The threat by the U.S. to impose tariffs or countervailing duties against Canadian lumber exports demonstrates very clearly the danger inherent in any comprehensive free trade agreement, B.C. Communist Party leader Maurice Rush warned Satur- day. And rather than attempt to include lumber in free trade talks, Canada should immediately cancel any plans to negotiate a free trade deal with the U.S., and make it clear that any duty imposed on Canadian lumber exports will result in Canadian trade retaliation, Rush told delegates to the opening session of the Communist Party’s B.C. provincial convention. “Recent events have made it clear that Mulroney and Reagan have reached a secret agreement to sacrifice the Canadian and B.C. lumber market and the imme- diate jobs of woodworkers as the price for getting approval from U.S. senators from lumber states to vote for free trade negoti- ations,” he noted in his address. U.S. president Ronald Reagan said in a letter May 8 to Oregon Senator Robert Packwood that he would take action to restore the advantage that. U.S. lumber producers have had in the past over B.C. producers. Because of higher productivity in this province and a favorable exchange rate, the B.C. forest industry is exporting a record amount of lumber to the U.S. — so much so that the B.C. share of the U.S. market has risen from its traditional 25 per cent to 31 per cent. As a result, U.S. lumber companies have lobbied hard to have the U.S. Con- gress impose countervailing duties against tariffs imposed. B.C. LUMBER FOR EXPORT. . .an estimated 3,000 industry jobs would be affected if B.C. lumber, arguing that the low stum- page rates charged B,C. forest companies constitute an unfair subsidy. A formal petition for the duties was filed this week, asking that a 27 per cent tariff be imposed, on all Canadian soft- wood coming into the U.S. Preliminary estimates indicate that if the petition for duties is upheld, some 3,000 jobs would be lost directly in the B.C. lumber industry and another 4,000 jobs indirectly affected. Although U.S. president Reagan has traditionally rejected such protectionist measures, his letter indicated that he would support tariff action against soft- wood imports and would do so outside any negotiations on free trade. He told Packwood: “I want you to know that I am committed to finding a rapid and effective solution to the Cana- dian softwood problem which will restore to the American lumber industry a fair opportunity to complete. “To this end, I intend to press for an expedited resolution to this problem inde- pendent’ of the comprehensive negotia- tions,” he stated. That letter clearly “demonstrates the self-interest policy the U.S. is pursuing in trade with Canada,” Rush said. Any action to impose tariffs on lumber would be a severe blow to the B.C. forest industry and to jobs and should “‘serve as a warning to Canadians that the USS. intends now and in the future to impose trade relations on Canada which would be beneficial only to the U.S. and detrimental to Canadian and B.C. interests,” he said. Significantly, the lumber industry in this province is one of the few industries in which Canadian producers enjoy a major competitive advantage — andiit is for just that reason that the U.S. is seeking coun- tervailing duties. U.S. trade negotiator Peter Murphy has repeatedly stressed that the U.S. would not give up its right to impose such duties in any free trade deal, indicating clearly that any possible advantage that Cam dian exporters might gain under free 1 would be met with trade barriers. Hl That, in fact, has already been spell out in the U.S.-Israel free trade agreeme signed in 1985, which reserves to the the right to impose duties against any! ducts it considers unfairly competitive “It is clear that no free trade ° between the U.S. and Canada can ™ any benefit for the Canadian and forest industry,” Rush told convent delegates. And far from using lumber as a bat. ing chip in the free trade talks, C4 should protest the U.S. threat to i tariffs and “declare that it will adopt iatory measures should the U.S. p with plans to impose restrictions 4. Canadian wood products,” he decla Federal International Trade Ma James Kelleher told the House of COM mons that Canada could take counterval q ing action if all else failed, noting i Canada “has equipped itself.. 49 with injurious subsidized imports.” fot Rush also emphasized the need 4 Canada to diversify its wood produ ag markets, and to end the lopsided dep® pen | ence on the U.S. market which has te? to confine B.C. wood production to @ and semi-processed goods. 