RESIDENT’S MESSAGE Our Ontario members are fighting the good fight by Gerry Stoney 9 fa left-wing government in Canada began ' to impose by law its most cherished and extravagent leftish dreams, what would i happen? First, representatives of big and i small business would scream long and __. loud. They would be much assisted in the process by their apologists in the media, Terry Corcoran of the Globe and Mail, and his cronies, who are legion. Second, if that did not produce an immedi- ate and total surrender, large and small busi- ness would begin to cancel expansion plans, close down expendable operations, and so on. There would be, as there often has been, a “capital strike.” So the Ontario Federation of Labour and its affiliates, including I.W.A. CANADA members working at the Total Distribution Systems packing plant in London are to be congratu- Jated for doing the equivalent - for responding to extreme right-wing measures by a carefully considered, measured, withdrawal of labour in political protest. When Premier Harris abandons the assault on labour rights that have been detailed in these pages, when he stops his savaging of in- jured workers by ripping at Ontario’s Work- ers’ Compensation, when he reconsid- ers the insult to democracy that lies at the heart of the enormity of his “Omnibus Bill,” when he begins to learn fairness in the tax system, when he stops down-load- ing on municipali- ties, when he aban- dons the attack on the province’s health care system, and the poor then only can Ontario labour feel free to call off its with- drawal. I.W.A. CANADA members should know that labour is not alone in its struggle. Leaders of the Catholic, United and Jewish faiths joined the Ontario Federation in a Call for Social Justice: a Joint statement of moral and ethical con- cern. Their statement highlighted workers’ rights, the need for good health and education programs for all. The statement read in part: “In particular, we urge the Government not (to) resolve the fiscal deficit by creating a so- cial deficit in its place.” It is true, as right-wingers are fond of re- minding us, that such plans are cropping up in many places around the world. But it does not follow from that, as the right would have us believe, that we have to give in to this “race to the bottom.” On the contrary, it follows that wherever this ugly, anti-human tendency shows up, as it has in France, labour has an obligation to resist it vigorously, as French labour is now doing. Alberta hospital workers had to do it this year in response to Klein’s determination to wreck that prov- ince’s health care sys- tem. And British Colum- bian workers have had to do likewise several times, as when Premier W.A.C. Bennett. whom- ped up his “Labour Court” in 1971, and when his son, Bill Bennett staged his sneak attack in 1983, calling it “re- straint.” In 1987 we walked out in protest against Bill Vander Zalm’s attack on labour laws. And if British Columbians don’t pay atten- tion to what is happening in these other provinces, and vote accordingly, they may well have to do so again. Fortunately, recent polls suggest that the lessons of Ontario and Alberta are not entirely lost on the B.C. elec- torate. So the Ontario Federation of Labour has the full support of I.W.A. CANADA in its cam- paign against Harris’ frenzied war on every gain made by generations of working people. LANDS AND) FORESTS Time to get concerned about endangered species law by Kim Pollock . ur union has long recognized the need , to manage our forests sustainably and } to manage for values other than timber j harvesting. As long ago as 1939, for instance, I.W.A. President Harold Pritchett was warning of the need for sustainable harvest levels, reforestation and conservation of forests. In the forties, we called for a forest practices law that would regulate the way that timber har- vesting was planned and the way people logged. And our national Forest Policy called for “sys- tems dedicated not only to sustainable forestry, but to the conservation of valued life-forms and the protection of the spiritual values of our forests.” The more values for which we manage, of course, the higher the cost. We can protect and preserve many elements of the forest. But in nearly every case, it adds to for- est companies’ costs of doing business and ulti- mately reduces harvesting or manufacturing em- ployment. Nowhere has this been more clear than in the area of endangered species legislation. Particularly in the United States’ Pacific North- west with the northern spotted owl, preservation of a species and its habitat have cost forest work- ers and their communities dearly. That’s because to protect a species you have to take steps to protect its habitat. With the owl, of course, that meant protection of huge tracts of the old growth timber in which the owl appears to spend a great deal of time. Since the injunctions of 1989 and 1990 that shut down much of the forest industry in the western owl states, scientists have learned a lot about owls