PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE
Lumber war and

politics on agenda

by Dave Haggard

ere are never any shortage of issues
for the I.W.A. members to debate and
discuss at national conventions. This
month when we get together in
| Edmonton there are going to be two

‘J major topics to deal with — the
softwood lumber dispute between Canada and
the United States and the future of political
action for the I.W.A.

In August the U.S. Department of Commerce
reacted to protectionist forces to impose a 19.31

such a mean-spirited action have been felt
across the iiaenes in our organization. At risk
are the well-being of hundreds of communities
and hundreds of thousand of workers.

It is incredibly hypocritical for the Americans
to talk the “free trade” talk but not walk the
walk. Just because our mills have greater
efficiency is no reason for them to try and limit
our market share in a supposedly free market.

We don’t know what the full widespread
impact of the countervailing duty and potential
anti-dumping charges will be yet. But to feel the
reality, all you have to do is talk to any working
person who is already laid off as a result — it
means hard times and economic and possibly
social disaster.

per cent duty against our lumber. The effects of

Whatever we do, we
need to help the
industry and the
governments in
Canada keep focussed
on the end goal, which
is free and fair trade
in lumber products,
and a level playing
field for all workers in
every Canadian mill.
The country needs a
unified strategy which
I think is being put
together. This could
well be the most
important issue facing
not just our industry,
but our whole country
today.

Let’s hold tight
through these rough
times. We know we're
in the fight of our lives, and pointing fingers
and blaming the federal government at this
point can only diminish and weaken our
country’s position.

Just as softwood lumber is on everybody’s
mind, so too are the problems that Canadian
social democracy has run into, both federally
and provincially. The federal party is at a low
point in support from the working and middle
classes, and provincial parties are running
scared. Only Manitoba and Saskatchewan have
NDP governments.

When we consider the overwhelming defeat
the party suffered to the Liberals in B.C. this
past May, we need to realize the distance the
NDP has put between itself and its traditional
constituents — like I.W.A. members. This is

largely due to the party’s apparent green agenda
and a lack of an economic agenda. Something

must be done.

the NDP as having become
wrong-headed, lacking an
economic vision and the
ability to run efficient
government.

We know that over 80
per cent of union members
expect representation from
their unions in the political
arena, not just in
negotiations or on the job.
The question is, how do
we best represent them?

Do we try to rebuild the
party to include a strong
economic vision to back up
its social agenda? Do we
branch off to build a new
political entity to advance
our interests? What will
the shakeout look like for
working people?

If we stay NDP we have to define what our
role will be in the party and who our political
allies among the working and professional
classes are while maintaining a strong voice on
social and economic issues.

These and many others are the questions
that we have to deal with as a union. Our roots
in the NDP are strong. There is no need to rush
to a decision before the November federal NDP
convention. Social democratic and political
movements that benefit working people were
not built in a day and a new vision for us that
will sustain itself has to be carefully debated
and disussed at all levels; at the convention, at
the local union level and at the workplace.

It’s your union. Now it’s time for you to step
forward in the debate and let your voice
be heard. @

e
Most of our members see ;

ANDS AND) FORES

Uncle Sam and U.S.
industry at it again

by Kim Pollock

nce more we’re up against the
Americans. The recently imposed
|, 19.31 per cent duty on Canadian
| || lumber exports to the U.S. reminds
. 2 } us both how tough and ruthless U.S.
“..” lumber companies can be and how
much we depend on the American market.

So, after five years of relative peace, if not
comfort under the Canada-U.S. Softwood
Lumber Quota Agreement, they’re back to
charging “subsidy” and demanding protection.

And protection they’ve got, at least for the
moment. The duty assessment will almost
certainly reduce Canadian lumber exports to
the U.S., making the world safe for
uncompetitive firms south of the border.

Because it’s not really about subsidies —
we've shown that every time the dispute finds
its way out of U.S. government processes and
into independent tribunals.

It’s about competition and cost. When the
American lumber lobby cannot succeed in the
cost arena, they turn to protectionism. That’s
what’s happening today: many American firms,
faced with their own high costs and inefficiency,
cannot withstand Canada’s highly efficient
sawmills and low dollar. They have turned, as

where they enjoy huge influence.

In fact, the Americans are like the
Katzenjammer Kids, they brought it on
themselves. That goes for both of our main
groups of U.S. competitors: Southern Pine and
the Pacific Northwest.

