Rich Coleman really needs to know what kind of table you were sitting at when you drafted this.

Looks like the USW 10 point plan- a couple of comments.

1. It is false economoics to tie logs to a community- it seems like a good idea (1970 idea)however will not help communites is the long run- What has the rest of the world done- separate the woods and mills into different business units and create competion and thus more efficient operations- we need competive log markets and mills which are competive not social approachs to forestry.

2. Not sure how banning log exports would help northern communties as I am not aware of any log exports from these area and that economics would allow this and the cost of exporting from these communties would be uneconomical.

3. As domestic log prices decrease there would be little economics in silviculutre programs and or investement.

Another round one probably, only it was spinning too fast for anyone to realize about half of what's on it makes little sense the way its presented.

Points 3. and 4. I agree with totally. Points 6. and 8. too. And 10. and 11. have merit.

But Point 1. is too nebulous. The second part of Point 2. is ridiculous, unless there's actually a market for the products it's hoped can be 'value-added'. And if there is, somebody would already be doing it.

Point 5. is completely out-to-lunch. YOU wouldn't invest YOUR money, or risk YOUR existing collateral borrowing to invest in some venture that has little or no likelihod of ever being profitable long enough for you to recoup that investment and make a profit. Why should anyone else be expected to?

If you took back the forest tenure and vested it in the hands of the government, or "the community", would you want to commit YOUR tax dollars or YOUR personal funds to investments in milling facilities that can't make a return on them? What's the point? You can lose all the tax money you want just paying someone to do nothing ~ why do you think it's necessary to make them 'work' first before you lose it?

As for "incentives" to "reward" companies that invest in "value-added" where IS the "added-value" when you have to do that?

The proper definition of "value-added" is, I believe, "any further process beyond the initial stages of any products manufacture that can return its COSTS PLUS AN ADDITIONAL PROFIT."

If it can't do that, where's the 'value' that's been added? If that 'value' is only found in 'employing' someone, providing an excuse to pay out an income for producing something economically useless, then all we're doing is paying someone to "dig a hole, and fill it in again."


To go this way is just creating the same kind of producer subsidies that will lead to our products being counter-vailed out of any export market they hope to enter. Not only that, but this type of subsidization will 'commoditize' what are esentially 'specialty' products to the point where those firms already viably in the market producing similar products will quickly become un-profitable and die.

Why don't we ever take a completely different approach to this than what we've ever done before? Most of the points above are simply a re-hash of policies that, however good they might sound at times like these, have been tried other times in other places and simply DO NOT WORK.

The points above are designed to 'induce' or 'compel' PRODUCERS, through artificial 'rewards' for doing something that creates 'EMPLOYMENT', or, alternately, 'punishments' for doing what they've found necessary to do that's curtailed it.

For any 'employment' to ever be viable there has to be a genuine CONSUMER demand for the product made that is also an EFFECTIVE DEMAND, i.e., that can pay a price for it that recovers the costs of its making.

The way in which we 'make prices' at present does not have any proper nexus with the way we distribute the 'incomes' that are necessary to totally liquidate them as production moves through distribution and into final consumption. If we want to solve the problems that currently beset us, ones that will only recur again and again in future, we would do ourselves a tremendous service by examining this whole area. If any solution exists, it is here, not in far-fetched 'make-work' schemes, that it'll be found.

The logs should not be leaving the community, we have mills here that are not working, but when the market turns around, they can be as profitable as any other mill, if the mill is managed properly. The mills have made money here before the big corporations took over and if the big bosses would listen to the working people instead of the ones they have hired to sit at the desks, things could be alot more profitable. Why should we as a community just sit back and watch our logs leave, so some super mill, down south reaps all the benifits. The south gets enough, it is time the government starts looking beyond Hope, and starts including the North as part of the province. And as for Mr. Colemans comment, "we can not change things buy just a swipe of a pen" what bull, the government did not think twice about swiping there pen when the they cut Hospital employees wages by 15% a few years back. If we don't see some action soon, maybe are next rally can be at BC Place, spending 14 million on a new roof, what a joke.

Mr. Meisner's saying at the Rally in Mackenzie was great "United we stand, Divided we fall". Well the North is United, and be dammed if we are going to fall.

