DITORIAL New MacBlo honcho shakes up the troops acMillan Bloedel Ltd. has a new president and chief executive offi- cer in the name of a right-wing Republican named Tom Stephens. He’s an American who has taken over the B.C. based multinational. Stephens, who has taken over from retired CEO Bob Findlay, is shak- ing up MB staff and union members by making such memorable comments as: “We’re worth more dead than alive”; “I want to see the fire in your eyes”; and “Let the strongest survive.” Gives us some more pearls of survivalism, Tom. Under his first couple of months of leadership the new swashbuckling CEO has put employees into focus groups to impart his wisdom and new corporate culture. We’re not making this stuff up. His quotes appear in this month’s MB Journal. In the Journal, Stephens vowed job cuts and “deci- sions that will likely mean closing or selling under- performing assets.” “Collectively we're seen as losers...” he said. A great morale booster. The new CEO has taken MB on a three month review of operations and a new overall plan for the corporation will be announced in February of next year. Just how many I.W.A. jobs the new MB plan will try to put on the chopping block remains to be seen. MB is an expert company in downsizing and laying off workers. What they try to do during a down cycle in the lumber market could be ruthless for union log- gers and millworkers. Stephens said he will “minimize the pain by down- sizing professionally and quickly...” with severance packages. I.W.A. members in MacBlo operations everywhere should keep their eyes and ears open. Some of the issues that MB’s focus groups claim are “outside our direct control that keep us from our goals” are government and labour. According to the employee newsletter, the “focus groups” identified “non-flexibility in labour contracts” and high costs as some of the company’s “most impor- tant issues.” In October, Stephens began to throw the first stones at the B.C. government. During a conference call with industry analyists reported in the Vancouver Sun, he said the company plans to attack the govern- ment’s forest and labour policies. He also appeared to be backing away from MacBlo’s committement to the Jobs and Timber Accord. B.C. Forests Minister Zirnhelt soon replied, defend- ing government regulation of the industry. He told Stephens that the days of huge profits in B.C. are over and that “this isn’t Alabama.” That’s part of our same message to the new CEO. We would like to say that we expect MacMillan Bloedel to work with its unions and not against them. Our position is that MB’s committment to the Jobs and Timber Accord, which includes creating more internal jobs and channeling quality lumber to remanufacturing operations, be real. If MB does not comply, we believe that the B.C. goverment should retaliate with strong measures. MacMillan Bloedel must work with the I.W.A. on issues of flexibility and not think that it will ever impose it own versions by threating downsizing and closures. Get used to doing things the Canadian way, through cooperation and mutual respect, Mr. Stephens. You're not in the deep South. Official publication of I.W.A. CANADA IRMAN GARCIA DAVE HAGGARD . . President Nel Editor NEIL MENARD . . 1st Vice-President FRED MIRON . . 2nd Vice-President DAVID TONES . . 3rd Vice-President 5th Floor, HARVEY ARCAND . . 4th Vice-President 1285 W. Pender Street TERRY SMITH . . Secretary-Treasurer Vancouver, B.C, V6E 4B2 BROADWAY zy PRINTERS LTD. @IRICETT G00) To BE CHRETIEN ON HUMAN RIGHTS DOING BUSINESS INGRID RICE FOR THE LUMDERWORKER, MAI steams towards 1998 deadline During the recent Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) conference held in Vancouver in late November there was barely a word spo- ken about the upcoming Mul- tilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chre- tien wined and dined dicta- tors, military leaders and despots with $48 million worth of Canadian taxpayer money and the corporate media sat dead silent. Many of the same 18 APEC nations are now in Paris con- tinuing to negotiate what the Organization of Economic Cooperation’s (OECD) Direc- tor General called the “con- stitution of a single global economy.” It make us wonder what's going on. In the second week of Octo- ber over 100 executives of multinational corporations met privately at a meeting which was at least partially funded by the taxpayers of Canada. They were assem- bled at an old boy’s club on Toronto’s Bay Street to hear more about MAI negotiations from top federal government brass. The University of Toronto’s Centre for Interna- tional Studies organized the event, but it was held off cam- pus with the participation of Industry Canada and federal government officials. Once again there was little media coverage and talk of the MAI was kept behind close doors. What the hell is happening here? There are new global trade rules being made, Canada is in Paris too and yet almost nobody knows what’s going on. The MAI will give multi- national corporations extra powers and unfettered rights to carry out their businesses and move their capital with- out obstacles set up by gov- ernments. Before the last federal elec- tion, the Liberals flagrantly denied that they were taking part in the MAI. These days the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade circulates information that states the “Government of Canada is consulting extensively with provincial governments, the private sector and other orga- nizations on negotiations for a Multilateral Agreement on Investment.” But the same department’s own information states that only provincial bureaucrats and the private sector (multi- national corporations) were consulted in early 1995 and from September 1995 to April 1996. Consultations with the pri- vate sector continue to this day, as the MAI negotiators steam roll to a May, 1998 deadline. Non-governmental agen- cies like the Council of Cana- dians, champions in the fight back campaigns against the Canada - U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agree- ment, have tried to stall the MAI process and put up road- blocks so the Liberal govern- ment will consult and hold hearings with the Canadian people. The federal New Democ- rats are circulating a petition across the country which demands that the House of Commons consider the enor- mous implications to Canada by the signing of the MAI and put the issue before Cana- dians in a national referen- dum. Opponents to the MAI, like Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch in the United States and the Council of Canadians, have outlined some of the major points that would hap- pen if the current text of the MAI goes through. The MAI would give pri- vate companies and foreign investors the legal ability to sue governments through an MAI tribunal, if they felt their rights were violated. Those tribunals would be able to levy fines against govern- ments on behalf of the multi- nationals. Tax incentive schemes to stimulate home-grown busi- nesses, which create local jobs, could be ruled as a vio- lation of the MAT if they dis- criminate against foreign investors. Investors and cor- porations from other MAI countries would be treated like any other Canadian citi- zen. The MAI treaty would make that binding for at least 20 years. Those investors and multi- national corporations would be protected from financial losses by direct or indirect expropriation or measures “tantamount to” expropria- tion. Expropriation could be widely determined. The American Ethyl Cor- poration is now suing the Canadian government for $251 million over its prohibi- tion of the use of the toxic gasoline additive MMT which is already banned by the Envi- ronmental Protection Agency in the U.S. The Ethyl Corpo- ration is saying the Cana- dian law banning MMT is “tantamount to expropria- tion” under the NAFTA. The MAI would be global extension of the NAFTA to OECD member countries which are the world’s 29 wealthiest nations. Canada is involved in an agenda that is being driven by the United States even though there is no evidence to indicate that our country has to give up its democratic sovereignty to attract more foreign capital. There’s also not much proof that Canadians are having a tough time investing in coun- tries like the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy or Japan. Why then get involved in the MAI? The behavior of multina- tional corporations in an MAI world, with respect to labour standards and the environ- ment would be voluntary or non-existent. Even the cur- rent OECD members do not live up to their own volun- tary codes. The corporations would be able to come and go freely. They could open up shop in Canada or pull out when they want. But the obligations of democratically elected gov- ernments to multinational corporations would be set in legislation. That’s the real agenda. The agenda is to entrench corpo- rate rights while tying the pandsot nation state to do anything contrary to the cor- porate rule of the MAT. LUMBERWORKER/DECEMBER 1997/5