EDITOR

CARIBOO CORE REPORT
THREATENS MORE JOBS

trike two on Stephen Owen and the
Commision on Resources and Environment.
In mid-July Mr. Owen delivered another
report to the government which called for
huge set asides in the Cariboo region of
British Columbia.
And must like Owen's CORE report con-
cerning a land-use plan on Vancouver Island,
the report for the Cariboo gives too much to the preser-
vationists and pays too little attention to the workers
and their communities.

Following Mr. Owen's first report on Vancouver Island
it took the provincial government and major stakehold-
ers over five months to sort out major gaps and errors.

Given that track record it is absolutely necessary that
the stakeholders once again have the opportunity to
thoroughly review the information that was used in the
Cariboo CORE report.

The CORE process in the Cariboo was extremely frus-
trating for the IWA as the union witnessed people from
the preservationist movement whose true objective was
to never reach a consensus position. The union’s posi-
tion, as part of the Cariboo Communities Coalition, for

a 12% set aside of protected area was viewed as low-end
extreme by Owen, whose recommendations are precise-
ly a mid-point between the radical environmentalists
and the compromise endorsed by the IWA.

Owen developed his own boundary for the CORE
region, reducing the area credited as already protected
in Wells Gray and Tweedsmuir Parks to whatever
amount would be necessary to reach 12% after meeting
radical environmentalist interests.

The result is that in reality, using a boundary that is
acceptable to the IWA there is far in excess of 12% pro-
tected area.

In fact the number is much closer to 15% in addition
to an absolutely mind-boggling percentage of sensitive
resource management zones.

Our union is concerned that those who advocate
more set asides are those who would be pleased to hide
impacts of “special management zones” and their net-
down effects on the annual allowable harvests.

Those zones were mentioned by Owen without any
serious consideration of the job losses and timber loss-
es to the commmunities.

In his Cariboo report Owen does not take into effect
the spin-off jobs that could be lost to his assumptions.
He uses a multiplier factor of .3 jobs per direct forest
industry job lost. That factor is the lowest factor that
the IWA has ever seen used anywhere in the country.

In the Cariboo and in communities like Williams Lake
there is at least a spin-off factor of 1 indirect job for
every direct forest industry job. Mr. Owen's report does
not recognize this and the transition strategy for those
who would lose their jobs should his CORE report ever
be accepted are little more than smoke and mirrors.

We in the IWA hope the the B.C. government’s new
Forest Renewal Plan will be able to create jobs for
those displaced by any land-use decision. But the real
impact of the Cariboo CORE report is too much for the
government renewal plan to deal with.

By reducing the harvest by some 890,000 cubic
meters on an annual basis we would be looking at two
sawmills closing down and direct job losses in the
neighbourhood of 4-500.

It is completely unacceptable for workers to carry the
impact of the changes proposed by enormous job losses.

We have always supported a sustainable forest but
the Cariboo CORE report seriously jeopardizes that sus-
tainability. That is why we insist that the NDP govern-
ment sit down with the stakeholders once again to get
to an agreement on land-use negotiated on a leveled

playing field for all parties.

LUIMBERUWIORKER

Official publication of WWA-CANADA

IORMAN GARCI GERRY STONEY .. President
N ua i NEIL MENARD ... Ist Vice-President
FRED MIRON ... 2nd Vice-President
WARREN ULLEY ... 3rd Vice-President
5th Floor, HARVEY ARCAND ... 4th Vice-President
1285 W. Pender Street ‘TERRY SMITH . . Secretary-Treasurer
Vancouver, B.C.
V6E 4B2

NJ

STAY BACK!
OR THE TREE GETS IT.

im
TH

"Winter
ad yu

s
g
s
@
e
g
3g
¥
&
x
i
8
ez
8
=

Assaults on Canadian workers continue in NAFTA
era as Mexican government elected by fraud

Into our first year of the
North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) it proba-
bly does most of us well to
take a step back and see just
what has happened recently
between Canada and the
United States and observe
what has happened once
again in Mexico’s most recent
election.

