ITOR

Governments must put halt
to likes of Fletcher Challenge

T’S no surprise to us in IWA-CANADA that
Fletcher Challenge Canada is selling off some of
its assets acquired in 1983 and 1987 and heading
to the United States with the profits it made off
the backs of working people. The New Zealand
based multi-national is doing what we predicted
in abandoning the solid wood sector.

What is surprising is that during this tumultuous
stay in Canada, the government hasn’t railroaded
them out of the country.

In June of 1988 Fletcher Challenge Canada’s head
honcho Ian Donald reassured critics in British Colum-
bia by saying that, after the acquisition of British
Columbia Forest Products, there would be no plant
closures or substantial layoffs.

Since those hollow assurances were made, Fletcher
has closed four mills, sold another, and permanently
eliminated over 1,300 IWA jobs. In Local 1-80 alone
Fletcher Challenge has eliminated over 43% of jobs it
provided prior to Donald’s statements.

British Columbians have a right to be bitter and
resentful of these capitalists from New Zealand who
are, in essence, financial flippers with no interest in
maintaining any sort of stability for Canadians.

In 1987 when Fletcher Challenge was getting
approval for its merger of Crown Industries and
BCFP, the IWA filed a protest with the Bureau of
Competition Policy in the Federal Government’s
Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs when
we stated that “we are gravely concerned about
employment effects which would flow from the
proposed control.”

“Repetition of past histories of such mergers would
mean closed mills and logging operations and large
numbers of our members losing their livelihoods,”
stated the IWA.

We were painfully correct almost five years ago and

no one was listening.

Takeovers by the foreign multinationals do not
result in stability in the forest industry. Fletcher Chal-
lenge looked at its Canadian operations as a financial
chess game and has taken our people for a ride.

In 1988 the multinational corporation headed by
chief Hugh Fletcher said Fletcher Challenge’s Cana-
dian investments were long term. Is four years long
term in his eyes?

Tell that to the IWA members at Victoria Sawmills,
Delta Plywood, Lumby Sawmill, and Fraser Mills
panel division where Fletcher Challenge permanently
closed the doors.

The Social Credit Government of those times sim-
ply sat on its hands as the lives of hundred of fami-
lies were disrupted.

In early December the new NDP Government in
BC. set 21 conditions for the sale of Fletcher
Challenge’s Hammond and Fraser Mills to
International Forest Products along with six forest
licenses and part of TFL 46 on Southern Vancouver
Island.

Among those conditions is the maintenance of jobs
in Fletcher Challenge Youbou Sawmill and maintained
wood supply to both Hammond and Fraser Mills.

Its good to see that the new government is trying
to maintain order during Fletcher Challenge’s pullout.
“If Fletcher Challenge doesn’t want to be here we
per shed any tears,” said new Forest Minister Dan

ler.

The Minister also said that a clear message must
be sent out to foreign investors: If your economic
strategy is to come to B.C. and use our resources to
acquire capital and then pull out then you're not wel-
come at all.

LUIMBERU/ORKER

Official publication of IWA-CANADA
NORMAN GARCIA,

5 JACK MUNRO... President
Editor GERRY STONEY .. Ist Vice-President
NEIL MENARD .. 2nd Vice-President
5th Floor, ROGER STANYER . . 3rd Vice-President
1285 W. Pender Street, FRED MIRON .. 4th Vice-President
Vancouver, B.C. TERRY SMITH .. Secretary-Treasurer
V6E 4B2

BROADWAY GEEGIED PRINTERS LTD.

MIKEY

MAKES A CLEAN SWEEP OF THE LEGISLATURE.

vik

(09

eyorersre (ii)
VavaVavayal 7,

TR Ay

3 1d

All e0g tes

Ly

ANTAL Pry AUC

>
eI
eale
INGRID RICE FOR THE LUNGERWORKER

Bush and Mulroney playing politics
with the signing of Mexican pact

Just what’s underway dur-
ing negotiations for a North
American Free Trade Agree-
ment between the United
States, Mexico and Canada is
a complete mystery to most
Canadians. What we do know,
however, is that the first draft
of the document will be ready
in January of 1992 and,
according to Mexico's chief
representative, Manuel Angel
Nunez, a deal could be ready
to sign in the spring.

