A war of words over the Atlantica trade proposal for portions of Atlantic Canada and New England escalated Thursday.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released a study that slammed the trade proposal as misguided and the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies quickly went on the offensive, insisting the work of the other group was biased and misinformed.

"They targeted one tiny piece of a very large puzzle that they had a problem with, and that’s what they are attacking," said Charles Cirtwell, acting vice-president of the institute.

The centre’s study warned that endorsement of the Atlantica proposal by government and business organizations will result in the transition of Halifax into a super-port to facilitate transfers of Asian cargo to the American heartland by way of huge "train trucks."

According to the centre, the evolution of Atlantica would reduce the region to a "conduit" to the heartland for Asian products and regionally produced gas or electricity, at the expense of real regional development.

But Mr. Cirtwell said it is "missing the point" to portray Atlantica in such narrow terms.

He said references to Asian trade opportunities represent only a small part of the many dozens of possibilities considered in discussion papers on the Atlantica proposal generated by the institute and discussed in as many as 100 public forums in recent years.

He noted the Atlantica proposal is not the brainchild of the institute but has been a widespread topic of discussion in the region for years.

"Atlantica is not about building up only for Asian trade but is actually an exercise in mental geography that ties together the American northeast with most of the Atlantic region and a portion of Quebec," he said.

"What it says is this region has a lot of things in common and by really working together we can take advantage of a wide range of opportunities that would see us all benefit."

Mr. Cirtwell acknowledged discussions on Atlantica have included the idea of Halifax as a port for the world’s biggest container ships, but he said Saint John has also been considered, along with a wide range of other topics besides the port.

"Atlantica includes an entire menu of opportunities for people who live in this region," he said.

Scott Sinclair, who wrote the study Atlantica: Myths and Realities, stood by his research.

"It is important to focus on the concrete ideas that underlie the Atlantica proposal," he said. "The notion of a transportation corridor, for example, is a central component of the Atlantica discussion."

Critics of the Atlantica proposal were lining up to take verbal shots at the scheme after Thursday’s official release of the study by the centre.

New Democrat MLA Maureen MacDonald condemned the provincial government for endorsing the Atlantica proposal without debating it publicly.

Rick Clarke, president of the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour, said any benefits from Atlantica would be concentrated in Halifax Regional Municipality at the expense of rural Nova Scotia.

http://www.herald.ns.ca/Search/559401.html

I'm skeptical of the "Atlantica" plan. I think the belief that we would become merely a conduit for the US to more easily trade with Asia may not be that far off. I think any economic union between Atlantic Canada and the US Northeast is doomed to leave us behind, but that's just my opinion.

In truth neither group has much credibility. CCPA is so left-wing that nothing they say can be taken seriously. AIMS is almost as nutbar on the right. It's a shame because the concept needs some serious debate, but neither of these groups are the ones to do it.

I'm definitely in favour of an Atlantic Canadian political/economic alliance, just not the way the Atlantica people are proposing it. I don't think it would be in this area's interest to join with the US northeast, I think it would only make us part of an easier shipping corridor to New England, New York state and south, and southern Ontario.

Here's a commentary from Monday's Cape Breton Post against the AIMS proposal. You already know what I think so I won't post my own views here.

Atlantica trade zone a costly myth that would benefit only Halifax within the region

Section: Comment

By Scott Sinclair,
Few Atlantic Canadians would argue against the potential benefits of improving trade with our New England neighbours. Given this, the controversy surrounding proposals for an Atlantica trade zone spanning Atlantic Canada, southern Quebec and northeastern New England may come as a surprise.

Concerns about Atlantica are, however, fully justified. The proposed export corridor, championed by the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, would have serious detrimental effects on Atlantic Canada.

The notion that Atlantica is only about enhancing regional trade is a myth. In a key speech on last summer, the president of AIMS dismissed trade within this region as "hardly worth mentioning." Supporters stress that the project is not about regional trade but about Asia and the North American heartland.

The centrepiece is a plan to turn Halifax into a superport for Asian cargo. Container ships too large to pass through the Panama Canal would sail from Asia to Halifax via the Suez Canal and their goods would then be trucked across the region to the U.S. midwest.

This scheme is implausible. West coast ports are increasing their capacity and plans to expand the Panama Canal to accommodate larger ships are underway. The strategy also ignores U.S. national security concerns post-9/11. Legislation before the U.S. Congress would require that 100 per cent of U.S.-bound containers be scanned in foreign ports, imposing extra costs on the port of Halifax.

This corridor would have few economic benefits outside Halifax and could be realized only at great cost to Atlantic Canadians. Corridor highways built for huge truck trains hauling two or more trailers, would absorb public spending that could otherwise be used to support more diversified infrastructure.

Increased heavy truck traffic would make the region's roads less safe and harm the environment.

Such a corridor could turn into a white elephant under future action to curb global warming through more sustainable transportation networks.

Atlantica's emphasis on a parallel energy export corridor is also problematic. Between 1995 and 2005, Atlantic Canadian energy exports to the U.S. jumped from 24 per cent to 54 per cent of the region's total exports to the U.S. But this export focus neglects Atlantic Canada's own energy security, the negative environmental effects of accelerated fossil fuel use, and whether the Canadian public is getting a fair share of revenues from these publicly owned resources.

Atlantica supporters give these concerns short shrift and instead promote an unregulated free market approach to energy exports.

Norway provides an alternative approach that Atlantic Canada should emulate. It has a vibrant offshore energy industry while garnering an 84 per cent share of revenues for its citizens. Atlantica partisans, by contrast, have been highly critical of the Newfoundland and Labrador government's efforts to negotiate a fairer share of returns for the province from future offshore petroleum developments.

The common thread throughout the Atlantica agenda is a fierce commitment to deregulation, whether by loosening road safety rules to allow truck trains or a hands-off approach to the energy sector.

As one analyst has pointed out, Atlantica's chosen theme of "business without borders" has a double meaning: business unimpeded by the international border, but also freed from the boundaries of environmental and social policy regulation.

On its Atlantica website, AIMS explicitly targets minimum wage legislation, public services, and unions as "policy distress" factors that thwart the region's development. For AIMS in particular, the Atlantica project is a means to promote its unconditional belief that unregulated private markets always benefit society and that the best government is the smallest government.

Fortunately, there are compelling policy alternatives to the deeply flawed Atlantica agenda. Emulating Norway's successful energy policies could provide the public revenues needed to deal with the urgent issue of climate change, including resources for a sustainable transportation network. This would move containers from the region's ports onwards by rail and short sea routes, not truck trains.

Even the six-year-old pact between the Atlantic premiers and the New England governors to reduce greenhouse gas emissions offers a far more positive model of cross-border co-operation.

Like its namesake Atlantis, the mythical city which according to legend disappeared into the sea, the Atlantica proposal, one hopes, will soon sink out of sight.

Scott Sinclair is a senior trade policy researcher with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a public policy research institute. He is the author with John Jacobs of Atlantica: Myths and Reality, available from www.policyalternatives.ca