We must put halt to export of timbers by Gerry Stoney © n several occasions during the ‘ \ 1980's I W.A. CANADA members set | up picket lines to protest the export fof raw logs from British . Columbia. eee We knew then that to stay alive, the forest industry in Canada will have to get more value and work out of the wood we cut. The protests were effective. Shortly after, the government of the day grudgingly passed leg- islation restricting the export of raw logs. Although provincial law still allows export of raw logs from public lands or in cases where no domestic buyer can be found, raw log exports have dropped substantially. But that’s not the end of the story. Jobs are still being shipped offshore. While raw logs are not being sent outside Canada in the value they were before, companies are processing large, semi-processed timber in the form of cants and timbers. The maximum size allowed for export, for instance, is a 310-square-inch cross section; many, many cants are cut to this maximum size. That's the equivalent of about an 18” x 17” timber. And we're talking about a lot of wood. A re- cent value-added conference in Cranbrook, B.C., for instance, was told that sawmills in British Columbia’s southern interior region alone ship about 1.3 billion board feet to the U.S. for some form of remanufac- turing. On the West Coast, our research department esti- mates the amount sent offshore, large- ly to Japan and oth- er Asian markets, is likely close to three- quarters of a billion board feet. That’s a lot of wood - and jobs! When we ship these large-sized cants and timbers out of the country, ber harvesting licences more closely to the number of jobs provid- ed. A new Centre of Excellence in Advance Wood Products will be established at the Uni- versity of British Co- lumbia. The new B.C. Forest Renewal Plan includes opportunities to produce higher-qual- ity wood through in- tensive silviculture and to set up value-added manufacturing plants. Still, we have to do more. Delegates to L.W.A. Canada’s Nation- al Convention last fall passed a resolution we are shipping out the highest quality timber we have, logs that are worth thousands of dollars each before cutting even begins. This wood is highly val- ued in Asia, for instance, in the manufacture, for instance, of interior finishings, specialized house beams, fine furniture and musical in- struments. We should be doing much more of this man- ufacturing here in Canada. Restrictions on the export of cants and other large timbers is only one step. We also have to encourage a diversi- fied wood products sector, manufacturing a wide array of value-added products and re- manufacturing. There must be more research and development, both in the area of product and market research and in new technology. Slowly, we are making some strides toward this goal. The New Democratic Party govern- ment in B.C. has indicated that it will tie tim- calling for an end to the export of raw logs and cants. Knowing the effect they have on jobs, our members want the Canadian and provincial governments to phase out the export of cants by progressively reducing the maximum size allowed for ex- port. At the same time, we’re pushing for and supporting a whole range of measures aimed at ensuring that we gain control of advanced manufacturing, value-added production and remanufacturing. Instead of shipping out cants and the jobs that go with them, we should be using our current competitive ad- vantage -wood supply, energy supply, skilled labour, relatively low Canadian dollar - to cre- ate a diversified wood-products industry here in Canada. That’s the only way we can phase ourselves into, not out of the future. LANDS AND) FORESTS | Consensus important for endangered species law by Kim Pollock , | anadians and their. governments will soon 7 ~ have to face some hard questions about endangered species. So far they have not been forced to do = SO. | The federal government has quietly speeded up the legislative clock on endangered species legislation. Ottawa is currently “consult- ing” Canadians on the issue, which federal offi- cials say is near to the heart of environment minister Sheila Copps. Copps, they say, believes that endangered species legislation is part of the commitment Canada made at the United Nations Evironment Summit in Rio di Janiero in 1993. But the consultation process has the appear- ance of being very one-sided. Recently in Vancou- ver, for instance, although many “stakeholder” organizations were notified shortly before planned workshops, others received registration packages and information outlining the nature of the ses- sions. Those groups were all environmental, con- servation and preservation groups, including radicals like the Friends of Clayoquot Sound and Greenpeace. On the other hand, the I.W.A., other labour orga- nizations, community leaders and local govern- ments got the cold shoulder. As a result, although about 70 people took part in the Vancouver ses- sion, only four represented forestry or forest worker interests. This is serious stuff. Organizers told those in- volved in the Vancouver workshop they acheived “consensus” on the issues around protection of en- dangered species in Canada. Most of those groups want legislation similar to that currently in place in the United States. There, endangered species law has allowed small groups of well-heeled and highly organized preservation groups to shut down major projects and sometimes whole industries while government agencies draw up costly plans to protect species. The most dreadful case to date, of course, saw the devastation of timber towns in the Pacific Northwest as a result of Endangered Species Act rulings to protect the northern spotted owl. Preservation groups launched lawsuits under the f { | \ \ Act against the U.S. For- est Service and Bureau of Lands Management, re- sponsible for managing federal public lands: In 1990, they won a court. injunction. The cut on federal lands fell by over 80 percent. Some 30,000 jobs were lost. The communities are still A reeling and many work- y , {| ers and small business