PRESIDE MESSAGE

NAFTA deal threatens our
sovereignty over resources

by Gerry Stoney

‘jhe Brian Mulroney government is sell-
ing us down the river by joining with
| the United States and Mexico in a

! North American Free Trade Agreement.

- In August, Bush, Mulroney and the Sali-
nas government supposedly had an agreement
even though negotiations for some sections of
the deal weren't finished yet.

In order to satisfy George Bush before the
Republican Convention, all three govern-
ments falsely said they had a deal in the bag.
It wasn’t a done deal, they were still working
on the NAFTA text during the Republican
convention. Misleading the public on the
trade negotiations is bad enough, but mislead-
@ ing Canadians on the future benefits of the

deal is just plain treachery.

International Trade Minister Michael Wilson
says NAFTA will create thousands of new jobs
and new economic growth in Canada. He
called it a “prosperity deal”. How are we sup-
posed to believe him when similar promises
were made prior to the signing of the Free
Trade Agreement with the United States in
1989? Back then the Conservative government
promised the creation of thousands of jobs.

On job creation they were right. But the
jobs they created weren’t in Canada. They
were created in the U.S. where labour laws
virtually prohibit unionization. Since the sign-
ing of FTA we have lost half a million jobs in
Canada as branch plants have permanently
closed their doors. A Free Trade Agreement
that includes Mexico will only ensure more

lost jobs for Canadi-
ans. Look at what
has happened in the
first trade agreement
as proof.

In addition to los-
ing their jobs under
NAFTA, Canadians,
will be forced with
further loss of sover-
eignty over re-
sources. That can
have serious conse-
quences for IWA-
CANADA members.
Our jobs rely on our
ability to extract tim-
ber in Canada and
manufacturing it in
Canada. Our entire
economic and social
well being depends
on control over our
own resources.

Sovereignty over our resources and social
programs was a major issue for this union
long before these trade agreements were ever
heard of. That includes sovereignty over the
way we price and allocate our timber re-
sources.

NAFTA only caters to corporations that
want to conduct their activities in a border-
less world, where governments, workers, and
communities can be bowled over in search of
maximizing profits.

We have to look at what that will mean.
What will industry do with the timber re-
source? Where will it be processed and by
whom? Where will the dividends of our re-
sources be invested? What new ethic will the
forest industry operate under?

Shortly after the NAFTA agreement was an-
nounced, MacMillan Bloedel’s employee
newspaper stated that “there won’t be a rush
of Canadian forest products companies clos-
ing shop and moving to Mexico to take advan-

tage of lower wages.”

MB’s_ Executive
Vice-President of
Business Develop-
ment Dale Tuckey
says he doesn’t be-
lieve that good pay-
ing forest industry
jobs will leave Cana-
da to Mexico.

All we can say is
that we don’t under-
stand this type of
statement. MB and
other multinational
forest companies are
well known for elimi-
nation of jobs in
Canada and taking
the dividends to oth-
er regions of North
America. Investment
and job transfer to
Mexico or the United States are not at all out
of the question for MB and others.

Canadian logs can be sent to low wage
manufacturing areas in various form as cants,
flitches, and rough-cut lumber.

The technology that we use in Canadian
mills can be transferred across boundaries
with ease. Just as easily as it would be to print
this newspaper in Mexico, so too is it possible
to make wood and paper products.

The average manufacturing wage in B.C.’s
forest industry is $18.92/hr. In Mexico its
$2.12/hr. and much less in the Maquiladora
free trade zone. It doesn’t take a genius to fig-
ure out where resources and investment will
be made.

We have to speak out against this crazy
NAFTA before it’s too late. I encourage all
union members in the IWA to join with their
working Brothers and Sisters and all others
who oppose these sell-out trade agreements.
We must fight to retain sovereignty over our
resources to ensure our survival.

TAINABLE DEVELOPIMEN

Governments’ old growth
plans missing the mark

by Claire Dansereau

{\ ll of the provinces represented by this
ii i Union are facing the potential of exten-
/\ \ sive land withdrawals from the commer-
/ = \cial land-base. This is true from British
L\_\columbia to Ontario.

Ontario is second only to B.C. in the number of
processes which we must participate in in order to
ensure that our voice is heard.

Among others, Ontario has established an Old
Growth Strategy. The purpose, as was the purpose
in the B.C. Old Growth Strategy, is to determine
how much existing old growth should be dedicat-
ed to forestry and how much should be set aside
for ecological or recreational purposes.

