No deal is better

than a bad deal

' he holiday season this year is going to be a

* very rough one for over 9,000 I.W.A.
members and their families. Workers all
over Canada and especially on the Coast of

British Columbia are feeling the effects of

job loss — some upcoming and permanent

and some indefinite. Any way we cut it,

Ee US. trade actions against the Canadian
forest industry and low lumber prices, are having
devastating effects in forest-dependent communities all
over the country.

For some operators, there may now be some short-term
relief as the 19.31per cent countervail duty against
Canadian lumber exports dropped off on December 15,
2001. A final determination on both the countervail and
anti-dumping charges will be made by the U.S.
Department of Commerce in March, 2002. Then the U.S.
International Trade Commission makes a final and
binding ruling on the issue in May. At that point the
tariffs may become locked-on the Canadian industry.

There is an incredible amount of pressure on Canadian
governments, both provincially and federally, to negotiate
a deal with the Americans that will, once and for all,
permanently put an end to all future actions against our
industry.

At the same time, workers in Canada, and specifically
1.W.A. members who are among those suffering the most,
don’t want a deal —just to get any deal — that will sell
out our resources and our jobs with them. This was a
point well-noted by B.C. Forests Minister Mike de Jong at
an I.W.A. rally in Victoria on December 5. Mr. de Jong
said he was impressed that the most unified and loudest
voice against “not caving in to unreasonable American
demands are you — the people who are facing the pain
the worst.”

Although Canadian negotiators say any settlement
must see the Americans stop future trade actions, it
appears that the U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports
and the U.S. forest industry will not give up their right to
take further trade actions against Canada, no matter
what governments in this country may concede to
appease them.

The Coalition wants competitive, open markets for
timber sales in Canada, including the right for companies
located in the U.S. to bid, with the mighty American
dollar of course, on Canadian logs.

Mr. de Jong was clear at the Victoria rally the “existing
log export restrictions are not on the table (with the
Americans) period.” He did not say restrictions would be
increased or enhanced.

The Coalition also wants to see an end to government-
run tenure systems that exist in Canada, of which the
security of public timber supplies are granted in exchange
for investment and some semblance of community
stability.

A tenure reform process will take place in B.C. said de
Jong, in the not-too-distant future.

The Americans want the elimination of cut controls,
which force forest companies in Canada to harvest a
minimum volume of wood in downturned markets to
maintain employment and community stability. The
major lumber producing provinces in Canada have
already said OK.

One other huge demand, already conceded by the B.C.
government, is that forest companies cutting the wood not
have to mill the wood. That change would lead to
widespread log brokering and contracting out, especially
on the Coast.

So whereas I.W.A. members don’t want just any deal
with the Americans, it is plain to see the Coalition
already has most part of a deal it wants.

How many more concessions from the Canadian
provinces will be given up between now and the time a
final deal, if any deal, can be reached, will greatly
determine the future quality and quantity of employment
in B.C. and elsewhere.

The well-being of today’s workers and future generations
is being negotiated as we wait. B

LUIMBERUORKER

Official publication of I.W.A. CANADA

NORMAN GARCIA —_- DAVE HAGGARD. . President
Editor NEIL MENARD . . Ist Vice-President
; DAVID TONES. . 2nd Vice-President
1285 ES ead cae NORM RIVARD . . 3rd Vice-President
Vancouver, B.C, WILF McINTYRE . . 4th Vice-President
VGE 4B2 HARVEY ARCAND . . Secretary-Treasurer

BROADWAY 2% PRINTERS LTD.

Liberals oversee moves towards privatization

The B.C. Liberal govern-
ment of Gordon Campbell is
currently overseeing radical
changes to the way the
public’s forest resource will
be administered in the
future. According to
Campbell the changes are
supposed to make B.C.
“compatible” with the U.S.
forest industry.

Before the Liberals were
elected they said no to
privatization of Crown
lands. “I’m not someone who
says ‘let’s go and sell Crown
lands,’” said Campbell at
the Truck Loggers Asso-
ciations convention in
January 2000.

On December 5, following
the I.W.A. - lead rally in
Victoria. B.C. Forests
Minister Mike de Jong was
questioned by the Lumber-
worker if the government is
about to privatize Crown
lands.