But like all things political,
Mulroney and Bush are play-
ing with the public as to just
when the deal will be signed.
The Bush administration has
taken a popularity nose dive
since the Gulf War and is
taking a beating over its eco-
nomic policies at home. There-
fore it seems very unlikely
that the Republicans will risk
signing such a trade deal
before the November 1992
presidential election.

That would be perfect for
Bush, because if the NAFTA
is forgotten by most voters
during the usual pandemo-
nium of a presidential cam-
paign, a Republican adminis-
tration would still have until
the summer of 1993 to work
out a deal under the fast track
deal negotiating authority
given to him by Congress.

But if the ratification of a
trade deal is put off by Bush
until 1993, our own Prime
Minister Brian Mulroney will
once again face the “free
trade” issue during an elec-
tion year. And that thought is
sending shivers up Tory
spines.

More and more Canadians
are pointing their fingers at
the Canada-US. Free Trade
Deal signed in January of
1989 as the major culprit
behind the permanent job
losses appearing in all prov-
inces.

Recent polling results by
Environics indicate that over
65% of Canadians are opposed
to the FTA and, in Ontario,
65% of the population is in
opposition.

‘anadians are beginning to
see our artifically high dollar
as a response of the Mulroney

government to stave off pro-
tectionist measures by the
US. Congress. As more and
more plant closures take
place, Canadians are left won-
dering when the bad news will
ever stop.

US. multinational corpora-
tions are closing their branch
plants in Canada and consoli-
dating their operations south
of the border while they enjoy
reduced or tariff free access to
Canadian markets.

The FTA with the United
States is causing the de-in-
dustrialization of Canada as
over 350,000 industrial manu-
facturing jobs have been per-
manently lost. A deal will

only worsen the lives of Cana-

dian workers.

The NAFTA will only fur-
ther destroy our country’s
industrial base. It will not, as
the Mulroney Administration
says, create a fairy tale world
of lower consumer prices and
new high value-added indus-
tries.

We will never be able to
compete with Mexican work-
ers who have no concepts of
free trade unionism. There
will never be a level playing
field with the suppression of
trade unions in Mexico.

Figures from the U.S. Lab-
our Department released in
1989 compare the average
industrial hourly wages in the
three countries. They are as
follows; Canada, $14.72;
USA, $14.31; Mexico, $2.32;
Mexico’s Maquiladora Trade
Zone $.98.

Both the Mulroney and
Bush governments should be
ashamed at pursuing a trade
pact which so blatantly will
exploit the Mexican poor and
will bring down the standards
of other North American
workers.

When the European Eco-
nomic Community negotiated
its trade pact in western
Europe, countries agreed toa
fundamental social Charter of
Rights which guarantees min-
imum wages and income, job
training, pay equity for wo-
men and the disabled and
health and safety protection.
The Europeans have also

addressed the issue of envi-
ronmental protection as well.

No such issues have even
been discussed during NAFTA
talks and there’s no indica-
tion that they will be.

Rather than have a social
Bill of Rights signed, the
right wing governments in
Canada, U.S. and Mexico are
pursuing a Corporate Bill of
Rights. One which allows the
movement of capital to rule
over governments. If we don’t
stop this corporate agenda
then we will all lose.

Fortunately, in Canada and
the U.S., public awareness is
growing. The debate around
free trade is increasing. Most
of us know either someone in
our family relations or com-
munity who has lost their job
due to free trade.

Awareness is also growing
around the issue of human
rights in Mexico. A recent
report released by Amnesty
International entitled “Tor-
ture With Impunity” says
that workers and other union-
ists who dare speak out for
their rights are routinely tor-
tured and executed.

Arrest and torture of union-
ists, lawyers, intellectuals and
peasant workers is an every-
day event in Mexico. In fact
Amnesty International said
torture is so common place
that it must “call into ques-
tion the political will behind
the governments public com-
mitment to an end.”

Says the Report: “Almost
everyone is a risk. Torture
remains endemic in Mexico.
Amnesty International be-
lieves the reason for this is the
almost total impunity ex-
tended to law enforcement
officers who routinely act
beyond the law without fear
of punishment.”

It is with the same sense of
impunity that Mulroney and
Bush and their corporate
backers want to get a NAFTA.
and exploit Mexican workers,
But they are both going to
have to manoeuvre around
many political landmines as
they face voters in the next
two years.

LUMBERWORKER/DECEMBER, 1991/5