Many of the same dilemmas are being faced.
Should select areas be set aside during delibera-
tions or should logging proceed? These areas were
called deferrals in British Columbia. In the B.C.
strategy more than one-half of the energy and time
was spent debating deferred areas. As it turns out,
anew process has been established which will ex-
tend the deferrals from two years to three.

The Ontario strategy is also studying the whole
question of deferrals.

In Ontario the strategy is called an Old Growth
Conservation Strategy. It is part of a Sustainable
Forestry Package. The issue is divided between
two groups of appointees. There is a Policy Advi-
sory Committee and a Scientific Advisory Commit-
tee.

In January of this year, the Minister established
the Conservation Strategy and made it public via a
news release. In that release he informed the citi-
zens of Ontario that a ten member Policy Advisory
Committee “would develop recommendations for
a strategy for the conservation of Ontario’s old-
growth forest ecosystems. As in B.C., the commit-
tee is charged with reviewing the biological,

social, cultural and economic values associated
with Old Growth.”

There will be input by the public, though that in-

put is not yet well-defined.

There are many dif-
ferences between the
Ontario strategy and
the B.C. effort. In B.C.,
between sixty and
eighty participants
shaped the final result.
It was felt by most par-
ticipants that even with
such a large number,
some interests were
not sufficiently repre-
sented. Labour, for ex-
ample, had only one
voice. It was therefore
extremely difficult to
have issues which are of great concern to labour
discussed or debated.

It is hard to imagine how a ten-person commit-
tee can comprehensive-
ly represent the

it means in reality is that the Policy group can
make sure that the Science group provides it with
the information which is truly useful.

The Policy group can theoretically begin public
consultation, determine what kind of information
it requires to address public concerns, go back to
the public with a series of public policy options
and then recommend policy changes to the gov-
ernment. This would address both the apparent in-
formation gap and the lack of representation
within the committee. Theoretically.

As it stands, the role of the Scientific advisory
committee is to determine if the recommendations
put forth by the Policy Advisory Committee are
scientifically sound.

As stated earlier, the general direction of the
Old Growth Conservation Strategy is far more pro-
tection oriented than the B.C. effort.

The stated purpose of the Scientific Advisory
Committee is to: “pro-
vide a foundation based

extensive interests af-
fected by Old Growth
forestry decisions.
There appears to be a
stronger bias towards
conservation in the On-
tario strategy. In his
press release the minis-
ter stated that “The peo-

Governments are forget-
ting to include serious eco-
nomic analyses when they

do ecological analyses

on sound ecological
principles to support a
conservation strategy
and recommendations
to address values inher-
ent to old growth forest
ecosystems in Ontario.”
This is commendable.
Old Growth values

ple of Ontario recognize
the value of Old-Growth
forests and they want these conserved”.

There is some debate as to the meaning of the
word conserved. The B.C. Old Growth Strategy did
not interpret the word to mean “Preserve” rather it
was taken to mean that Old Growth attributes
could always be found somewhere in the land-
scape. There are a number of ways of achieving
this including preservation.

As I said earlier, the Old Growth Strategy is one
component of an overall Sustainable Forest Initia-
tive. The other projects include the development
of a forest policy framework, a community forest
program, a private woodlands strategy, enhanced
silviculture practice and research and the estab-
lishment of a Forest Industry Action Group.

It was thought at one time that the Policy Advi-
sory Group would not undertake any initiatives
until the Science Advisory groups had developed
some basic information upon which they could
draw their conclusions. This has been changed
and the two groups are working concurrently. _

At first glance it would appear that the Policy
group is working in an information vacuum. What

must be analyzed at
this point in history. No
one questions the fact that society is changing its
values and that the concept of liquidation of Old
Growth is no longer socially or environmentally
acceptable. No one argues the fact that we cannot
conserve or protect something in perpetuity if we
do not have a lot of information on how that thing
functions.

This union agrees that Old Growth Strategies,
sustainable forest strategies and all forms of pub-
lic input are important steps for governments to
take. However, it is becoming increasingly frus-
trating that not one of these governments sees fit
to include serious economic analysis in the same
way that they do the ecological analysis.

The relationship between forest-dependent
communities, the workforce, the economy in gen-
eral and Old Growth Forests must be clearly de-
fined before decisions are made. Balance will not
be achieved if only one side of the equation is con-

sidered.

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

2

4/LUMBERWORKER/OCTOBER, 1992

F