After meeting with Canada's International Trade Minister Pierre Pettigrew this week, four unions in the lumber industry in North America and the two central labour bodies issued the following Joint Statement. The labour organizations involved are: Canadian Labour Congress; Industrial, Wood and Allied Workers of Canada; Communication, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada; International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations; and Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union.

"We express our serious concern that the current negotiation to end the softwood lumber dispute is off course and will either fail in its principal objectives, or cause substantial loss of jobs and harm the workers, their families and the communities where they live, or both. "Last month these labour organizations released a set of joint principles upon which a settlement could be based. Our top officials have now met with minister Pettigrew and U.S. Department of Commerce Under Secretary Grant Aldonas and have reviewed the policy paper proposed by Mr. Aldonas. That paper adopts a free market model that requires each province to drastically alter its forest policy based on terms set out by the United States. We note in passing that we were refused a copy of the most recent paper by Mr. Aldonas, and had to get a leaked copy from a public web site.

"The U.S. appears to be willing to support an interim export tax to temporarily offset its 27% subsidy and dumping duties, but the U.S. will drop the duties and the cases altogether only if all the proposed program changes are made by the provinces. Minister Pettigrew has stated that he believes this is the only way assure that new cases are not filed in the future, and he looks to each province to negotiate its own agreement with the U.S. government. We do not believe it provides any such guarantee of no more U.S. trade cases, and it certainly shows no concern for the jobs that will be lost from likely market disruption. "Our Joint Labour Proposal is much simpler than the plan being discussed. It establishes a graduated export tax, which could be reduced or removed based on provinces phasing in equivalent timber fees charged on Crown lands. This would stabilize the North American timber harvesting business, allow the provinces to determine their own forestry programs, including those that help stabilize jobs and communities, and still allow fair competition in North American lumber markets.

"The unions also propose the creation of a bi-lateral panel of government, industry and labour with the mandate of establishing a North American strategy for market development and diversification. This focuses on the heart of the ongoing dispute - the struggle over market-share between producers in the two countries. "At the meeting with the labour unions, Mr. Pettigrew reacted favorably to the idea of working cooperatively across the border on market development initiatives, but seemed prepared to let provinces cut their own deal based on the policy changes being discussed by Mr. Aldonas. The US Under Secretary's latest draft paper continues to focus not only on stumpage formulas - the fee to cut government-owned timber in Canada - but also on the elimination of key elements of provincial forest policy such as minimum harvesting levels and manufacturing requirements, also known as appurtenancy.

"These are tools put in place by provinces to ensure employment and community stability are part of the grant to cut Crown timber given to lumber companies. There is no need to eliminate all of these programs so long as equivalent timber fees are agreed upon by the respective governments and put in place over a period of time sufficient to avoid disruptions. "These unions see the elimination of such provisions as potentially detrimental to the hundreds of forest-dependent communities across Canada. However, in terms of the U.S. trade law, the unions are also not convinced a lasting solution can be achieved on the terms proposed by Mr. Aldonas.

It is unlikely that provinces would completely sacrifice all of the current tools to achieve social objectives from the harvest of government timber; however, short of provinces completely and permanently eliminating the provisions identified in the Aldonas paper, it is equally unlikely that the U.S. government could prevent future trade actions brought forward by the American industry. "The Joint Labour Proposal envisions a simple, mutually enforceable agreement between the respective governments that would assure trade peace in the future. But these practical proposals are not being considered by either government. They are doggedly moving ahead with discussions only on the U.S. free market economic model, and so far have been unwilling to allow the unions to come to the table or seriously consider any alternative other than their own. "These unions represent the workers on both sides of the border with the most to lose if the U.S. scheme does not work. We do not think it will work, but we should at least be allowed to come to the table and be part of the negotiations. Mr. Aldonas can give no guarantee that his proposal will work, much less guarantee there will be no more cases. The Joint Labour Proposal can provide that guarantee. Now is the time to discuss realistic alternatives and the unions should be allowed at the table to speak for the workers." Canada Newswire Limited