to
sign on. The agreement comes into effect next April.
According to Todd Hirsch of the Canada West Foundation, the agreement
could erase the borders between B.C. and Alberta so that the only
differences between them will be "voting and the colour of the licence
plate."
Except, once the agreement comes into full force, voting provincially in
B.C. and Alberta could be a waste of time.
Under the agreement, the B.C. or Alberta government will be barred from
doing anything that could "impair or restrict" trade, not only between
the provinces but also through them to another province or country. One
article just flatly decrees that there shall be "No Obstacles" to this
trade.
Governments will be prohibited from providing subsidies that either
directly or indirectly "distort investment decisions."
Click here to find out more!
Some exceptions, such as for water, are permitted but even these are to
be reviewed annually to get them reduced.
The agreement also requires B.C. and Alberta to "mutually recognize or
otherwise reconcile their existing standards and regulations" if these
"impair or restrict" trade, investment or labour mobility. Then it
prohibits new regulations from being introduced that would have these
effects. Since regulation always restricts investment in some way, the
result will be that all future B.C. and Alberta governments will be
prevented from strengthening their regulations.
How exactly is this going to work? What would happen, for example, if
B.C. voters decided they had had enough of leaky condos and voted for a
party committed to tougher construction regulations? A government
elected on such a commitment would quickly find it had to betray its
promise or be vulnerable to a trade investment challenge.
Plus if either province considers any new initiatives, it has to give
the other party to the agreement the right to comment in advance and is
then obligated to "take the other province's comments into
consideration." In sharp contrast, citizens in B.C. and Alberta were
never consulted by their own governments on this astonishing agreement.
As part of their sales job, Alberta's Gary Mar and B.C.'s Colin Hansen
have claimed the agreement will not result in lower provincial standards
-- just ones that are "appropriate." In reality, however, the agreement
can only lead to deregulation because businesses are only likely to sue
governments over regulations they think are too high, not ones that are
too weak. In a vastly expanded version of provisions in NAFTA, any
resident of B.C. or Alberta will gain extensive new grounds to sue
government. A dispute panel will be empowered to make binding decisions
and grant compensation of up to $5 million for any government action
that violates the agreement. Repeated complaints can be taken about the
same government policy or regulation.
Governments can go on bended knee to trade investment panels and argue
that their regulations were "necessary," but trade dispute panels rarely
accept such arguments. Plus, this agreement only recognizes a limited
list of regulatory objectives as "legitimate."
For example, a city's desire to prevent urban blight is not on the list
of legitimate objectives, so municipal bans on billboards would likely
be a violation.
No wonder Gary Mar could tell a business audience in Richmond that the
dispute process is "everything Canadian business asked for."
The pact creates endless potential for litigation against government
right down to the school board level, without any demonstrable benefit.
A 1998 study done for the B.C. government found that: "efforts to
liberalize interprovincial trade will have almost no effect on trade
flows. The reality is that interprovincial trade barriers are already
very low."
As for labour mobility, all of provisions for increased labour mobility
will already be covered in Premier Gary Doer's initiative to see
professional requirements harmonized across Canada.
To sum up, the agreement pretty much bans new regulation and government
assistance for economic development. Perhaps in anticipation of the
pact, the B.C. legislature's fall sitting was cancelled with the
government claiming there was not enough to do. When asked about the
constitutionality of the agreement, Steven Shrybman, a partner in the
law firm of Sack, Goldblatt, and Mitchell, commented that "a basic
principle of constitutional law is that a government cannot fetter its
own legislative prerogatives by abandoning its authority to govern."
Sounds like what the Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement is
all about.
Murray Dobbin is a Vancouver-based writer.
posted by:
|
Vancouver
|
