PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

Election sees class divisions reappear

by Gerry Stoney

s we continue to analyze the recent , NDP election victory in British Co- \ lumbia there will no doubt be many

\ factors to consider. During the cam-

paign a straight forward concept iJ \_ twas introduced by Glen Clark to the electorate.

It was simply that the NDP is on the side of working people. When Clark introduced the concept that he was going to fight for the in- terests of the middle class, he was labeled as a class warrior by the media in efforts to dis- credit the NDP. Even Gordon Campbell said that Clark was trying to ignite class warfare in the province.

Clark responded to his critics by saying the big challenge in Canada is dealing with the squeeze on the middle class and the increas- ing disparity between rich and poor.

Until Clark brought that out during the campaign, the. whole concept that different groups in society have different interests and status had been largely forgotten.

Even though, over the past twenty years, there has been a huge transference of wealth,

power and privilege from the middle and low- er classes to the upper classes, there has been a general moratorium on discussion of these

issues during elec- tion campaigns as if there is some sort of stigma attached.

Outside of the trade union move- ment there has been some unwritten code, followed by the media, that dis- cussion about the redistribution of wealth is somehow impolite or nasty.

So then along came Glen Clark saying that the shift in wealth and pow- er can’t go on forev- er and a chord was struck with the mid- dle class.

Blue collar people and lower income peo- ple have really been taking it on the chin dur- ing the last two decades by public policy mea- sures that were intended to have that effect.

A study by the Canadian Council on Social Development, comparing family incomes in 1984 versus 1993 reveals that the middle class has suffered an annual drop of about $1,144.00. Looking at the bottom 20% of soci- ety, annual incomes have declined by almost a third or about $2,492.00 per year.

At the same time the top 20% of income eamers have seen their incomes increase by about $5,000.00 a year.

The study says that if the bottom 60% of families held their 1984 ground, they would

have had access to about $5.2 billion which works out to 130,000 full-time jobs paying $40,000 a year.

A report released by Clark when he was Fi- nance Minister over three years ago said the Bank of Canada’s high interest rates poli- cy cost B.C. about 52,000 jobs in 1991 alone.

Clark has shown that the NDP has not lost its identity with working people. In 1991 the party won on the promise that it could provide a clean and honest alternative to the corrupt Socred Vander Zalm regime.

In 1996 Clark refocused the economic de- bate from one of hysterics to one of choice. Do voters support measures that protect and enhance benefits that are enjoyed by all or do they want to engage in radical restructuring that is best unproven or at the worst repre- sents a windfall gain for those who have al- ready enjoyed privileged power?

The results in B.C. show that Clark’s ap- proack and version of choice has a basis of support that has carries his government to a second term. We need to expand that base during this new term to demonstrate that an NDP approach to government can work in other provinces as well.

History repeats itself in Ontario's forests

by Kim Pollock

7 gnore the past and you're bound to repeat it, a istorian wrote long ago.

Provincial politicians in Ontario should be

seriously reminded of that warning these || days. i_J There, a fiercely pro-business, anti-union government, is severely cutting the province's for- est management budget. In all, the Ontario Min- istry of Natural Resources has lost 2100 positions - about 40 percent of total employees.

In particular, it appears the Conservative ‘gov- ernment wants to scale back its monitoring and enforcement of forest practices, reduce measures to protect biodiversity and even allow companies to inspect and regulate themselves.

Announcing over $100 million in operating and capital cuts in the Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Management Board chairman David John- son pledged to continue managing toward eco- nomic and ecological sustainability.

But the real meaning of Ontario’s new buzz- words - “eliminate activities that are not core busi- ness” and “streamline...forest management opera- tions” - can be seen in the new meaning of “compliance”: companies will now “conduct in- spections of their operations and identify areas where standards and guidelines have not been fol- lowed.”

This is a complete reversal of direction for for- est management in Ontario. Under the defeated New Democratic Party government, real gains were made toward sustainable harvest levels, envi- ronmentally-sound forest practices, improved lev- els of reforestation and balance between timber harvesting and other forest values, such as preser- vation of biodiversity and protection of fish streams.

