PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

We must fight
Moresby decision

by Jack Munro

he decision of the Federal Government,

to refuse compensation to our Sewell

’ Inlet members conveyed to Local 1-71

president Warren Ulley by bureaucrats,

and attributed to a “Compensation

Committee,” is irrational, unjust and wholly
unacceptable.

The decision to create the South Moresby
park in 1987 was made by governments,
allegedly in the interests of all Canadians.
Why then should a very small number of
Canadians pay such an exorbitant, traumatic
price for that decision, while so many other
Canadians, including many who so emphati-
cally urged that the set-aside was for a greater,
common good, be thus relieved of having to
pay even the tiniest price?

Consider the case of
two young men who
recently left school
and went to work. One
gets a job in Sewell In-
let for Western Forest
Products, and the
other goes to work for
a bank.

And following these
personal decisions, a
great public outcry is
raised to set aside the
timber on which the
Sewell Island opera-
tion depends. “It is
necessary” the outcry
says, “for conserva-
tion which is vital to
us all.”

not in the common
good, or pay their
share through the tax
system.

The Sewell Inlet
crew, although they
didn’t like the deci-
sion, are willing to pay
their share like that,
through the tax sys-
tem, after they are
fully compensated for
the loss of their liveli-
hoods.

Apart from the in-
justice to those work-
ers and their families,
the public policy is
gravely irrational. It
says to all the white-

So if it is vital to us
all, why don’t we all
pay an equal share of the cost, through the tax
system, and fully compensate (not by the
niggardly formula the committee adopted)
the people who lost their livelihoods.

What justification has the bank worker for
paying no share of the cost? What justifica-
tion have University professors or journalists
or Members of Parliament? It seems to me
they must either declare that the decision was

collar urbanites that
are so fond of remov-
ing timber from active forestry, “Go on, make
some more proposals, more and larger set-
asides. There are grievous costs to such
measures, but you won’t have to pay them.”

We have to fight this crazy decision: on
behalf of the members concerned, and their
families, on behalf of justice and fairness,
and on behalf of sanity.

STAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Times are busy
for new committees

by Claire Dansereau

fer ovember 7, 8 and 9 were interesting days
for the Canadian Labour Movement as
well as for IWA -CANADA. An Environ-
mental Conference was held by the CLC
in Edmonton with joint representation
from Canada’s largest environmental
groups and CLC affiliates. Honest attempts were
made to understand each other’s concerns.

A major topic for workshop deliberation was
the establishment of Environment Committees.
Issues such as whether or not the committees
should be joint Union-Management, whether they
should be funded in the same way as health and
safety committees, whether they should be nego-
tiated within collective agreements and what
kinds of tasks they should take on were all
debated in depth in the many workshops that
focused on this topic.

Consensus was not reached since affiliates were
not at the same level of understanding of the role,
responsibilities and functions of committees. How-
ever, the debate resulted in a useful exchange of
information. Some affiliates are still in the very
early planning stages while others, such as our
Union, have established a National Level Com-
mittee, have approved Terms of Reference for, and
established, operations-level committees. We were
therefore able to provide much needed information
while learning from the experiences of other
unions.

IWA-CANADA ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEES

_. Local 1-85 now has committees set-up in all
operations. In some cases management has agreed
to co-operate and in others they refuse to do so.

A joint meeting of all Port Alberni environment
committees was held on October 26, 1990. A full
day was spent discussing problems, concerns and
strategies. Again, much of the debate centred on
the roles and responsibilities of the committees.

Some committee members did not want to be fully
involved in land-use disputes while others saw
this as their main area of focus.

‘The first group thought that their energies
would be best spent working on cleaning-up their
own backyards while they acquired land-use plan-
ning skills. That is, they would focus on small

issues such as dealing with oil spills or residues
and other such matters. At the same time, their
Local Union and abe NeHens) Office staff would
provide training in -use planning and in the
other required skills.

The second seppp felt strongly that land-use
issues needed to

dealt with immediately.

However, they clearly
understood that partic-
ipation in these kinds of
decisions would have to
be done with the appro-
val and assistance of the
Local Union Executive.

On the same weekend,
October 27-28, 1990,
Local 1-405 Cranbrook,
devoted much of their
job steward seminar to
Forestry and Environ-
mental Issues.

