WPRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

Labour movement needs
new commitment to NDP

by Gerry Stoney

WWoters across Canada made their choice
‘on October 25th. The fact that the
/ Liberals won a majority means that
Canadians have chosen a government
’ that will be in power for at least the
‘7 next four years.
The results of October 25 also tell us a lot
about what concerned Canadians as they

y

unfold, it is important for trade unionists to

al government to make good on its election
promises.

clearly and overwhelmingly voted to reject the
Kim Campbell. In riding after riding, incum-

simply could not accept another four years of
Tory solutions.

The election results were also a serious rejec-
tion of Tory trade policy, especially NAFTA
Canadians had seen the devastation that came
with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
and they are not prepared to see more of the
same under NAFTA.

October 25 showed that voters were not pan-
icked into believing that deficits had to take
priority over jobs. Canadians understood that
our national debt was manageable if govern-
ment could sustain economic growth. As well,
Canadians did not see deficit slashing as a
workable way to revive the national economy.

marked their ballots. As the next four years |

identify those concerns and hold the new Liber- |

There is no question that Canadians very |
Conservative agenda of Brian Mulroney and |

bent Tories were defeated because Canadians |

| _ On the question of
| jobs, I think voters
| said very plainly
\that the Tory
| approach of Ee
| sitting on the side-
| lines and waiting for
| economic recovery
was absolutely unac-
| ceptable. Most
| Canadians also
| understood that it
| made no sense to
| pretend that unem-
ployment would cor-
rect itself. Moreover,
nine years of Tory
| rule had shown that
| the cost of continued
| unemployment was
| unacceptably high
| and government had
to do something
| about it.
|
|

The October 25 vote was also a rejection of |

Tory tax and spending priorities. Canadians did

not accept GST as legitimate tax reform and —
they did not see billions for helicopters as a pri- |

| ority for federal spending in tough times.

Even within their own ranks Tories were
| divided. Out west, many Conservatives turned
| to Reform while in Quebec, former Tories voted
| for the Block Quebecois. Neither alternative
| represents a constructive change. One group
| would sacrifice Medicare and Pensions on the
| alter of restraint and deficit reduction; the oth-

er would simply sacrifice Canada.

The frustration and division felt by Canadi-
| ans became an enormous benefit for the Liber-
| als. Having been out of power for almost a
| decade, they could point to the Tory track

paigning on the theme of jobs over deficit, they
| portrayed themselves as a party that could turn
| things around economically.

| lenge. In tl
| John Diefenbaker’s Tories resulted in a similar

record and say, “It’s their fault.” And by cam- |

New Democrats, but

vern like Tories. For

e next four >
Alte wall pe there to
challenge the new gov-
ernment on the sinceri-
ty of its election promis-
es.

It will not be an easy
job because our num-

rs have been dramati-
cally reduced in the new
Parliament. With only 9
M.P.’s elected and the
loss of official party sta-
tus, the task of repre-
senting at Cana-
dians in the House of
Commons has become just that much more dif-

cult.

These kinds of setbacks have happened
before, but trade unionists and New Democrats
have always been able to overcome the chal-

the late 50’s, the election victory of

loss for our elected voice in government. Then

as now, the task of rebuilding the party was a

difficult one. Despite the setbacks, however,

trade unionists-and other stakeholders in the
| NDP must begin immediately to assess the
goals and strategies that must be followed to
| regain an effective presence in Parliament.

It will require a clear sense of commitment
from the labour movement to the priorities of
social and economic justice. There must be a
resolve to meet that commitment and support
the re-building that will be necessary to aehieee
our vision for all working Canadians.

LANDS AND FORES

Our future in forests
depends on actions now

by Kim Pollock

That does the future hold? That’s a
question that must be constantly on

/ the minds of people who work in the
forest industry or depend on it.

The answer, of course, is that it depends on
what happens and what we and others do:
there is, in fact, more than one possible future
— now, at least. As baseball great Yogie Berra
once said, “It’s never over till it’s over.”

People actually do shape and make history,
but not just as each individual, group or inter-
est pleases. It’s important that we take the
resources we've already got and use them to our
best advantage, to win the best possible future
for ourselves, our children and our communi-
ties.

First, let’s look at some possible futures;
they’re not all bright! The bad ones include the
“status quo” future, and the “protected to
death” future.

The “status quo” future really offers no
future. It sees a continuation of current trends
in technological change and annual cut; we
can’t survive either of them.

