SASRRNARBGe. ee e Lumber workers all over Canada are going into an uncertain time period as they wait for Canadian and American government’s and industry on both sides of the border to resolve the impasse over our lumber exports to the United States. See below and read page 10 and 11 for the union’s position on the softwood lumber dispute. FROM LOCK-OUT TO VICTORY IN QUEBEC After they were locked-out before Christmas, new Local 400 members at the Simmons plant in Kirkland stayed united and got a favourable contract with the I.W.A’s help. PAGE 7 Uncertainty grips industry following expiry As this issue of the Lumberworker oes to press there remains a great Leal of uncertainty in the air follow- ing the expiration of the Canada - Us. Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA) on March 81. On April 2, the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, a protectionist lobby Re ased in Washington, D.C., ‘fea charges against the Cana- dian softwood lumber industry at the U.S. Department of Commerce. The coalition filed a mountain of documents claiming that most provincial governments in Canada unfairly subsidize forest companies, charging too little for the rights to harvest trees. They also claim that Canadian producers are dumping jumber into the States at prices pelow the costs of production. In both cases the coalition is arguing that Canadian softwood imports are damaging the U.S. industry. ‘All told, the coalition is asking for countervailing duties and anti- dumping charges ranging in the 68 - 86% range and higher in some instances. mtwe know that our industry is not subsidized and that Canada is not dumping lumber across the line. Our mills are much more modern and competitive than theirs, there js a low Canadian dollar which assists our industry, and the qual- jty of our lumber is the best any- where. The Americans have repeat- edly lost their arguments in the past and will lose them again this time around,” said national I.W.A. president Dave Haggard. “The coalition’s efforts are designed to force Canadian lumber out of American markets so.that its clients can capture market share. Everybody knows that,” added Brother Haggard. Over the past 20 years the coali- tion has taken three major actions against the Canadian lumber indus- try and has lost on all occasions. The coalition represents 5 major lumber producers and some 255 sawmill owners representing about 75% of the U.S. industry and is largely concentrated in the south- ern states. It has the backing of nearly half of U.S. senators, both on the Republican and Democratic side and appears to have the support of the newly-elected administration of president George W. Bush. It is calling for retroactive duties back to April 1, 2001 and has put forth an argument that stumpage rates, “grade-setting” practices, log export restrictions, Forest Renewal expenditures in B.C., volume dis- counts offered by rail companies, provincial programs supporting ‘orestry science and research, the B.C. Job Protection Act (which assists forest companies in financial trouble), the 1998 Skeena Cellulose bailout, B.C. government assistance to the Council of Forest Industries in marketing wood products, and the Forest Practices Code’s regula- tions that contribute to wildlife pro- tection, are subsidies in British Columbia alone. “This time around the coalition has gone overboard with its allega- f quota tions and really has lost any credi- bility,” says Haggard. “But the real problem for our side is that soft- wood lumber is wrapped right up in the thick of preteetionis: politics of the United States and that’s very tough to deal with.” Bob Plecas, president of the B.C. Lumber Trade Council, which rep- resents major B.C. forest companies including some 100 producers and up to 70% of the industry’s softwood lumber production, told the media that what is “even more frightening is that those obviously outrageous allegations will be heard by a highly politically pissed process in the At risk are countervailing duties and anti-dumping fees on some $10 billion worth of Canadian lumber exports, roughly half of which origi- nate from B.C. Canada’s lumber production is largely dependent on American markets of which it has ained a 35% market share. Nearly falf of B.C. foreign exchange earn-" ings are tied into lumber. (see arti- cle by Kim Pollock pages 10 and 11). The Canadian government has asked the United States to appoint a special envoy to deal with a Cana- dian counterpart on the issue. The Bush administration has not responded positively. International Trade Minister Andrew Pettigrew has echoed the industry’s at-large position, saying that Canada wants free trade in lumber and is willing to fight the U.S. Coalition in through the North. continued on page two Time to rally NDP support The 2001 B.C. provincial election campaign is in its second week and the opposition Liberals are in the lead, as this issue of the Lumber- worker goes to the press. The New Democratic Party, of which the I.W.A. has been a major backer for 40 years, is the clear underdog after nearly 10 years in power. Polls vary in predicting Liberal victory. Some polls say Gordon Campbell and his party have nearly a 50 percent lead among decided voters. “Predictions now indicate that the party could be devestated at the polls,” said national president Dave Haggard. “We can’t ke that happen - we need to get out and elect as many NDP candidates as we can and help the party put a strong opposition in the legislature.” The I.W.A., like many trade unions in Canada, is undergoing a process of debate and review on its support and role within the coun- try’s social democratic party on both the national and provincial scenes. “That’s something that we are talking about right now and we will come to a conclusion in the future but right now we’ve got to get behind the New Democrats,” said Haggard. “Work to elect them, get out to the polls. Those I.W.A. locals which are releasing their members to work on. campaigns have to act fast.” The 28 day election will end on May 16 when voters head to the polls. The NDP has a traditional core support of 30 percent of the electorate. The NDP is campaigning hard on the issues of health care, education and the environment. “We have a strong NDP base in our union and many of our mem- bers will vote for the NDP because they realize there is no other alter- native,” says Haggard. “Gordon Campbell and the Liber- als are going around the province saying they have working peoples’ interests in mind,” said Haggard. “But what they really have in mind is big tax cuts for corporations and the cutting of social programs like health care and education — pro- grams that are extremely impor- tant to our members and their fam- ilies.” The Liberals are largely bankrolled by corporations while the NDP relies on individual dona- tions for about 85% of its funding. The labour movement gave about $220,000 to the party last year while the Liberals sucked in some $3.3 million dollars in corporate cash. Both parties are subject to election spending limits of $6.5 million. continued on page two SY