MESSAGE

B.C. Government must hold |
line on Clayoquot decision —

by Gerry Stoney |

he controversy over Clayoquot Sound |
will likely be with us for some time. ,
Although the media has declared
unions and employers “winners” and
termed the preservationists as
© “losers” in the Clayoquot compro-
mise, there has been little media focus on the
400 IWA members who have lost their jobs
because of the decision.

When the Clayoquot compromise decision
was made in April our union reacted responsi-
bly. We didn’t like it because we were losing |
400 jobs. But we are prepared to supports the
compromise because life must go on in the |
forest industry and we believe that the com- |
promise support, in every sense, the principle |
of sustainable forestry. |

As this issue of the Lwmberworker goes to |
press over 400 people have been arrested at |
anti-logging blockades. During the blockades |
our membership at large has acted responsi-
bly in avoiding conflict with blockaders.
Although many of our members have seen |
their brothers and sisters lose their liveli-
hoods because of the decision, they have seen |
that compromise is better than conflict.

If the preservationists continue to blockade |
and get arrested then that is their decision but
it is not a responsible one. Filling jail cells |
with people will not change things. The only |
thing it does is create employment for the |
R.C.M.P. and the courts, putting burdens on
the taxpayers of the province.

' compromise should

|four and a half

| efforts

| able development

| tions to govern-

The Clayoquot

serve as a turning
point in the land-
use debate in B.C.
The decision was

years in the making.
It took the best
of two
dozen local people,
ordinary folks from
communities near
Clayoquot Sound,
to weigh out every
aspect of sustain-

and come up with a
set of recommenda-

ment.
It was democracy
in action, real grass roots public participation. |

| The preservationists could have been part of

the decision making but they dropped out in
the middle of the process.

We don’t believe that they ever wanted a}
compromise and don’t want one now. Their
position has been and always will be that |
there should be no logging in Clayoquot |
Sound. |

Since the democratic process didn’t suit the |
needs of their agendas, they figure they |
should ride over that process. These people |
are not interested in compromise or rational |
discussion or give and take. They want it all. |
They want every tree to stand where it is until
it rots and falls down.

The preservationists want our industry to
shrivel up and die and they want to put peo-
ple out of work. But they are not going to win
their case in Clayoquot Sound.

They are going to lose because this is
Canada and Canadians know that life is a mat-

give - By
defying the law the
preservationists are
trying to blackmail the
people of the province
and the government,

Canadians know that
nobody should get
their own way all the
time. We've got to pre-
serve some of the for-
est and we've got to
farm some of it to pro-
vide jobs for people
and support for com-
munities.

You can’t just say:
“Leave all the trees and
let the people suffer
... leave all the trees
and let the towns die.”

You have got to find a way of living togeth-
er, of sharing the land fairly and responsibly,
that’s what the Clayoquot compromise is all
about.

Workers don’t want it all, we only want to
share. We want to preserve some of the old
growth. And we want to harvest the rest of it
responsibly and carefully.

Each year only one percent of the land will
be logged. Clayoquot can and will be a show-
place for modern, low-impact logging tech-
niques. Most importantly the local community
will be empowered to keep an eye on logging
operations and to enforce strict guidelines
and practices.

The provincial government must hold the
line on the compromise. We believe they will
and have heard premier Harcourt and several

| cabinet ministers reaffirm their commitment
| to the democratic process that gave us the
| decision.

LANDS AND FOREST

Today’s generation is as |
important as tomorrow’s

by Kim Pollock

{yje’re often asked these days to act
/on behalf of “future generations”. |
| We should be really careful with

that sort of argument; often the
/ cure we're offered is worse than the
t disease.

We're told, for instance, that we need to cut gov-
ernment spending so future generations won't be
saddled with a huge deficit.

But when you look at the proposed cuts, you
know they would hurt future generations even
more than they would current tax payers. Child
care, education, health care, training and skills
development, job creation: these are all among the
items some politicians target. But cutting them
would eliminate opportunities for our children,
young people and their children.

In a recent presentation to a B.C. Commission
on Resources and Environment workshop, for
instance, provincial medical officer of health John
Millar showed how the health of a population
depends on a variety of social and economic fac- |
tors “which include income, employment, working |
conditions, education, housing, the distribution of
income, social support networks and issues of |
social justice and healthy communities.”