5 “The answer to the problem of marke lies...in the diversification of manuf | tured wood products, the expansio® trade with all countries including he world and socialist countries as well ast expansion of the Canadian market. — In his address, Rush emphasi 4 extensive program for forest and WOT industry renewal based on major int tives for reforestation, the developmen new secondary manufacturing and Ph cessing in the wood industry, ! return to public ownership and control? the forest resource and the nationale of MacMillan Bloedel and U.S.-0W# forest companies. Court rejects challenge over union due The B.C. Supreme Court ruling that the Charter of Rights cannot abridge the demo- cratic right of the members ofa trade union to determine how their dues money shall be used is a “victory not only for the B.C. Government Employees Union but also for the trade union movement,” BCGEU pres- ident John Shields said last week. In a statement issued May 14 following the court decision, Shields said he hoped the ruling would deter others “who want to use the Canadian Charter of Rights and Free- doms to limit the traditional role of trade unions.” Supreme Court Justice Albert Mackoff May 8 rejected a court challenge from cor- rections officer Charles Baldwin who had argued that the Charter should prohibit unions from using dues money for any pur- pose other than collective bargaining. The disposition of union dues “‘is the activity of a private organization to which the Charter does not apply,” Justice Mack- off stated in his decision. “Such expenditures are made by the union executive, democratically elected by the members and in accordance with the BCGEU constitution.” Baldwin, a Social Credit member who has opted out of membership in the BCGEU but who is required to pay dues under the union’s certification agreement, launched his challenge in February of last year, arguing that union support of such organizations as Operation Solidarity vio- lated his individual rights. Representing him was high-profile law- 12 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, MAY 21, 1986 yer Peter Gall, whose law firm, Jordan and Gall, has played a part in virtually every case involving a challenge to trade union rights in this province. Gall has been coun- sel for notorious anti-union contractor J.C. Kerkhoff and has addressed seminars on open-shop strategies organized by the right- to-work Independent Canadian Business Association. zi Baldwin’s case closely parallels another court chal- lenge launched last fall by Ontario teach- er Merv Lavigne with heavy financial backing from the j National Citizens’ Coalition, an ultra- : right lobby group 3 dominated by insu- JOHN SHIELDS tance corporations. Lavigne’s case was heard earlier this year and a ruling was expected to be brought down in the fall. Whether Justice Mackoff’s ruling will have any effect on the Lavigne decision is uncertain but the NCC has made it clear that it is prepared to put $500,000 into the case and to pursue it right up to the Supreme Court of Canada. . Gall has also stated that Baldwin will persist in his case, although in a different direction, one that could have grave reper- cussions for the trade union movement. Gall told the court earlier that he would challenge provincial labor legislation which guarantees closed and union shop rights, and argue that such legislation violates the Charter because it compels Rayment of union dues. The case would be an attempt to get around Justice Mackoffs ruling which stated that the Charter was intended to pro- tect citizens from government and was not intended to govern the activities of private associations such as trade unions. Baldwin said following the ruling that he would instruct Gall to file the new petition although BCGEU communications officer George Reamsbottom said that no petition had been filed as of May 16. Closed shop legislation was upheld in 1951 in the landmark Myron Kouch case that was appealed right up to the Privy Council in Britain in one of the last cases heard before constitutional authority was vested fully in the Canadian courts. But how the Charter would affect that © has presumably yet to be determin! Baldwin has said that he lac although he acknowledged in a rad f line interview that he received $5,0¥ the National Citizens’ Coalition. . The timing of Baldwin’s challe NCC funding and the legal rea by Jordan and Gall have confirm suspicions of many trade unionists © case is part of the corporate attack ™ union rights. ~ IRIBUNE Published weekly at 2681 East Hastings Street Vancouver, B.C. V5K 1Z5. Phone 251-1186 ’ Postal Code I lamenclosing 1 yr.$1601 2yrs. $28] 6mo.$100) Foreign yt ° 2 Bill me later 1 + Donation$ \ READ THE PAPER THAT FIGHTS FOR 1 ABO :