In the South, timber harvesting has reached
its environmental limits. That is, much of the
region’s available timber has been harvested
and there will be a serious falldown in the very
near future. Much of the South’s wood comes
from so-called non-industrial private forests,
that is, private woodlots, farms and acreages.
Those private owners have not been concerned
about reforestation. Consequently, prices are
already being bid up higher and higher. Experts
predict serious declines in harvest by about
mid-decade.

Meanwhile, the Pacific Northwest is facing

they have before, to Uncle Sam and Congress, i

shortages of a different
kind. That region, as you
know, has locked up a
huge proportion of its
timber for northern
spotted owls and other
environmental hobby-
horses. Public lands —
state lands or those
administered by U.S.
federal agencies — now
produce less than 9
percent of the timber
they were expected to
yield, even under the 1993 Clinton Plan, an
amount that was already under half of 1990
harvest levels.

In other words, the area’s public timber lands
are for all intent and purpose removed from
commercial harvesting. Nor has that volume
been replaced from private lands, as some
observers suggested

Lumber Agreement simply helped U.S. suppliers
use Canadian logs and lumber to flood their
own market and undermine prices.

This was one of the softwood deal’s perverse
effects. Another was that instead of reducing
the amount of Canadian lumber entering the
U.S. market, it merely shifted it around. Thus,
while exports to the U.S. from the provinces
B.C., Alberta, Ontario and Quebec covered by
the agreement fell by over 1.3 billion board feet
between 1996 and 2000, those from the non-
covered provinces increased by 1.7 billion over
the same period. Saskatchewan, for instance,
exported an estimated $30.5 million of lumber
south of the border in 1994; by 1997 this had
risen to about $212 million. Atlantic Canada
raised exports to the States by 1.2 billion board
feet from 1996-2000.

So it’s clear, as I.W.A. president Dave Haggard
has said, we don’t want another quota agree-
ment, which unfairly advantages provinces,
regions or companies

might happen. In fact,
according to statistics
gathered by I.W.A.
Canada from state
taxation agencies, pri-
vate lands harvests fell
in the U.S. west, from
8.9 billion board feet in
1994 to 7.9 billion in 1999.

And yet, miraculously,
Pacific Northwest saw-
mills have been very
busy. Total output from
sawmills in Washington

The duty assessment will
almost certainly reduce
Canadian lumber exports to
the U.S., making the world
safe for uncompetitive firms
south of the border.

on the basis of
arbitrary rules.
What we do want,
ultimately, is free,
unrestricted access to
the U.S. market. The
Americans can’t have
it both ways, after all.
If they want free trade
in other products, they
should have free trade
in lumber, too. If their
mills can’t compete
without Uncle Sam’s

and Oregon increased \
by 1.2 billion board feet from 1994 to 1999.
Where did the wood come from?

In spite of the restrictions the Softwood
Lumber Quota Agreement placed on Canadian
lumber exports, there were no such impediments
to log exports. As a result, companies in B.C.
and Alberta shipped some 363 million board
feet of logs to the States in 2000, a rise of 354
million from 1996. Some, but ultimately not
much, of this volume was diverted from
shipments that formerly went to Japan. Most,
however, was diverted from Canadian sawmills.

South of the border, this wood became
incremental wood, making up the last 5 to 10
percent of U.S. sawmills’ needs, allowing them
to produce at near-peak efficiency. So far, the
joke is on Canada, since our logs were being
diverted around our mills and into the U.S.,
helping our Pacific Northwestern competitors.

But, hey, the joke is on the Americans, too.
Instead of causing reduced supply and higher

prices as it was intended to do, the Softwood

protection, they will
have to upgrade their facilities. If they can’t
keep going without liquidating their forests,
they probably shouldn’t.

And if there is another agreement, it should
ensure a level playing field for all workers,
companies and regions of the country.

We should be able to cooperate with the U.S.
after all. As Brother Haggard has also said, we'd
all be better off cooperating to sell North American
products around the world than fight over the
Canadian and U.S. share of our domestic pie.

Meanwhile, we're in another serious fight with
the Americans. We need to enlist support from
governments at all levels, our political allies,
unions on both sides of the border, retailers,
consumer groups and others who are in no way
served by the wicked U.S. lumber lobby. ll

Kim Pollock is the Director of Environment and
Public Policy for I.W.A. Canada.

4/LUMBERWORKER/SEPTEMBER, 2001

—™