ESIDENT’S MESSAGE

U.S. puts blame on us
for being efficient

by Gerry Stoney

he U.S. International Trade Commis-

sion’s June 25th finding that Canadi-

an lumber shipments are injuring

American producers is a major set-

back for trade relations between our
two countries.

At a time when our forest industry is wit-
nessing the worst slowdown in the past 30
years, the U.S. has unfairly added extra
costs to Canadian mills and threatened
prospects for recovery. In the U.S. powerful
political forces have lobbied to persecute
our industry.

During the past 15 years our industry
has modernized and become so efficient
that despite the natural disadvantages
that our industry faces, we are able to com-
pete in the U.S. market and beat them at
their own game.

IWA-CANADA members have played a
key role in accepting technological change
as an inevitable consequence of competi-
tiveness. Although we have suffered signif-
icant job losses, our jobs now are more
secure and better paid.

So it troubles us to no end that inefficient
American lumber interests, which general-
ly pay their workers less with less efficient
technology, point the finger at us as a root
of their problems.

During the 1980’s Canadians became the

most efficient pro-
ducers of softwood
lumber products in
the world and now
the USS. is trying to
beat us up with
phoney charges.
The Americans
say we are causing
damage to U.S.
lumber producers,
even though our
market share has
dropped 10 percent-
age points in the
last 2 years. They
say our log costs are

subsidized even
though we have im-
plemented new

stumpage systems
in various provinces
to replace a 15% ex-
port tax in place since 1987.

To add insult to injury, U.S. political lob-
byists first claim that our logs are a sub-
sidy. Then they say that our log export
restrictions are a subsidy as well. 5

They condemn our log export restrictions
even though, at the same time, U.S. law
prohibits log exports from federal and most
state lands.

The American arguments are both non-
sensical and hypocritical. The U.S. lumber
industry has not managed itself or its re-
sources well enough to survive viably in
the 1990’s, and they are using trade actions
to ensure that their problems become our
problems.

For the most part, regions-of the U.S.
have mismanaged their resources and are,
running out of timber. On private lands,
massive volumes of logs have been export-

ed to overseas mar-
kets, leaving U.S.
mills to shut down.
Nearly all the old

rowth on private
lands has been liq-
uidated and the
downfall effect has
hit the U.S.

Now because the
USS. is experiencing
domestic problems
it has turned to ha-

rassing its best
tradin; rtner.
The U.S. has used

its omnipotent trade
law powers to ha-
rass Canadian pro-
ducers in areas from
raspberries to cod-
fish, and from steel
rails to pork. Time
and time again Canadian exporters have
been nailed with unfair and unwarranted
countervail actions, despite the existence of
a Canada - U.S. “free trade agreement.”

While Canadians play by the rules, the
Americans are trying to bully us and affect
how we administer our resources in a soy-
ereign way.

The powerful forest industry lobby of the
U.S. should keep its nose out of Canada’s
\ sovereign right as a nation to control and
develop its resources as it sees SDPrOnD a
It’s time for the Americans to look inwards
to solve their problems and not finger their
competitive Canadian counterparts.

The message to U.S. politicians should be
clear. Just because their industry is losing
its competitiveness, don’t hammer Canadi-
ans because the U.S. can’t keep its own
house in order.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPIMEN

Interfor joins IWA-CANADA
in environmental program

by Claire Dansereau

my

/\ + last, a far-sighted forest company is

| \ putting into practice many of your
|| \ Union’s ideas on forest management.
\ Not only does this company agree with
iJ \_ what we say — they are willing to initi-
ate a program with us that will finally launch
our ideas and theirs.

Which company ? - International Forest Prod-
ucts, Limited (Interfor). Interfor is a B.C.-based
company that has recently acquired many of
the timber and sawmill assets of Fletcher Chal-
lenge Canada. This acquisition has resulted in
Interfor becoming the second largest forest
tenure holder in the province.

In the spring of this year the company ap-
proached your Union to begin developing an en-
vironmental program. They understand that
environmental performance is the single-most
important key to the future of our industry.

