EDITOR

Unemployed workers get
bilked by Liberal feds

ust how much are the unemployed and
the unemployment system getting used
by the federal Liberal government? All
you have to do is look how Prime Minis-
ter Jean Chretien and Finance Minister
Paul Martin are using the misery of
unemployment to balance the federal
budget to find out.

By the end of March this year, the Employment
Insurance (formerly Unemployment Insurance) fund
had a surplus of $13.7 billion. This year alone the
federal government will collect a total of $19.7 bil-
lion in premiums and pay out only $12.6 in premi-
ums and administration costs. That will put a total
of $7 billion towards the Liberal’s so-called “surplus.”

Estimates are that the Liberals will have built a
surplus of $26.4 billion out of the EI fund by the end
of next year, if the current employer/employee contri-
bution rate remains at $2.70 per $100 of insurable
earnings.

Get this. Even if the Liberals reduce the contribu-
tion rate to $2.00 per $100 of insurable earnings,
there will be a surplus of almost $43 billion in less
that five years!

Why all that surplus money? It’s because, across
Canada, only 43% of the unemployed even qualify
for premiums, even though they have paid into it. In
Ontario, less than 30% of the jobless can draw an EI
cheque. Those who can’t get one have to go on wel-
fare and fend for themselves.

In 1989, over 83% of unemployed Canadians quali-
fied for unemployment insurance. That began to
drastically change when first the Conservative gov-
ernment of Brian Mulroney and then the Liberals

began to make entrance requirements tougher. A

series of legislative changes took place first in 1990
and then 1994 and 1996 which cut tens of thousands
of workers off unemployment benefits. In 1993 those
who were fired or quit their jobs were made ineligi-
ble for assistance.

In 1994 and 1996 there were further reductions in
benefits, making life even tougher for those who
were out of work.

The facts are that the Liberal government, like the
Conservative government before it, doesn’t care
about the unemployed. It is simply using the sur-
pluses, taken out of the hide of the unemployed, to
balance it’s yearly operating budget.

That is shameful and disgusting.

We support the Canadian Labour Congress’ call
for the Liberal government to raise benefits to be in
line with contribution levels. We also say that EI
benefits must be reinstatement to the seasonal and
part-time workers who have had their benefits
reduced or eliminated.

Remember what Gordie said

Unemployed forest workers should be aware the
B.C. Liberal government of Gordon Campbell is dead
set against them getting union jobs on Forest
Renewal projects.

Now that the I.W.A. - NewFor collective agreement
has been negotiated (see page 3) it serves us well to
repeat what Campbell said when the NDP created
the NewFor corporation in November of last year.

“Forest Renewal funds should not be frittered
away...” he said.

So do Gordon Campbell’s Liberals have something
against, stable, family-supporting and community-
supporting jobs?

LUIMBERU/ORKER

Official publication of Industrial,
Wood and Allied Workers of Canada

NoRMAN GARCIA DAVE HAGGARD. . President
Editor NEIL MENARD . . Ist 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.
VGE 4B2

BROADWAY #2 PRINTERS LTD.

2"

cy
OP BS
: Give
M4
aS

WE ARE TOTALLY
NONPROFIT AND RELY ON
DONATIONS To SURVIVE

RETURN FoR

= WHICH You
WILL RECEIVE

THIS LOVELY

ENDANGERED
SPECIES
CALENDAR
PRINTED ON :
HEMP. FA
:
F
:
©rricedls

THE ANTI-LOGGING CAMPAIGN TAKES ITs ToLL

MAI hits roadblocks as deal delayed

Chalk up a minor victory
for the forces of opposition
to the Multilateral Agree-
ment on Investment (MAI).
The global investment rules
pact, is down but not out.

For at least the next six
months, members of the
world’s 29 richest nations
which belong to the Organi-
zation for Economic Cooper-
ation and Development
(OECD), will be analyzing
what went so wrong that
they couldn’t sign an MAI or
even a memorandum on
what the deal would look
like.

