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