EE

Call for TFL removal
a first for the union

hen the Industrial, Wood and
Allied Workers of Canada’s
National President Dave Haggard
announced on March 4, that the
union wants the B.C. government
to take away a tree farm license
from the Canadian Forest Prod-
ucts corporation, a little modern
day history was made.

It was the first time that the national union has
called for the active removal of tenure from a major
licensee in the province.

Canfor will not back down on it plans to close the
Eburne sawmill in South Vancouver on March 26.
The company’s unequivocal position is that the mill
must go down permanently. At the same time it
wants to hold on to its giant tree farm license (TFL
#87) on Vancouver Island, where it harvests 1.1 mil-
lion cubic meters a year.

The real catch is that Canfor intends to keep har-
vesting all the trees it can without any substantial
commitment to employ B.C. workers in the solid
wood sector. It would not have one single solid wood
manufacturing operation on the Coast that is tied to
the TFL. Furthermore, TFL #37 has some of the
highest grade timber found anywhere in the world.

Despite a commitment, in writing to both the union
and the provincial government, that the company
would consider keeping the mill open if it could solve
problems concerning operating losses and fibre sup-
plies, the company is steaming ahead for a perma-
nent closure.

Local 2171 President Darrel Wong and First Vice
President Gary Kobayashi have correctly stated that
Canfor has bargained in bad faith. The local union
membership at the Eburne mill has bent over back-
wards and has agreed to make the changes necessary
at the operational level to keep the mill open. But
Canfor says no dice.

The company won't even provide the union with
any substantive details on where or when it would
build an alternative manufacturing facility to employ
workers on the Coast of the province. They refuse
information, even though the local union was work-
ing with the government to help find Canfor yet a
larger fibre supply that it says it needs to help oper-
ate its giant pulp mill in Howe Sound.

The union has demanded that the provincial gov-
ernment close the door on Canfor on the Coast of B.C.
In response Premier Glen Clark has come out
strongly in favour of the union and in favour of main-
taining jobs and community stability in the solid
wood sector. He has given his solemn commitment
that the government will do everything in its power
to make Canfor live up to its legal commitment to
maintain jobs in return for access to the public’s
resources on the TFL.

The union’s call to revoke TFL #37 was not done
without considerable consultation between I.W.A. log-
gers and mill workers employed by the company,
They are unanimous in supporting the expulsion of
Canfor and the awarding of the TFL to another com-
pany that would maintain the jobs for all I.W.A.
members at Eburne and at the Englewood Logging
Division on Vancouver Island.

If the government does not put its foot down and
take action against Canfor, then it could be only a
matter of time until other forest companies operating
on public lands follow Canfor’s example.

‘hat is a chilling prospect for I.W.A. members and
forest-dependent communities everywhere in the

province.

LUMBER UORKER

Official publication of the Industrial,
Wood and Allied Workers of Canada

DAVE HAGGARD . . President
ia ae NEIL MENARD -. 1st Vice-President
is 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.
VG6E 4B2
BROADWAY mse: PRINTERS LTD.

MEMBERS OF THE OECD PAY A VISIT To CITY COUNCIL

| REGRET To INFORM You
Z YouR LOCAL POOPER SCOOPER LAWS

WILL BE IN DIRECT
CONTRAVENTION

OF THE MAI

Ay,

ea

we

N

OIRICEIS

INGRID RICE FOR THE LUMBERWORKER,

Questions about MAI could derail deal’s signing

The Multilateral Agree-
ment on Investment (MAI)
is right around the corner.
The Federal Liberal govern-
ment of Jean Chretien plans
to sign a document, on April
27, which will commit
Canada to the underlying
principles of the MAI,
although many details of the
final deal remain to be nego-
tiated amongst the 29 lead-
ing nations of the Organi-
zation for Economic Co-
operation and Development
(OECD).

As the World Trade Orga-
nization’s Directory General
said of OECD member coun-
tries in December of 1996:
“We are writing the consti-
tution of a single global econ-
omy.”

That’s right. A single
global economy where multi-
national corporations will be
treated better than people
who live in the countries
where they invest and demo-
cratically vote for things
they want their governments
to do.

Over 500 labour, commu-
nity and coalition groups
from across Canada got
together between March 19-
22 to protest the MAI and
called upon the Liberal gov-
ernment to debate the issue
before it signs anything in
late April at a meeting of
the OECD ministers in Paris.

The B.C. New Democratic
Party is taking a leading
role in fighting the Chretien
government on its plan to
sign anything to do with MAI
and bind provincial and
municipal governments to
this new global constitution.

In an article he wrote for
the Vancouver Sun on March
10, B.C. Minister of Employ-
ment and Investment
Michael Farnworth said
that, if the Chretien govern-
ment signs the MAI “we in
British Columbia will lose
our say in many of the most
far-reaching decisions about
our future.”

“And if the federal gov-
ernment proceeds with its

threat to bind provincial and
local governments to the
global investment pact, it
would amount to an unprece-
dented rollback of provincial
constitutional powers,” he
added.

The minister says that the
MAI would “take away —
absolutely prohibit many of
the policy tools that have
built our country.”

It would not allow provin-
cial and municipal govern-
ments to give access to the
public’s resources and nego-
tiate benefits for local com-
munities in return.

The provincial govern-
ments would not be able to
negotiate local. hiring
requirements in exchange
for resources. Nor would
they be able to require that
a multinational corporation
would have to spend
research and development
capital in return for access
to resources like the forests,
the fisheries, energy, min-
ing and other natural
resources.

The MAI, wrote Farn-
worth, would force the all
levels of government to give
the multinationals the same
access to government pro-
grams as they do to local
community-based non-prof-
its organizations, which
deliver important public ser-
vices like health care and
education.

The multinationals would
have the supreme power,
which would be granted by
the MAI, to challenge the
democratically elected
provincial and municipal
representatives who dare
pass legislation that would
curb their rights to freely do
business under the global
trade pact.

The MAI would have
multinational corporations
running the show and suing
elected governments when
they term that their rights
are violated. Decisions on
investor-to-state lawsuits
would be made, not by
elected Canadians, but by

appointed bureaucrats from
the OECD states. What kind
of deal is that?

Canadians, in increasing
numbers, are asking simple
questions.

Why should foreign in-
vestors be treated the same
as home-grown Canadian
companies?

Why should some MAI
deal grant blood thirsty
tyrants and oligarchies,
which control many of the
companies of nations (ie.
Indonesia) in the OECD, the
right to come into Canada
and take legal action against
our elected governments?

Why should Canadian tax-
payers pay for lawsuits
against their governments if
a multinational corporation
is against our governments’
attempt to tie jobs to
resources or protect health
care?

Why should Canadians be
locked into a trade deal, that
they have no say over, for
20 years?

Why is the Liberal gov-
ernment negotiating the
MAT in secret and why is it
avoiding open public debate?

Wrote Farnworth: “Our
government is determined
to fight the MAI and to ally
itself with other govern-
ments and citizens organi-
zations to stop this unbal-
anced and undemocratic
agreement. It is also a fight
for B.C. sovereignty and the
provinces’s ability to govern
in the best interests of
British Columbians. We can
not stand by and allow these
fundamental democratic
rights to be taken away
through back-room deals.”

We wish that all provin-
cial governments would be
as direct as the B.C. New
Democrats.

We also hope that Glen
Clark, Saskatchewan NDP
leader Roy Romanow, and
Federal NDP leader Alexis
McDonough will turn up the
heat on Chretien and the
Liberals in the weeks and
months ahead.

LUMBERWORKER/MARCH, 1998/5