EDITOR

Liberal government delivers
more hardship to workers

S we reach the middle of the 1990’s our
membership is seeing that it has to live
and survive in a country and an economy
that doesn’t give the interests of working
people much priority.

We can see that very clearly on the
federal scene. We've got a government in
cS Ottawa that campaigned on the basis of
jobs and the economy and is now delivering anything
but that.

The Chretien Liberals have been completely swal-
lowed up in the right-wing hysteria over debt and
deficit. They are about to single-handedly dismantle one
of the great social infrastructures of any industrialized
nations.

Universal health care, quality education and unem-
ployment insurance are part of that structure and play
an important role in holding Canada together. Without
them there would doubtless be less social justice in this
country. Take them away and the society will be trans-
formed into an uncaring one.

These programs were not given to Canadians. The
labour movement in this country fought long and hard
to help win those benefits for everyone. You only have
to travel to the inner cities of the United States to see
what happens when you don’t have that kind of social
infrastructure. Social disorder and lack of social justice
are the order of the day. When you see that kind of al-
ternative, you realize what a great country we have.

Will we let ourselves become Americanized or will we
fight to maintain social justice in this country?

There are some detractors, of course. The recent ref-
erendum in Quebec is very much on our minds. We
hope that people in that province realize that collective
strength, though often difficult, is worth the effort.

It was with that collective strength that labour and
the democratic left established these social programs
and it is clear to our union that these programs would
be at great risk should Quebec and Canada split up.

But the federal government is certainly not making it
easy for working Canadians to defend this country. We
don’t need two-tiered medicare; one for the rich and
one for everyone else, but that’s the direction it is tak-
ing.

We need a government in Ottawa that is prepared to
get tough with employers in this country and say if you
want to do business in Canada, you need to produce de-
cent jobs that support a good standard of living. If you
are not into doing that, then what is the point of having
you around.

That isn’t a lot of hot rhetoric, it is the basic stuff that
should make any progressive economy work properly.

We don’t need a federal government that falsely
promises jobs, and delivers more hardship. We don’t
need a government that says it will fight for the causes
of working people and then roll over to serve the inter-
ests of the corporations.

We're not getting help from the Liberals. We're getting
a government that takes its directions from employers
and tries to skate around the labour movement.

The party that said it was opposed to the North Amer-
ican Free Trade Agreement is now its largest supporter.
The party that promised to defend social programs is
now the one that is attacking them.

The Liberal government of Jean Chretien is even far-
ther to the right than the Brian Mulroney government.
In their federal budget this year they cut social pro-
grams deeper that any government has ever tried to. In
the next three years they vow to cut as much as 25%
from some social programs.

Those cuts will have a lasting effect on the social fab-
ric of the country which may become irreversable.

LUIMBERUWORKER

Official publication of 1.W.A. CANADA

GERRY STONEY ... President
ON ee NEIL MENARD ... Ist Vice-President
er 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.
VG6E 4B2
BROADWAY «2%» PRINTERS LTD.

DOESN'T PASS...
{HEN WELL HAVE

ANOTHER ONE, AND
THEN ANOTHER ONE, AND

S0 ON, AND SO ON,
UNTIL THE PEOPLE

INGRID RICE FOR THE LUMBERWORKER

U.S. prepares for new assault on Canadian lumber
imports as it blames Canada for economic hardships

Just days after the Quebec
referendum the United States
is again rattling the sabre
against Canada. This time it
looks like the Americans are
about to Jaunch another trade
war against Canadian lumber
producers (see article by
Doug Smyth - page one).

Another countervailing
duty against Canadian lum-
ber, which now accounts for
about 37% of the U.S. market,
will have direct impact on
jobs, just like the countervail-
ing duties of years past.

The Americans are claiming
once again that their lumber
industry in suffering econom-
ic hardship and that Canada is
the major culprit in all of this.
That of course is untrue. Lum-
ber prices have fallen from
over a year ago and inefficient
U.S. mills cannot compete
with modern Canadian ones.