Once again following con-
gressional and presidential
elections on August 21, there
are wide-spread charges of
voting fraud perpetrated by
Mexico’s ruling PRI party.
Added to that there is the
prospect of civil unrest and
an economy in which the dis-
tribution of wealth has
become more skewed in
favour of the rich.

The media is calling the
Mexican election “relatively
clean” which means our
NAFTA partner has been
fraudulently elected again.

In Canada trade conflicts
with the U.S. have perpetuat-
ed themselves, even in the
new “free trade” era. On
August 3 Canadian lumber
producers were awarded a
win in the dispute over soft-
wood lumber exports to the
U.S. But despite the victory,
in which an Extraordinary
Challenge Committee set up
under the NAFTA ruled that
Canada does not subsidize its
lumber exports to the U.S.,
the Americans are not going
to refund all of the U.S.$800
million collected from Cana-
dian lumber exporters at
American border crossings.

In the past eight years
Canada has won six decisions
by bi-national panels which
have ruled that our lumber
exports to the U.S. do neither
harm U.S. producers not are
subsidized. But despite victo-
ry after victory the U.S. is
determined to continue the
assault against the Canadian
Jumber industry. y

U.S Coalition for Fair
Lumber Prices chairman
Harold Maxwell told the press
that his organization “will not
rest” until more action is

taken against Canada, despite
clearly losing another deci-
sion.

The coalition is planning to
use every which-way of con-
tinuing the assault on our
lumber exports to the U.S.
market. That includes a new
case against Canadian lumber
imports and/or new changes
in legislation in the U.S.

Over $6.5 billion worth of
lumber was shipped south of
the line last year. British
Columbia alone accounts for
70% of those exports. In 1993
forest industry exports to the
U.S. exceeded $18.7 billion of
Canada’s $26.6 billion forest
products. Therefore we have
a tremendous dependency on
the Americans for lumber
markets.

Canadian
workers can
expect repeated
attacks despite
“free trade”
agreements

The U.S. Commerce De-
partment has instructed U.S.
Customs to pay Canada back
for only the period since
March 17, 1994, when a bina-
tional panel set up under the
NAFTA, deemed that the lum-
ber countervail duty imposed
by the U.S. had no grounds.
The $800 million is owed from
over two years ago.

The Americans’ behavior is
typical of a country with
omnipotent economic power.

One Canadian lumber
industry official agrees.

“They (the Americans) just
proved the theory about the
elephant and the mouse. The
mouse (Canada) just can’t
fight the elephant (the U.S.).
There’s just no way,” said
John Sereny, president of

Green Forest Lumber Com-
pany of Toronto.

Canadian workers can ex-
pect the assaults on our forest
wee, to continue unabat-
ed.

Similar attacks against
Canadian exports have taken
place in the export of Cana-
dian wheat to the U.S.

In early August the
Chretien government agreed
to voluntary curbs on the
export of Canadian wheat to
avoid a U.S. threat of an all-
out agricultural trade war.
Canada will-now only ship 1.4
million tonnes of wheat south
of the line without getting
nailed with prohibitive duties.

US. President Bill Clinton
has made good his promise to
wheat producing states that
action would be taken to cut
Canada out of American mar-
kets. Those promises were
made last year as political
trade-offs for support when
Clinton needed votes to pass
the NAFTA.

Five years after the signing
of the Canada-U.S. “free-
trade” agreement our food
and agricultural policies are
easy targets. And that is in
spite of the fact that our
wheat is in high demand. Last
year we exported record ship-
ments of durum wheat to the
U.S because the Mississippi
floods.

In addition the U.S.’s own
foreign subsidy plan has
ensured that its own wheat
producers have made a better
buck sending wheat of their
own country rather that sell it
domestically. The U.S. subsi-
dizes so much of their foreign
sales that they can’t meet
domestic demand and yet still
wants to restrict Canadian
wheat imports.

The so called “free trade”
agreements are doing little for
Canadian wheat producers.

In light of the wheat wars,
Gordon Ritchie, a former
negotiator for the FTA and
now consultant said that the
FTA and NAFTA help Can-
ada” limit and contain the raw
power” of the United States.

LUMBERWORKER/AUGUST, 1994/5