Further, he noted, “there is very strong evidence
that the first few years of life are critical in equip-
ping a child with the coping skills that will equip
him or her to be healthy later in life.”

In other words, if we cut the supports we pro-
vide children today, we'll pay later in ill-health and
social problems.

We should keep this in mind, then, when we're
asked for the sake of future generations to reduce
timber harvesting and the working forest land
base.

Nothing would in fact do more harm to future
generations than shutting down whole communi-
ties and damaging the Canadian economy.

Remember that, according to the federal govern-
ment report The State of Canada’s Forests 1992,
forest industries provided 289,000 direct jobs and

| study for C.O.R.E., this

exports was pegged at

and salaries at $9.9 bil- |
lion. |

Just take a look at |
what happens to com-
munities that have ex-
perienced a devastating
reduction in their land |
base.

In Washington State,
for instance, forest com-
munities have paid a
monstrous price since
the 1990 listing of the |

| spotted owl as “endangered”. Regardless of your

views on the merits of locking up millions of acres
of federal forest lands to protect spotted owls, it’s
hard to miss the impact of that policy on current
and future generations of Washingtonians. This
information is drawn from a soon-to-be-completed

| two billion trees have been planted under federal-

over $20 billion, wages | provincial agreements, in addition to the millions

planted by provincial governments or by private
Jand-owners.

“Between 1981 and 1991,” the report notes, “the
areas planted and seeded increased by 182 and 12
| percent respectively, for an overall annual average
| increase of close to 10 percent.”

It’s absolutely crucial that we continue this pace
| of reforestation. It’s completely unbelievable, then
| that the Conservative Party’s deficit hunters in

Ottawa have now written off any renewal of the
Forest Resources Development Agreement

| between the federal and provincial governments.
The program, which will now die at the end of
| the current four year FRDA II agreement, has been
| responsible for much of the provinces’ recent
| gains in reforestation of not sufficiently restocked
areas. In British Columbia, for instance, under the
| first FRDA agreement, from 1985 to 1990, the back-
| log of good to medium site NSR was reduced from
Z 738,000 to 436,000

one by ARA Consulting
Ltd. of Vancouver:

In Skamania County,
Washington: 26 percent
unemployment; 42 per-
cent drop in real wages
from 1977 to 1991; 37
percent drop in retail
sales, 1980 to 1991; 41
percent of county on
public assistance.

We would be
serving the

future Canadians if we
can work to ensure the
Suture of our forests

hectares, a decrease of
over 40 percent. FRDA’s
termination is the
worst sort of deficit
cutting hysteria, as
B.C.’s finance minister
Glen Clarke, was quick
to point out when the
federal budget was
tabled.

A better approach is

Sar better in
interests of

In Forks, Washing-
ton: 30 percent in-
crease in UI claimants, 1990 to 1991; 1988 real
income 85 percent of 1979 level; 50 percent
increase in social security recipients.

You don’t need to look too far for the social and
psychological effects this will have. In fact, a study
of stress in these same communities describes:

e A doubling of domestic violence and sexual
assault cases;

° Increased caseloads for mental health and
substance abuse counsellors; a 25 percent school
dropout rate;

¢ The impact of changing family roles and struc-
tures on children.

Again, the effect of economic devastation and
social disruption is already being felt by future
generations.

We would far better serve future generations,
then, by ensuring the future of our forests.

provided by the Ontario
i Forest Policy panel, of
which IWA-CANADA vice-president Fred Miron was
a member. “Our goal,” the panel reported, “is to
ensure the long-term health of our forest ecosys-
tems for the benefit of the local and global envi-
ronments, while enabling present generations to
meet their material and social needs.”

: With this approach, hopefully Ontario’s forest
industry can confidently implement improved har-
vesting techniques that ensure the integrity of the
environment; advanced utilization of timber; diver-
sification into new wood-based products; and
intensive silviculture to increase yields - in short -
secure, high-paying jobs in a forest industry that
has a secure base to work from. Now that’s some-
thing worthwhile that we can offer future genera-
tions.

i vi i. ii -CANADA’s
In the past ten years, according to the same fed-| _ Kim Pollock is the Director of IWA-C.
eral forestry report I referred to earlier, roughly | Environment and Land-Use Department.

stimulated 440,000 indirect jobs: all told, one out
of every 17 jobs in Canada. The value of forest

a
4/LUMBERWORKER/SEPTEMBER, 1993

eas