An April 27 meeting of the
OECD resulted in a colossal
failure for trade ministers of
the participating countries,
whose governments had
spent three years, to come
up with anything concrete.

The Globe and Mail,
Canada’s journal serving
the interests of business,
said it clearly.

“The MAI deal has become
politically sensitive because
there is a growing backlash
against globalization in some
countries, and _ partly
because of a well co-ordi-
nated campaign by lobby
groups which say the deal is
designed to protect corpora-
tions and not people.”

The MAT is not dead, but
it is having a tougher time
breathing these days. A com-
munique from the April 27
meeting called for the OECD
a “period of assessment and
further communication” on
the MAI.

Liberal Minister of Trade
Sergio Marchi is leading
other trade ministers to get
the MAT out of the OECD
and into the 162 member
nation World Trade Organi-
zation (WTO) in Geneva.

Wrote the Globe and Mail:
“The MAI has become so
political in some countries
like Canada and France that
ministers don’t want to stand
up for it. They think it’s safer
to ae their cards in the

Following the failure of
an agreement on the MAI,
OECD secretary-general
Donald Johnston, who is a

former federal Liberal cabi-
net minister, told a press
conference that the body he
was working for lacked a
proper communications
strategy.

That’s easy to believe.
Despite Mr. Johnston’s ludi-
crously rich tax-free salary
of $1,000 U.S. per day, noth-
ing was effectively done to
engage public opinion in an:
country until after a U.S.
opposition group posted a
leaked draft of the MAI on
the Internet.

Sergio Marchi also took a
shot at the OECD, saying
that “civil society” (i.e. pub-
lic interest groups and orga-
nizations) must be engaged
earlier.

Of course, there were few

Multinational
corporations and
their proxies in
government will
wait out MAI

opposition.

governments that were more
secretive about MAI negoti-
ations than the Liberals who,
only a year ago, denied that
any such negotiations were
taking place, even though
they were secretly launched
in 1995.

Maude Barlow, chairper-
son of the Council of Cana-
dians, which was in the fore-
front of fighting the MAI,
reacted by saying that the
lack of a deal in the OECD
will not stop multinational
corporations in industrial
countries from seeking new
trade rules. She predicated
that the multinationals and
their representatives in
government will “wait us
out and rev up their PR
machines.”

Barlow said that the citi-
zens’ movements in Canada
forced the government to lis-
ten. Only did they listen
after country-wide protests

took place on the doorsteps
of the constituency ridings
of Liberal Members of Par-
liament.

During the week of March
19-22, which coincided with
the federal Liberal policy
convention, 40 national orga-
nizations joined with the
Council and Canadians and
Canadian Labour Congress
affiliates to deliver signed
declarations against the MAT
to the Liberals.

By then, half of Canada’s
provinces had expressed
their doubts about the MAI,
which would be an interna-
tional trade agreement that
would take away legislative
powers of provincial assem-
blies.

“The MAI is a taker’s
agreement, not an investors
agreement,” charged Bar-
low, as Canadians began to
get the message. “What it
takes away are the powers
of democratically elected
governments to protect and
promote the public inter-
est.”

Donald Johnston looked
and spoke pathetically about
the, at least, temporary fail-
ure of the MAI to take root.

“An image has been cre-
ated that cigar smoking exec-
utives of transnational cor-
porations in conspiracy with
senior government officials
in Paris, have drafted an
agreement that would allow
multinationals to take over
the world. It’s so out of line
with the facts,” said John-
ston.

He apparently forgot that
Renato Ruggerio, Director
General of the World Trade
Organization, delivered a
speech about the MAI toa
WTO Ministerial Meeting in
Singapore in 1996. During
the speech he said that “We
are writing the constitution
of a single global economy.”

Johnston has asked OECD
member states, including
Canada, to “correct the mis-
information that is out
there.”

If that takes place, Cana-
dians may actually be able
to engage the Chretien gov-
ernment on the MAT issue.

LUMBERWORKER/JUNE, 1998/5