that wasn’t known before. Odds are, for instance, that Washington, Oregon and California have more owls than anyone knew when they were listed as “threatened” in 1990; it also appears that owls are much less tied to old-growth forests than earlier imagined and that owls can roost, carry on and hunt in second-growth forests, especially when the trees have been “modified” silviculturally for them. All that came too late for the people who worked and lived in the forests. For them, the ef- fects of listing the owl and shutting down federal forests have been massive and severe, particularly in the smaller, more rural communities. In the words of the official U.S. federal government study on the impacts of the spotted owl plan: “These communities are likely to experience unemploy- ment, increased poverty and social disruption in the absence of assis- tance.” “Unemployment, in- creased poverty and so- cial disruption” there has surely been; assistance, less so. The best estimates show that some 30,000 direct forest industry jobs were lost as a result of the injunctions, with “spin- off” effects on another 50,000. So there’s a massive cost associated with endan- gered species legisla- tion - not to mention Meanwhile a whole array of special interest groups are busy trying to widen the scope of the proposed law, which Federal Environment Minis- ter Sheila Copps will bring before Parliament in June, 1996. The green groups want “citizen standing” that will allow them to initiate challenges and actions on behalf of any species; it was this right in the United States that made it especially easy to use the Endangered Species Act to so completely shut down the forest industry. As well, they want a wider scope for the law, which would apply only on federal lands unless the feds enter into joint agreements with the provinces. They also want “critical habitat” listed along with the species, a move that would effectively shut industry down without even going through the motions of a recovery plan. Finally, the green groups want to scrap the so- called “null option” which allows the feder- the economic cost of lost wages, lost govern- ment revenue, lost in- vestment income and lost exports. This is something the federal government should be aware of as it moves toward an en- dangered species law All levels of governments should realize that people, their jobs and communities are important too al environment minister the option of taking no action because the costs are too high and chances of success too limited. So the ball’s in the air. There’s a chance to lobby the federal gov- ernment - in the person for Canada. But so far it’s not. At a recent “consultation” with groups and orga- nizations interested in the proposed federal law, the government is proposing something very close to the U.S. Endangered Species Act, one of the pieces of legislation that created the mess in the Pacific Northwest. In spite of some improvements since the begin- ning of the consultation process earlier this year, there is still little protection for workers, their jobs or communities. The law is still based on the needs of species and habitat, with no thought given to need to en- sure that recovery plans for species do not bring massive dislocation and job loss in their wake. The law does require that affected “stakehold- ers” should be allowed to take part in the develop- ment of recovery plans. But there’s nothing that requires them to take into account the plan’s so- cial and economic impacts or to ensure that seri- ous impacts are avoided or that those impacted gain some form of redress. i It still invokes the so-called “precautionary prin- cipal,” which essentially means that no action should be undertaken until someone is absolutely sure that nothing negative will flow from it, an ironclad insurance that industry would be stymied. of minister Copps - to ensure that communities and jobs are not targeted. But you can bet that the special interest green groups will also be lobbying. It’s important, then, that locals and communities let the feds know that we don’t need to go down the Washington, Oregon or Northern California road. As well, it’s important that we lobby provincial governments. Most of Canada’s working forest is on provincial Crown lands: the endangered species law only has effect on those lands if the federal and provincial governments enter into a two-way agreement. The provincial governments should know that endangered species matter, but people and jobs matter. In short, we need to remind governments who buys Canada’s groceries. The forest industry is Canada’s major industry and its major source of export earnings. A federal government that's as strapped for cash as the current Liberal govern- ment claims to be should look after spotted owls, burrowing owls, marbled murrelets and other en- dangered species - but not kill the golden goose in the process. Kim Pollock is the Director of I.W.A. CANADA’s Environment and Land-Use Department. ee 4/LUMBERWORKER/DECEMBER, 1995