“We weren't always 100 percent in agreement with them, but they were on the right track,” says I.W.A. CANADA National Second Vice President Fred Miron, who served on the NDP government’s ground-breaking Forest Policy Panel, which re- ported in 1993.

The NDP created a new business relationship between the province and forest companies, car- ried out a sweeping audit of practices on Crown jot land and passed the 1995 Forest Sustainabil- ity Act.

This record partly explains Ontario's ability to

avoid protests and inter- national boycotts.

Miron says: “The new government and the for- est companies are going to pay in the long run. It’s long-term pain for short- term gain.”

If this all sounds painfully familiar to I.W.A. CANADA mem-

ga bers in British Columbia,

1 \ | it’s no surprise. i A The former Social Credit government of B.C. adopted a policy of “sympathetic administra- tion,” which amounted to the proposition that the province’s Ministry of Forests should let forest companies do anything they needed to survive the

economic downturns of the 1980's.

Coupled with the So-

vides the only realistic hope of sustainable em- ployment, high living standards and steady govern- ment revenues.

But the government also knew that British Columbians’ faith in the industry was so eroded that it needed some strong medicine. It got it, in the form of a tough Forest Practices Code; sharply reduced annual allowable cuts in many regions; doubling of the area included in provincial parks and difficult land-use planning processes the forced industry, workers, communities and greens to sit down and hammer out solutions to forest- use conflicts.

1.W.A. CANADA has supported the govern- ment’s forestry policy, but not because it has come without costs, both in access to timber and in time and resources spent responding to the govern- ment’s many initiatives.

In spite of the B.C. Forest Renewal Plan, which aims to create jobs through intensive silviculture, forest rehabilitation,

creds’ view that forestry is a “sunset in- dustry” - that the best years and the best tim- ber are behind us and we simply need to cream as much as the resource as we can be- fore something better comes along - sympa- thetic administration was another “short-

There will a high price paid for an increase in Sorest degradation and

green-group activities in Ontario

value-added processing and retraining, there is still downward pres- sure on union jobs in the B.C. industry.

It's still too soon to see whether new poli- cies of Glen Clark’s re- cently reelected NDP government will re- verse the trend.

term gain” strategy.

The long-term pain was severe and we're still feeling it.

One result was a long period during which the effects of technological change in the forest indus- try was not matched by any effort to create new jobs. The impact of the two major recessions of 1982 and 1989 was compounded by job reductions due to tech change.

Another source of pain was a long, drawn-out and ugly “war in the woods.” As the Socreds al- lowed higher cut rates and bigger progressive clearcuts, British Columbians became increasingly concerned. When the government ignored those concerns, some environmental groups turned to road blockades and other confrontations with log- gers; others promoted international boycotts of our forest products.

A long series of “environmental hot spots” cul- minated in the messy Clayoquot Sound situation through the hot summer of 1993.

That was the painful disease. The “cure” has also proved painful - and it’s not over either. The NDP government of Mike Harcourt, elected in 1991, took a longer term view of the forest indus- try. They agreed that far from a sunset industry,

the forest industry is B.C.’s meal ticket and pro-

This is the history that Ontario ignores should the provincial government plow ahead with its own, new version of sympathetic administra- tion. There will almost inevitably be an increase in forest degradation, tech change without any jobs strategy and green-group activism. That’s a high price to pay for a lesson that British Columbians have already learned.

In the many years since I.W.A pioneers like Harold Pritchett launched pleas for “sustained yield” forestry, we know that companies shouldn't monitor their own performance.

“Forestry operations must leave to future gener- ations of Canadians a rich endowment of fish and wildlife, soils capable of supporting varied ecosys- tems and forest managed to provide many more jobs and the wide range of forest recreations that Canadians value,” says our Forest Policy.

We've long ago learned that won't happen with- out government involvement, planning and pres- sure. Unfortunately, it looks like the government and forest workers in Ontario are going to be forced to learn it again.

Kim Pollock is the Director of I.W.A. CANADA’s Environment and Land-Use Department.

a

_ ALUMBERWORKER/JUNE, 1996