The 1992 collective agreement states that:

The Parties agree that Forestry Environmen-
tal Committees in Logging shall be established
by the License Holder and the Local Union.

: The details concerning the structure, opera-
tion and terms of reference must be agreed to by
the License Holder and the Local Union prior to
implementation.

Interfor is the only company to come forward

wath a proposal for establishing these commit-
es.

Unlike other companies, Interfor did not at-
tempt to establish a unilateral program. They
did not dictate to us any of the content nor did
they assume right of ownership to any part of
it. Essentially, they came to us with a blank
slate and met with your national officer in
charge of the environment, Warren Ulley, the
local union presidents working on Interfor
tenures and myself to establish the vision, prin-
ciples and process.

_The vision statement is broad but very defi-
ze 3 in setting the direction for the program. It
states:

IWA-CANADA, Interfor and its contractors set

the standard for coop-
erative and environ-
mentally responsible
and safe work prac-
tices in all forest
product operations.

The principles help
to express in more
definite terms what
the vision means. The
principles are:

1. The program will
‘include the Joint En-
vironment Commit-
tees at all stages of
forest planning and
the implementation and monitoring of plans.

2. The program will result in environmentally
responsible and safe work practices inclu-
ding soil conservation, waste management, wa-
ter and air protection, fish and wildlife
maintenance and renewal of the resource,
among others.

The purpose is to see what forest practices need
special attention, what is environmentally-re-
sponsible work, and what steps need to be tak-
en in order to achieve both these requirements.
Education will undoubtedly be a major focus
of discussion. Environment committees will
need to be trained in many areas, including the
“Coastal Fish and Forest Guidelines,” govern-
ment planning requirements, the impacts of dif-
ferent logging techniques and many more. It
will be important to discuss exactly how an ed-
ucation package can be established and imple-
mented for each operation. :
The value in the process that has been estab-
lished is that the outcome will be feasible and
realistic. The Union membership will know ex-
actly how far the company can go on many is-
sues. The company’s commitment to this
open-ended process means that they will not
agree to systems within which they cannot sur-
vive. Therefore, when the joint-environment
makes a decision about training systems, in-

3. The program will
take into consideration
environmental protec-
tion and the economic

communities.

These basic princi-
ples will help shape
the guidelines and set
the tone for locally de-

Our environment program

needs and stability of Goes not have a public rela-

tions initiative as its un-
derlying purpose

volvement in plan-~
ning, auditing
systems, we as a

union, will know that
they are serious.

The timing for this
program has never
been better. It is be-
coming painfully evi-
dent that cooperation
between union and.

veloped action plans. i
The guidelines will be established at regional
workshops.

The regional workshops will be held in the
last week of September through the middle of
October. ,

At the regional workshops, the content of the
program will be debated and modified. To date,
the four components of the program are: Joint
Environmental Committees, Education, Train-
ing, and Auditing Systems.

Environmental committee representatives
will attend the regional workshops to expand
the program content, develop overall guidelines
and to discuss the best method by which the
guidelines can be implemented at the operation
Ievel. Much thought will be given to the mean-
ing of an environmental program. It should be
clearly understood at the end of each workshop
that this is not window-dressing. Real work will
have to be undertaken by us, by the company
and the contractors.

An environment program does not have as its
underlying purpose a public relations initiative.

Fs management on envi-
ronmental issues is essential.

Cooperation, however, does not mean that we
will act as public relations agents for the com-
pany on issues or policies for which we have
had no input. This is clearly understood. Envi-
ronmental policies and decisions taken with our
input are the ones which we will support and
Interfor agrees with this position. =

We will work actively and hard to make this
program a success. We have a lot to offer the
company. Our loggers have considerable experi-
ence to bring to the training table, the plannin;
table and the policy table. On the other hand,
we also have a lot to learn, and together with
the company we can go a long way in getting
the training we need to make environmentally-
responsible decisions. us

So far, this is a very positive program and we,
at the National Office, are extremely excited

about its development.

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

a

4/LUMBERWORKER/AUGUST, 1992