Council’s recent decision to charge a multi-national company with the task of collecting local garbage cans has much to our delight unleashed a solid debate about the aims and accomplishments of the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA.)
Supporters of the contract claim that it (along with TILMA) will lower costs, whereas detractors lament its impact on the labour force, since it poses a threat to the very survival of the local contractor per se and by the extension, other local contractors in other sectors who might be forced to compete against outside companies.
Detractors of the agreement have also raised questions about why council has changed its tune on hiring local contractors for the RCMP, in failing to strike the same chord on the garbage contract.
The answer is simple. The complex rules of the agreement permit it.
This of course appears to confirm the inklings of critics, who suspect that the agreement is nothing more than an artificial artifice designed to favour larger (and politically more powerful) companies.
This space agrees with some of this criticism.
First, nobody would deny that council has an obligation to protect the often cited ‘pecuniary interests’ of citizens.
But we disagree with the prevailing premise that utilitarian considerations such as the cold hard price of a product or service should trump all else.
Yes, TILMA permits some flexibility in the awarding of contracts, but its current criteria grant price primacy.
This condition in turn cries out for reform.
Competition is a productive force which the spirit of TILMA honours.
But its practical execution leaves plenty of room for improvement.
— Summerland Review