PSST! Ever heard of TILMA? No? Well, it’s not a new car or a far-out dance move.
It’s yet another trade agreement, this time between provinces. Alberta and British Columbia have already signed it – without public discussion or legislative debate. Other provinces are considering it. We’re about to hear a lot more about it.
TILMA stands for Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement. Though it doesn’t sound as nasty as CUSTA (the initial Canada – U.S Trade Agreement) as goofy as NAFTA (North America Free Trade Agreement), or as aloof as WTO (World Trade Organization), TILMA packs a similar kind of punch, but lands it closer to home.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
TILMA sets out to flatten any impediments to the free flow of money, goods and labour across provincial borders. The governments of Alberta and B.C. have resolved to “establish a comprehensive agreement on trade, investment and labour mobility that applies to all sectors of the economy” and to “eliminate barriers that restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility.”
The agreement came into effect April 1.
The most obvious barrier to the movement of goods and people separating these two provinces are the Rocky Mountains. But they are in no danger of being levelled by this agreement.
The actual border crossings are hardly an impediment to movement. You wouldn’t even notice that you had crossed into another province without the road signs.
The real targets of this agreement are government regulations and public policies. Beyond seeking to harmonize regulations, codes and standards between the parties, the aim of the agreement is to eliminate any and all measures that are deemed to restrict trade, investment or labour mobility.
A description of special provisions and a list of exemptions are included in the agreement but the overriding objective is to prevent or limit new government initiatives that could restrict, guide or shape economic development.
When fully implemented, TILMA will apply to local governments, school boards, health regions and any other public entity mandated to make decisions that could interfere with private enterprises.
For example, investors could challenge a rural municipal council that preferred a local contractor over a cheaper out-of-province firm. Local development needs or community investments will have to give way to larger competitive market forces.
TILMA rests on the faith that removing public input from the economy will “enhance competitiveness…”, “increase opportunities…” and “reduce costs….”
But the experience in many rural communities is that deregulation can also reduce competition, as railroads, grain corporations and machinery dealerships consolidate.
Restricting public and community investment often results in fewer jobs and opportunities in these communities. And the cost of goods and privately delivered services increase when the public input shrinks.
For these and many other reasons, rural communities and our local governing bodies and institutions need to take a close look at TILMA before it is allowed to zoom through town and dance it’s way into law. It’s a trade agreement that could touch dangerously near to home.
Nettie Wiebe is a farmer in the Delisle, Sask., region and a professor of Church and Society at St. Andrews College in Saskatoon.