Vulcan- what super mills are you referring too- there are none- yes zero on the coast.

British Columbins needs to realize the reality that Gordon Campbell and his incompetent,bungling, ham-fisted Minister of Forestry Rich Coleman have sold out the logging industry!!

It seems both the NDP and the USW are making the down turn in the forestry industry into a major political issue and blaming forest policies on the down turn when in fact the crisis has to do with:

1. Housing starts in the US are down as much as two thirds.

2. Canaddian dollar is at par or more.

3. Lumber prices are at a all time low.

4. The 15% tariff is hurting lumber producers.

5. Energy prices are at a all time high.

Even if the 11 points in the above article were implmented today no one would re-start the mills until house starts increase, and it becomes profitable to sell lumber again.

Thank you, dogs! You saved me the work to post a similar comment!

I did not expect the NDP to act otherwise. If the NDP were in power now they would be protesting vigorously if someone would be blaming THEIR forest policies (no matter what they would be) for the very same things they are attacking the Liberals for.

B.C. politics are like that, over the edge and over the top.

I agree diplomat!
I don't care much for most B.C. politics and politicians in general, and I sure as hell don't like Gordon Campbell and his crew, but even though they have made some bad policy and dragged their heels on somethings that should have been dealt with sooner,even I can't blame them for the mess we have now, here in B.C.
And no way would the NDP have even done any better!
Probably the opposite.
I am sure the NDP figures they can get some brownie points out of this before the next provincial election, but that's not going to happen!
Been there,done that!

That's the problem when people don't care about politics and don't vote we end up with goverments that just do as they please . i don' know what you do andyfreeze lets see how you feel when your turn comes and you lose your job.you to dog the liberals will bring this province to its knees if we don't do something i think when this happens to two of you then you will be to late. the only people who will win in the long run will be Campbell and Colman. i think you should also be wonderig what the liberals would be if the NDP never took on Campbell and his yes men to big companies Wake up before it is to late. This Liberal govt would take everything and every right away from the people of BC if we don't stand up to them

For the most part, I agree with socredible and dogs.

There is some good stuff in there, but also some things that leave you scratching your head.

Thanks for your post NMG- it must be the fleas.

It would be great if we (right/left, management/union) could put our collective heads to together to solve our issues and resolve our problems- unfortunately we have become very polarized in BC/Canada and divided and we are fighting ourselfs- exactly what the US wants- we need to get our collective act togehter to solve our problems and put our differences aside or we will get no where.

I see in the 11 point plan the workers have offered nothing to management to help them get back to work. Recently the workers at Catayst in Port Alberni came up with some very unique ideas to get back to work- they actually worked with management to come up with a plan- a novel idea. What did the rest of the union's say= TRAITOR's- no way- another example of management and the workers working together to solve problems.

I was pleasently surprised when I toured numerous US mills a year ago- at 10 am the mill was shut down for 15 mintues willing the worker switched jobs- I asked a worker what the heck was going on"""""""
( I explained to him I was from Canada)- He said we multi-task in this mill senority means nothing- he was very proud he knew most of the operations in the mill and took an interest in them. I bet you in Canada the USW would turn over at such a concept. Every mill worker should know and care about each other's tasks. "Team Work"

I totally agree with point 3 - my Mother has worked for 28 years paying into EI and now finds herself unemployed because of Pope and Talbots closure! These are small communities and they need help...Good to see them asking for it instead of just leaving!

Thanks, NMG, and what dogs has written above IS what we should really be doing. Besides scratching those fleas!

The answers to the problems that currently bedevil us, in my opinion, will NOT ever be found where they are currently being sought.

They can no more be fixed long-term, and probably not even short-term, by having 'super-mills' and open-door log processing, and more raw log exports, and "greater investment", than they can be by having "Jobs and Timber Accords", and 'Producer' subsidies and incentives for 'value-added', and tenure reform. Good intentions, no matter whose they may be, simply won't cut it any more.

What we're facing is NOT unique to BC. It bedevils EVERY jurisdiction, world-wide, and in other industries besides forestry. Though the current crisis in our northern forest industry accentuates more attention on it than elsewhere at the moment.