In the past 10 to a dozen years, 20,000 forest
industry jobs have been lost on the B.C. coast
alone, mostly due to mechanization in sawmills
and logging operations. For Canada, forest
employment has fallen from over 307,000 in
1979 to 289,000 in 1992, according to Forestry
Canada.

Meanwhile timber harvesting has increased
substantially. Across Canada the volume of
timber fallen rose from about 120 million cubic
metres in 1970 to 150 million in 1980 to 180
million in 1990, even though recession and cut
reductions ensured that harvest levels actually
moderated slightly in the early nineties.

Simply stated, we cannot sustain that level of
cut, as witnessed by current reductions in AAC
occurring in British Columbia and elsewhere.
In particular, we can’t sustain these levels
without changes to the way we harvest; the
care with which we respect the forest soil; the

extent to which we restock, regenerate and
replenish the forest resource and manage our

forests for the long
term profits.

“status quo” from the
|

in government has
basically been to say:

now we're going to
take them away from
you.”

That brings us to
the second possible
| future: “protected to death”.

Under “protected to death”, environmental
groups persuade governments to remove forest.
lands from the working forest until the indus-
try collapses.

We needn’t look far for a warning: in Wash-
ington, Oregon and northern California public

| lands have been essentially taken out of timber
| harvesting, ostensibly

term, not just short- |
The response to the |

public and some with- |

“Fine. You've misman- |
aged those forests and |

ed.
In April, the U.S. accounting firm Moss-
| Adams calculated the already-massive econom-
ic costs: cumulative job loss since the 1990 list-
ing of the spotted owl totals over 10,000 jobs;
lost federal revenues are about $620 million;
lost state revenues, $317 million; lost wages,
$566 million; lost revenues to forest sector sup-
pliers, $402 million.

We can’t handle losses like that. The econo-
| my, especially that of forest-dependent commu-
| nities, would be ruined. So we need another
future, one that balances the need to carefully
| marfage our forests and provide economic
| opportunities for people.
| IWA-CANADA is fighting for exactly this kind
| of future. As our Forest Policy declares: “Job
| creation and protection of the environment are
| the foundations upon which our forest-environ-
| ment policy is built.”
| On Vancouver Island, for instance, our union
| has joined others in the forest sector in promot-
| ing a Future Forest Employment Option.

As members of the

| to protect the spotted
owl but really to pre-
serve outright all old-
| growth forests.

|_ The losers have not
| been the largest inte-
| grated forest compa-
| nies, which own large
tracts of private
lands; they are the
| timber-based commu-
| nities, especially for-

voices heard

Change is coming quickly
and we need to make our

won't be written out
of the future

Forest Employment
Sector at the Island’s
Commission on
Resources and Envi-
ronment Round Table,
our package offers a
different kind of
future for forest work-
ers and their commu-
nities: “sustainabili-

to ensure we

est workers and their

| families.

The U.S. federal panel that provided Presi-
| dent Clinton with economic and social analysis
| of the effects of these removals reported that:

“A sudden drop in harvest levels creates more
than an economic shock or the sudden loss of
jobs. It creates a social shock that can reduce
the ability of a community to respond to eco-
nomic change. Persistent poverty, increased
| commuting, emigration of community members,
| the breaking up of family and community sup-
port networks, changes in leadership, low
morale, uncertainty, heightened conflict among
| groups within communities, deep cuts in school

| forest policies if community needs are not

addressed.”

| Forest employment in the three states has
already fallen by 20,000 since 1990 and the fed-

eral panel estimates an additional loss of up to

12,500 as the Clinton Forest Plan is implement-

| budgets are all factors that result from shifts in |

ty”.
“There’s no point in
keeping land in

forestry if at the end of the day the companies
simply bring in the hoe chuckers and put us all
on the street,” Forest Employment Sector
spokesman and IWA-CANADA vice-president
Warren Ulley explains.

| Brother Ulley says he is optimistic that the
Vancouver Island CORE Table will adopt a set
of recommendations on Future Forest Employ-
ment options that workers are presenting. He
hopes CORE will recommend a package to the
provincial cabinet, a step that will increase
pressure on both the government and the
industry to move towards a “sustainable”
| future.

It’s hard to change. There are rules and
| potential pitfalls but when you think about the
| alternatives, you realize it is inevitable.
|

|

4/LUMBERWORKER/NOVEMBER, 1993