Clay Perry and I both led workshops during
this series of seminars. I met with three short
workshops and discussed the forest policy in
detail while Clay met with one group for one and If
days. As usual, there was much discussion about
environment committees. It became evident that
given the geography and the lack of forestry ex-
perience in the Local Union, some time would
have to be spent developing a strategy designed
to ensure that commit-

| unsound and which leads to unnecessary job loss.
| Aclear example of why this must be done is the
recent decision by both senior levels of govern-
ment to refuse compensation to the workers of
Sewell Inlet. Bob Freer, representative from Local
1-71 on the National Forest-Environment Com-
mittee had the following to say to the Queen
Charlotte Island Observer on November 4, 1990:

The reduction of forces in Sewell Inlet was a
direct result of the creation of the south Moresby.
Park Reserve.

The 5 year plan on TFL 24 that also sets the
| annual allowable cut was in effect from January
1983 to December 31, 1988. During this time
period the AAC was set at 435,000 cubic meters.
This cut had been established prior to the park
being created.

On January 1, 1989 a new 5 year plan came
into effect, and was based on a sustainable cut
cut for the TFL taking into account the area of
the TFL that was extracted into the new park
which was 73%. The MOF set the AAC at 100,000
cubic meters. This meant a severe reduction in

the size of the crew, and

tees are set-up in the
most cost effective and
efficient way.

These IWA-CANADA
members continue to
show that resolving
issues which affect their
future health and wel-
fare and that of their

Some time needs to be spent
developing a strategy to ensure
committees are set up in a cost

effective and efficient way

upon reaching the quota
for 1988, 71 full time
workers were perma-
nently laid off on Octo-
ber 31st.

Many of these people
were not entitled to com-
pensation because they
started working in_ the

communities is high on
their list of priorities. An important goal for these
future committees is to discuss real alternatives
and to make positive contributions towards the
resolution of land-use disputes.

LAND-USE ... As you are all no doubt aware,
such disputes are on the rise in this country. In
B.C. the Provincial Round-Table, the Forest
Resources Commission and the Old Growth Strat-
egy Workshop are still meeting on a regular basis
to attempt to resolve these conflict ridden issues.

The Round-Table and the Resources Commis-
sion are receiving information from a wide variety
of presenters. They are not making site specific
decisions on land-use problems. The Resources
Commission is attempting to provide a single
vision for the use of B.C.’s forests while the
Round-Table is debating the value and structure
of a land and water use strategy.

The Old Growth Strategy Workshop has spent
most of its year of existence debating short-term
cutting permit deferrals. They have recommended
to their Inter-Ministerial Management Commit-
tee that a number of target areas be set aside until
such time as a comprehensive old-growth protec-
tion system be established. Unfortunately, and
because of the very nature of the process, deferrals
on those areas will mean an immediate impact on
corporate AAC and therefore on jobs.

It is our position that no such deferrals take
place until the government provides alternate
sources of timber and/or compensation to affected
workers and communities. Moreover, the govern-
ment must take into account the long-term impact

of anne projected cuts between blocks, a prac-
tice held by IWA-CANADA to be environmentally

operation after July
1987, the signing date of the South Moresby
Agreement.

Out of the 71 laid off, 24 were told they would
receive compensation. Some of these people had
worked in the operation up to 14 years.

Fair compensation to those directly affected
was the cornerstone of government policy state-
ments supporting the creation of the South
Moresby Park. All parties concurred on fair com-
pensation including the opposition parties in both
ae House of Commons, and the Legislature of

Failure of the governments to honour this
commitment to the loggers and their families is
not only unfair to them, but also to the public who
supported the creation of the park, believing that
such individuals who would suffer direct job loss
would receive compensation.

Displaced Sewell Inlet loggers were supposed
to receive the same amount as their counterparts
in Lyell Island, 2 weeks pay for every year of
service, which is really peanuts when you consider
the human trauma and impact imposed upon
them and their families.

Many of these people ended up having to
relocate their families, and all had to totally
re-adjust their lives.

It is imperative that we continue to struggle to
be heard on such issues. It is not acceptable that
the working people of this country pay the full
price for society's apparent shift in values.

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

pn

LUMBERWORKER/NOVEMBER, 1990/5