PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

Bad news in
Federal budget

by Jack Munro

| JHE federal budget is bad news for Can-
] ‘adian forest industry workers. The
greatest impact on the silvicultural
| side is the impact on FRDA Agree-
-.| ments west of the Atlantic provinces.
At the time of writing we hear ominous
rumours, not only about decreasing the size
of the federal commitment, but about making
the federal commitment a “repayable loan”.
So after all the years of fighting for some
return from the federal government from Can-
ada’s lead industry, we are still at exactly
zero. Despite the appointment of federal
“Forest Minister” Oberle, there is no budget
to give that appointment substance, and now
there is the undermining of the FRDA Agree-
ments, which has been until now the only
evidence that Ottawa cared (or even knew)
about the forest industry, and the only hope
for enlightened, intensive forestry in Canada.
One measure of how much we depended upon
the FRDA programs is that our major com-
petitors in Scandinavia and the U.S. North-
west spend 40 to 50 cents of every forestry

dollar on post-plant-
ing treatments, while
we in Canada spend
two to three cents.
Guess who will have
quality sawlogs to
manufacture in the
future, and who won’t.

But, bad as all this
is for Canadian forest
industry workers,
there is even worse
news in the federal
budget: record, inex-
cusable, larcenous,
devastating interest
rates. By keeping Can-
adian rates five per
cent higher than the
U.S. rates, Wilson, °

dollar is simply too
high. This is the mes-
sage of industry, com-
mon sense (how else
can you interpret the
numbers?) and the
financial markets.

(A current joke on
Bay Street points out
that the late Drexel
Burnham used to price
its junk bonds 400
basis points higher
than U.S. treasury
bonds, about where
Canadian bonds are
now trading.) ...

However isolated
Ottawa may be, there

“| are some bright men

—

Crowe, Mulroney and
company do irreparable violence to forest
industry workers. With one stroke, they man-
age to decrease the demand for our product,
increase its price on international markets
(thereby reducing again employment), and
assure that Canadian producers will be
labouring under an immense competitive dis-
advantage — capital costing about 50% more
meee of the 49th parallel than it does south of
it.

To sum all this up, I can do no better than
quote Murray Pollitt, a Toronto stock broker.
from a Globe & Mail article of Feb. 21st:

“In the face of recession, we have another
tough budget and crushing interest rates. All
to support the currency at too high a level, all
to appease creditors and encourage them to
buy even more treasury bills. In other words,
to put us even deeper into the hole...

... whether at 86 cents or 83 cents U.S., the

up there. It’s hard to
believe they're not aware of the arithmetic.
But you never know, that may be the case. Or
is there another explanation?

Is it possible there is some truth to those
recurring rumours about a secret understand-
ing with the United States compelling Can-
ada to keep the exchange rate above a certain
level, no matter what the price?

Whatever is going on, the endless, lame
comments about grappling with inflation are
wearing thin, and it’s time for some answers.
If kept on the present course, Canada will
increasingly have a Third World look...”

You should write Mulroney, and Wilson.
Tell them enough is enough.

Tell them to negotiate increased FRDA
Agreements. And above all, tell them to get
interest rates down.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMEN

Decisions based on
new forest policy

by Claire Dansereau

JILLIAMS LAKE, January, 1990 —
/public hearings on PA 19. PA 19?

/ What is that? PAs are Pulpwood
Agreements. They provide one com-
pany access to volumes of timber for
twenty-five years without competi-
tion. In the case of PA 19, two companies applied
for the right to the pulp stands and we were asked
to decide between the two. We decided, the local
leadership and I, to base our decision on the
IWA-CANADA forest policy.

Our Forest Policy states that we have to decide
each case on its merits; it states that we need more
effective planning processes when companies do
get access to timber; it states that the environ-
ment and the ecosystem must be considered
throughout the planning process; and, it states
that wherever possible raw materials should be
processed in the region in which they are found.
How could all these factors be included in the
Williams Lake decision?

We had the choice of agreeing to Skeena Cellu-
lose’s proposal. They intended to log immediately
based on their own semi-written management
plan. They also intended to use the raw material in
amill outside the region. Clearly this did not meet
the requirements of our Forest Policy. There was
no possibility for us to participate in the planning
— it had already been done — and thus there was
no way of ensuring that the environment would
not be stressed.