Once again the Washington-
based Coalition for Fair Lum-
ber Imports is gearing up to
find a way to slap a heavy tar-
iff on Canadian lumber prod-
ucts. It falsely claim that
Canadian mill have cost U.S.
mills 25,000 jobs over the last
couple of years at the same
time there has been major
timber cutting reductions in
every lumber producing re-
gion of the United States and
Canada.

Washington lawyer John
Ragosta said, only two days
after the Quebec referendum,
that “We are not going to wait
any longer (to take action
against Canadian lumber).”

Now it remains to be seen
just in what form that action
will take place. Will the Amer-
icans try to Jauch an internal
investigation into the timber
pricing practices in Canadian
provinces or will they put in a
complaint under the North
American Free Trade Agree-
ment (NAFTA)? Or will they
go to the newly formed World
‘Trade Organization?

The last round of lumber
duties against the Canadian
industry cost our mills be-
tween $750 - $910 million
from March of 1992 to August

of 1994 when Canada won the
case in front of a NAFTA pan-
el. About 2/3’s of the money
has been rightfully returned
to Canadian lumber produc-
ers. It may not all be returned
by the time the American hit
us with the next countervail-
ing duty.

A new U.S. organization
calling itself the “Lumber
Free Trade Group,” also run
out of a Washington lawyer's
office has joined the assault,
claiming to be an organization
of U.S. and Canadian lumber
companies concerned about
consultations between the
U.S. and Canada.

It claims that there is a lum-
ber “cartel” in Canada which
benefits from subsidized rail
shipping rates. It also says

The last round
of duties
cost our mills
up to
$910 million

that Canada has “monopo-
lized” the NAFTA to prevent
U.S. actions against Canada
by using U.S. trade law.

U.S. trade law will be used
against Canada again, and this
time perhaps with more seri-
ous and lasting effects on
Canadian forest industry jobs.

Under “Section 301” of U.S.
law, the Americans can im-
pose sanctions on Canadian
lumber shipments without
showing that injury to their
industry has taken place.
Canada’s recourse would be
to take the case to the Worold
Trade Organization. And even
then, there would be no guar-
antee that the U.S. would
abide by a decision made in
an international court.

As a presidential election

year approaches in 1996 most
candidates will likely rattle

the sabres against Canada
and try to curb trade imports
from other nations.

Canadian wheat imports
are a prime example of that.
Although Canada voluntarily -
reduced shipment of wheat to
the U.S. for one year, expiring
in mid-September, the Ameri-
cans are once again threaten-
ing retaliation if Canadian
wheat shipment climber
about the level of 1.5 million
tonnes.

The U.S. is saying that the
end of quotas does not mean
that U.S. law won't be used to
stop Canadina wheat imports.
U.S. Agriculture Secretary
Dan Glickman says his coun-
try will “not accept market
disruption from exports of
Canadian wheat.”

Some free traders are the
Americans. It is “free trade”
only under their terms.

Lumber prices, as in wheat
prices, are not set solely by
what Canada produces.
Prices are set by supply and
demand factors that are more
heavily introduced by what
happens in the U.S. than in
Canada.

Then if we sell our lumber
or wheat or any other product
more competitively than the
U.S. we are punished accord-
ingly. Rather than admitting
that the Canadian lumber in-
dustry is much more efficient
than their own, the Americans
rely on a battery of lawyers
lobbyists to push their agenda
in Washington.

With election minded politi-
cians, trade actions against
Canada and other nations are
more likely than ever. Canada
has beat back U,S. attempts
to unfairly penalize this coun-
try’s lumber industry before
and it looks like it is deja vu
all over again.

Canada is likely to win
again, but at a greater cost to
workers whose sawmills will
be effectively pushed out of
the U.S. market. One of our
“free trade” partners does not
like to finish second and the
victims of this may be many
I.W.A. members.

LUMBERWORKER/NOVEMBER, 1995/5