wD for clear choice in B.C. clear. The election was clearly fought on formers who were out to slash and burn social pro- grams and give comfortable tax breaks to the rich. the fortunes of the NDP’s sagging popularity. The NDP victory is important for working people all They also believe that our social programs, although they must be reformed, must remain universal and and has now actually increased funding by 2.5% this year while providing additional funding to reduce wait- year period. Most importantly for I.W.A. members the NDP has next five years. That means that industry will have to do more with Amendments to the B.C. Forest Renewal Act, intro- duced by Clark before the election, will give unem- suring it to hold true to its commitments to working people. It has to come through on those commitments must play a role in managing forests for the long-haul and not just for short-term profits. government. Right-wing governments like the ones that are in Al- But as the B.C. electorate has proven, the right-wing tide has peaked in Canada. The NDP believes in bal- & rking people in British Columbia can ideological grounds. On one side were Fortunately enough voters in enough ridings in the across Canada. It runs counter to the conservative tide based in social justice. ing lists for major surgery. sent out some clear signals on creating high quality, the fibre that it harvests on public land. It also means ployed forest workers first shot at those jobs. They are and we will be reminding them every step of the way. The NDP will also work to defend the rights of work- berta and Ontario don’t believe that government has an anced growth for every sector of society including the proud of the recent historic re-elec- the New Democrats, who vowed to fight for the inter- province voted for Glenn Clark and the NDP. Since his that has swept Alberta, Ontario and the Maritimes. Quality services like medicare and education have The Clark government has also vowed to increase ef- good paying jobs. In March Clark announced that his that there must be good paying jobs created in Forest the ones who have paid the price for the government’s Now that the NDP is back it power it can continue to ing people to freely organize into trade unions with a important role to play in the economy. They believe that middle class and the underprivileged. RKER tion of the New Democratic Party. The choices for them were never more ests of middle class working people and on the other side were the right-wing parties of Liberals and B.C. Re- election as leader of the party in February, Clark and the party have worked tirelessly to successfully reverse Glenn Clark and the NDP do believe that it is the role of government to set clear priorities for the economy. proven to be top priorities for B.C. voters. The NDP has maintained health care spending through its first term ficiency in the delivery of education services while freezing tuition for post secondary institutions for a two government will play a pro-active role in pushing indus- try to create 21,000 new jobs in the forest sector in the Renewal B.C. projects and that displaced forest work- ers must be trained to take those jobs. decisions to set aside areas for preservation. The NDP can be assured that the I.W.A. will be pres- set tough forest management standards. Gone are the days of letting industry do as it wanted. Government minimum of interference from employers. It will uphold anti-scab laws which it introduced in its last term of social programs and resource management should be left to market forces. Official publication of 1.W.A. CANADA GERRY STONEY . . President Seven ee 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. VG6E 4B2 BROADWAY «@ PRINTERS LTD. NY, (RICE GORDON CAMPBELL MAKES PLANS FOR THE NEXT ELECTION TIME, IE 1 DRESS UP A®D A GIANT TURNIP... LETS MAKE A DEALS LETS MAKE A DEAL —— A = 3 === lins tne Aba = N INGRID RICE FOR THE LUMBERWORKER Free trade weaknesses exposed as U.S. opts out of NAFTA in softwood dispute but opts in for farming To see how the North American Free Trade (NAF- TA) agreement is not working we only have to look at the softwood lumber industry. And to know how it might fail us we need only to look at the farming sector. The United States and Canada have come to a recent agreement to limit the amount of softwood lumber that Canada can send over the line. Even though Canada has won a previous NAFTA dis- pute panel ruling that our lumber is not subsidized and does not damage U.S. produc- ers, the Americans threatened to slap heavy duties on lum- ber exports. Quite simply, the U.S. did not like what it saw in the NAFTA and went outside it to threaten Canada with more litigation. Because the U.S. is about 10 times bigger than Canada, it probably would have been successful and that would have cost Canadian lumber producers and work- ers dearly. So a deal has been cut and the Canadian government has admitted the weaknesses in NAFTA. Now there will be a 9% drop in Canadian lumber exports to the U.S, without penalty. After that a consider- able export tax will be slapped on wood exceeding agreed upon quotas. Canadian Trade Minister Art Eggelton said “it makes the best of a bad deal.” In fact he admits that NAFTA offers no protection because there are no rules that determine what does or does not consti- tute a subsidy. “We don’t have a subsidy code,” he says. “We don’t have a perfect NAFTA agree- ment that has all of the an- swers in place, so we had to go and make a deal.” Canada will now be able to export 14.7 billion board feet of lumber to the U.S. on an annual basis. Anything over that will see a levy of $50.00 U.S. per 1000 board feet on the next 650 million board feet exported. After that amount is ex- ceeded the export tax will be cranked up to $100.00 U.S. per 1000 if the average price goes over $420.00 per 1000. That is a staggering amount. In exchange for the lumber quotas and export taxes, the U.S. Commerce Department has vowed to stop any legal action against Canadian soft- wood for a five year period. Fifteen of the largest twenty American lumber companies have agreed not to launch fur- ther trade actions for that pe- riod. Four of Canada’s major lumber producing provinces - B.C., Quebec, Ontario and Al- berta will drop their exports to 14.7 billion board feet from the current 16 billion board feet. The deal was struck to avoid a threatened tariff of at least 10% against the approxi- mately $8 billion of softwood lumber that Canada sends south of the line. The Canadian government is charged with calculating lumber exports and collecting any tariffs agreed upon. In the agricultural sector the U.S. is challenging tariffs that Canada put on poultry, eggs and dairy products, fol- lowing the requirements of the World Trade Organization which said Canada had to get rid of quotas in its supply management system. Canada did so in January of 1995 and put tariffs on low cost U.S. competitors to pro- tect some 36,000 Canadian jobs in the farming sector. The U.S. argues that tariffs can not be added under NAF- TA and that any duties must be immediately removed. It also claims that all tariffs must be gone by January 1, 1998. That would result in a flood of cheap and subsidized exports from the U.S. that would easily cripple Canadian producers. In its submission to a five member NAFTA dispute pan- el, which will rule by the end of August, the U.S. charges that Canada has lost a high stakes gamble over tariff on farm products. The US. claims that before NAFTA was signed, it warned. Canada that the trade agree- ment would result in the Americans favour if the WTO ruled against supply manage- ment restrictions. It also criti- cized Canada for not negotiat- ing an addendum to NAFTA when it had a chance. Canada says that in April of 1992 it did seek to add protection but was unsuccessful, settling with the belief that the trade agreement with the United States had text “sufficient to its needs.” In its submission to the NAFTA panel Canada said it should not face outside com- petition in the sector under whatever circumstances and that it knew, in 1991 when Brian Mulroney and the Con- servatives were in power, that the U.S. was pushing for the rapid elimination of farm pro- tection. But at the same time that Canada moved to protect dairy, egg and poultry produc- ers due to the WTO ruling in January of last year, the Unit- ed States moved in exactly the same fashion to protect its cotton and sugar indus- tries which are both highly subsidized by the govern- ment. The U.S. also protects its peanut industry in the same fashion. So what the Americans are saying is what’s good for American farmers is not good for Canadian farmers. It wants to protect various sec- tors in its own farm industry while getting Canada to drop its guard. The U.S. could succeed by the end of August and, in due time, destroy much of Cana- da’s domestic food produc- tion. LUMBERWORKERJJUNE 1996/5