Mr. de Jong responded that,
“‘’m not contemplating
significant privatization, but
will forest tenure look
different? I think it’s possible.
I think that’s a discussion I
think members of the I.W.A.
want us to have.”

When asked if the Liberals
are going to emulate New
Zealand’s experience of
deregulation and granting
private property rights to
forest companies on Crown
lands, de Jong said he didn’t
“profess to be an expert on
the New Zealand experience,
the best I can tell you is that
we are embarking on a
process of tenure reform
discussions.”

When asked if the public
at large is going to be
involved, de Jong said yes,
there would be a public
process which he hopes will
be “even more inclusive”
than the province-wide
hearings on tree farm
licenses the Socreds
conducted in 1989.

Meanwhile the Liberals’
are already committed to
granting forest companies
de facto private property
rights on Crown lands.

The pledge to remove the
requirement for companies
to both harvest and
manufacture timber is
already a given. The in-

dustry would be able to
piece-off logging operations
and contract out company
crews, driving down wages
and working conditions in
the process if union
successorship rights are not
protected by the anti-labour
Liberals.

Like private timbers
holders, under the Liberals’
proposed changes, forest
companies will be able to
ship what logs they want,
where they want and create
a whole series of log brokers
in the process. Appur-
tenance agreements, tying
public timber to specific
manufacturing facilities,
are to be scrapped.

The Liberals plan to
eliminate minimum annual
allowable cut requirements,
which maintain community
stability. Those are the same
rights that private property
owners enjoy and exercise
freely.

The Liberals plan to grant
forest companies the right
to sell off chunks of their
existing tenures without
any five per cent “clawback”
and freely contract out to
market loggers. Those are
private property-like rights
too.

The Liberals plan on
loosening up minimum
harvesting requirements, in
order to avoid logging the
whole profile of the forest.
Private tenure holders also
“high grade,” and cherry
pick the most valuable wood
as they please.

The Liberals propose to let
at least 13 per cent of timber
volume on an “open-market”
set the price for timber in
the rest of the province. Like
private timber bidding pro-
cesses, prices would be sub-
ject to ruinous manipulation
and overbidding when
lumber markets heat up.

To be “compatible” with
the United States, spec-
ulative overbidding would
occur.

At the same time that the
Liberals are deregulating
the Forest Act, the U.S.
Coalition for Fair Lumber
Imports, the driving force
behind American trade
sanctions, is saying the
reforms that the Liberals

are offering are not nearly
good enough.

Not enough has been
forked over, say our
neighbours. The Coalition’s
spokesperson John Ragosta
said B.C., Alberta, Ontario
and Quebec, which are
Canada’s four major lumber-
producing provinces, are
living like “Alice in
Wonderland” if they believe
the changes they have
already offered will
guarantee unlimited future
access the American market.

The Americans want to
freely import Canadian logs
with their strong dollar.

“Mother Teresa could sign
a promise that Canadian
lumber would be welcome
throughout the free world
but it misses the point that
the (Canadian) commitment
must be commensurate with
real reforms. Real reforms
means open and competitive
timber markets,” said
Ragosta.

Canada, and especially
B.C. has painted itself into a
corner, and the more
concessions it offers, the more
slippery the slope will get.

So much for the so-called
North American Free Trade
Agreement and so much for
sovereignty and a “made in
Canada” forest policy. The
Americans may just have
the B.C. Liberals and the
rest of Canada snookered.

“Whenever you embark
on change on the scale talked
about here, there is going to
be concern, there is going to
be a degree of anxiousness
and there is going to be
transition period during
which that notion of
uncertainty is at its height,”
Mr. de Jong told The
Vancouver Sun in mid-
December.

“Ts it going to be a painless
exercise? No. but the
exercise of rebuilding the
industry will make it
worthwhile,” he added.

That period of uncertainty
is growing and many I.W.A.
members don’t see what the
Liberals are doing as
rebuilding the industry. Are
they really rebuilding it or
are they handing over a
“compatible” industry to the
Americans? &

LUMBERWORKER/DECEMBER 2001/5