We Need More (not less) Wood Manufacturing – Part 6

By Peter Ewart

by Peter Ewart 

To read previous articles in this 7 part series see Part 1 ; Part 2 ; Part 3 ; Part 4 and Part5)

As any experienced player will tell you, one of the key things when shooting a game of pool is to keep your eye on the ball.  If not, you will miss and eventually lose the match.

Over the last several decades, BC governments, whether they style themselves “left” or “right” have repeatedly taken their eyes off the ball in regards to forestry and other resource-based industries.  The result is that these industries have not developed  as they could have, or, as in the case of forestry, have actually gone into decline.

By the 1970s, the first step in British Columbia’s economic development of the Interior was completed.  This step included the development of substantial resource extraction (mining, oil and gas), hydro-electric and primary forest industries, all of which were based on the province’s rich and abundant natural resources.  Of course, this did not happen accidentally.  A well developed transportation, energy and logistical infrastructure had paved the way. 

But since then, it can be argued that the crucial second step – secondary processing of resources and extension of value chains – has never been taken, or, at best, has been done half-heartedly or feebly.

For their part, the monopolies and multinationals that dominate all the resource industries have been quite happy to extract the wood, metals, minerals, and oil and gas, and ship these resources out relatively unprocessed.  Developing secondary industry is difficult, costly and time-consuming.  Why bother when you are making lots of money and have compliant and complacent governments that are firmly under your thumb?

On the other hand, the people of the Interior and Vancouver Island have wanted to take this “second step” in economic development for a long time.  Workers and communities have especially been interested, as have First Nations, small and medium secondary businesses, environmentalists and other sectors. 

Indeed, a number of campaigns have been launched calling for more secondary industry and, in the case of forestry, for more value to be extracted from the forest resource.  Some of these campaigns have been spearheaded by workers and their organizations, and others have been supported by them.

In response, the various governments have been fickle.  They pick up the issue of  fostering “secondary industry” from time to time, make some noise, but do not follow through.  Above all, they do not take on, in any serious way, the entrenched monopoly interests who simply want to continue shipping out relatively unprocessed wood, metals, oil and gas, and other materials.

As a result today, we risk slipping even further backwards to the “hewers of wood, drawers of water” model of early Canada. 

So what must be done?  It is has become clear that we need a strong workers’ opposition in this province that has its own aims, program and vision for what the province could and should be.  One of the more important aims would be to turn back the “de-industrialization” of the province and move forward to “re-industrialization”, i.e. the expansion of secondary manufacturing based on the province’s existing resource riches and the extension of “value chains”. 

Such a workers’ opposition could rally around it all those forces in the province who want to get more value out of our natural resources and expand manufacturing, whether it be communities, First Nations, businesses, environmentalists, and others.

In terms of politics and elections, however, as frequently happens in BC, the “cart” must not be put before the “horse”.  An effective workers’ opposition needs its own distinct aims and program which it does not give up, irrespective of whichever government is in power or who is running in the elections, either provincially or federally.

Furthermore, a workers’ opposition should determine its support for candidates and parties, not on the basis of some diehard party loyalty, but rather on whether these candidates and parties genuinely support a workers’ and pro-community program.  If need be, it should also consider running its own candidates. 

Thus, demands for more secondary manufacturing and longer “value chains” (with a resulting increase in jobs) could be driven home as a permanent part of the economic direction of the province, rather than being subject to the fickle interests and maneuvering of the political parties in the Legislature.

It is in this way that workers and their allies can keep everyone’s eye on the ball.

Peter Ewart is a columnist, writer and community activists based in Prince George, British Columbia.  He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca

Email | Print | Facebook | Twitter | Digg | Del.icio.us