Fundamentally, it is an "accounting" problem. At the 'macro-economic'level. As it affects the flow of 'money' paid as incomes and the flow of 'price values' attached to all the products we need and desire that those incomes increasingly WILL NOT BUY.

It's only at that level a solution of any permanence will be found, and from that the necessary remedies can be made effective in the day to day marketplace in which we all participate.

When that happens, even if it were only to happen here in BC, our forest industry, and other industries, too, will stabilize in a manner that what makes the best sense from a physical standpoint will also make the best sense from an economic and financial one.

Don't fall for the old line that says, "Why yes, you might be right, but "changing the accounting at the macro-economic level", well, that's just too big a problem for us to solve as a Province." It most certainly IS NOT.

Though there'll be those that tell you that, or, "Only Ottawa could tackle something like that," and then, when it gets to Ottawa, "Well, we'd have to talk about it with other nations ~ we'll have an International Conference on it." And we all know just what comes out of "International Conferences," don't we?

Like the old proverb says, "If you're going to chop down a tree, chop it down!"

When we learn, as we will eventually regardless of whether you pay any attention to what I'm saying here or not, to focus on "the INCOME", and not on "the JOB" (and realize they are NOT the same thing, but two different things entirely), we might then begin to progress. Until then, those going round and round the round tables are just dancing in the dark.

dogs wrote:-"He said we multi-task in this mill senority means nothing- he was very proud he knew most of the operations in the mill and took an interest in them. I bet you in Canada the USW would turn over at such a concept. Every mill worker should know and care about each other's tasks. "Team Work."

No, I don't think that's necessarily so, dogs. For many years MacMillan Bloedel, which was the long time poster-boy for all that the IWA felt was the ultimate evil of Coastal corporate capitalism, had a sawmill division in the Lower Mainland where that very concept was embraced by BOTH the Company AND the Union. And the workers.

Interestingly, that mill was built mostly out of used equipment sourced from the Interior, much of it considered obsolete and outdated, (like the sash-gangsaw it used for cant breakdown, and its top and bottom circular saw headrig), but it was one of MB more profitable plants for a good many years, and cut a lot of low-grade red cedar that would've never made it into their bigger, more modern facilities.

Often times when people talk about 'profit' they do not realize that in the double-entry accounting system used universally in every business, 'profit' is NOT analogous to 'cash' received.

It is, rather, an accounting computation derived primarily, in the case of 'operating' profit, from the formula SALES REVENUE minus EXPENSE as these figures have "accrued" to various accounts.

Outside of the whole schedule of accounts that make up a Company's books, the figure for "profit" (or "loss") is virtually meaningless.

When a Firm borrows money to, say, erect a new sawmill, that money, as it is paid out, is recorded as the Firm's 'costs'.

These 'costs' will, to the greatest extent possible, be "Capitalised" and a portion of them then EXPENSED against annual SALES REVENUES over as long a period of time as possible into the future.

This, in accounting, increases operating profit, making it seem as if the Firm is more 'credit-worthy' to its Bankers, since the repayment of the PRINCIPAL portion of every Bank loan is taken from "profit", and is not an EXPENSE, as is the INTEREST paid on the loan.

While it is certainly true that a brand new sawmill will (hopefully!) not incur the kind of maintenance costs an older plant might (for awhile, anyway), in reality, in many cases good maintenance has been able to keep many an older mill just as efficient a producer, (and in some cases, more so), than the plant that replaces it.

The only problem is in the accounting. Since all maintenance 'costs' are generally fully charged against SALES REVENUES in the SAME YEAR THEY'RE INCURRED.

Even though the existing mill may be totally "paid for", and little or nothing is really to be gained in any 'real' sense in tearing it down and replacing it, the conventions of double-entry accounting often distort the reality, and make it seem as if building a new plant is a better option so far as 'profitability' is concerned. (And "credit-worthiness", too, which, to the large Firms, is far more important, (since they can then buy out their competitors, and shut'em down.)

There is a great deal of pre-mature scrapping of perfectly good plant that goes on throughout our entire industry. Another example, I think, of trying to make "facts" conform to desired "figures". Rather than having those "figures" properly represent what is actual "fact".