The other applicant — Cariboo Fibreboard —
had publicly stated on numerous occasions that it
needed the wood supply for financing purposes

only. It intended to build a fibreboard plant in
Williams Lake so that when timber was harvested
it would be used locally. An important component
of this deal was that the mill was going to use up
all of the shavings and sawdust generated by the
local sawmills. That should do something for air
quality! Deals were already tentatively struck to
use the chips from the mills in the fibreboard

a

plant. This would add
resilience to the econ-
omy. Based on the com-
bination of these factors
we supported Cariboo
Fibreboard’s applica-
tion. It met with many
aspects of our policy —
local employment; ade-
quate time for proper
planning; and, environ-
mental quality enhance-
ment through the use of
local sawdust and shav-
ings that would ordinarily be burned.

We agreed, but on certain conditions. We said
(among others): No logging for 5 years — during
that time a participatory planning process was to
be established; compensation for other users;
proper impact analysis of the urea formaldehyde
component of processing; impact analysis of air
and water quality/quan-

the subsidies to be provided by the government to
Alberta-Pacific should be used for increased eco-
nomic diversification.

The only topic of discussion at the hearings was
the mill — we could not mention the impacts of
harvesting on the sustainability of the timber
supply. But we were allowed to discuss the social
impacts of the mill on the community. Thus, we
were able in our brief to show that providing such
large areas for pulp production would not promote
social stability. On all counts, the Alberta planisa
bad one.

MANITOBA, FALL 1989, where do we stand on
the Repap mill conversion?

In this case we gave a conditional yes. The
plan was to increase the capacity of an existing
mill and to convert it from one producing brown
pulp to one that would produce bleached kraft
pulp. This was a difficult choice but we felt that
the environmental impact statement was of suffi-
cient depth to allow us to back the proposal.

tity; training of local
people to ensure local
employment and, no raw
materials from that tim-
ber supply to be used for
the expansion of the par-
ticleboard plant.

We made another state-
ment as well. During the
course of the proceed-

Our forest policy has
helped us analyze and
set conditions on how we
think forests should
be managed

The region around ‘The
Pas’ is already single-
industry. To prevent the
conversion and expan-
sion would be to place
many of the region’s
inhabitants on the wel-
fare role. This fact on
its own however, was not
the deciding factor. Had
we felt that the social/

ings many local groups walked out in protest over
the hearings process itself. It was felt that the
absence of the forest service made it impossible
for us to get information. A second objective was
that the hearings were not going to discuss the
‘no-go’ option. We could only choose between the
two proponents — we could not choose to reject
them both and to reject giving the PA at all. We
agreed with those who walked out. It was a faulty
process but we felt that our brief should be
presented anyway. Our dissatisfaction was regis-
tered in the official proceedings.

EDMONTON, DECEMBER, 1989 ... Another
pulp story — Alberta is attempting to become the
pulp capital of the world!

The Alberta government and its Forest Minis-
try are trying to give away huge tracts of land to
foreign multinationals for the lofty goal of eco-
nomic diversification. The results though look
much more like the creation of a huge single-
industry region. The entire north of that province
is to be turned into a pulp farm. This threatens the
supply of the existing sawmills, it threatens the
social fabric of the regions and it most definitely
threatens the environment. Our vote at the public
hearings? A resounding NO. We suggested that

environmental impact statement provided insuffi-
cient or worrisome data — we would have with-
held our support.

We, and the local Indian Bands, agreed that the
mill go ahead but that planning/monitoring com-
mittees would have to be established to ensure
that the environment be protected.

So our Forest Policy has helped us analyze a
variety of situations. It has allowed us to choose
between alternatives and to set conditions on how
we think the forests should be managed.

We still have much work to do. All of the Forest-
Environment Committees still need to be estab-
lished, though Local 1-367 is already at the stage
of planning activities for its committee.

More seminars on the Forest Policy are needed,
especially outside of B.C. The policy itself will be
out in booklet form soon. I have been lecturing in
high schools and at a joint conference between
industry and IWA-CANADA. Much remains to be
done to ensure that our voice is heard in the
debate on sustainable development.

Claire Dansereau is IWA-CANADA’s
Forest and Environment Planner.

4/LUMBERWORKER/MARCH, 1990