Daishowa Boycott


Lubicon Lake Indian Nation
Little Buffalo Lake, AB
403-629-3945
FAX: 403-629-3939

Mailing address:
3536 - 106 Street
Edmonton, AB T6J 1A4
403-436-5652
FAX: 403-437-0719



July 30, 1993



Enclosed for your information are:



a press statement and newspaper article pertaining to the continuing boycott of Daishowa paper products,



an exchange of correspondence between Daishowa PR man James Morrison and Lubicon Settlement Commission Co-Chair Father Jacques Johnson,



a so-called "Fact Book" on the Daishowa boycott being sent to Daishowa customers by Daishowa Executive Vice President Tom Hamaoka (offering among other things legal and public relations assistance to "any customer experiencing boycott pressure"), and,



a resolution supporting Lubicon Settlement Commission recommendations and outlining a strategy for the up-coming Federal election which was unanimously passed at the annual assembly of some 600 Indian Chiefs from across Canada. (Lubicon Settlement Commission recommendations have already received broad support from across the country and internationally, including both of the main Canadian opposition political parties, organized labour in Canada and the major Canadian churches.)



The reason that information on the Daishowa boycott and Lubicon Settlement Commission recommendations are included in this pre-election package is that they're complementary and both tactically related to the up-coming Federal election. By effectively blocking the exploitation of natural resources from unceded aboriginal lands until there's a settlement of outstanding aboriginal land rights the Daishowa boycott will hopefully provide the Canadian and Alberta Governments with enhanced motivation to settle. And by offering the Canadian and Alberta Governments broadly supported recommendations for settlement the Lubicon Settlement Commission will hopefully provide the Canadian and Alberta Governments with clear-cut, responsible and already well-received means for achieving that settlement. Both the Daishowa boycott and Lubicon Settlement Commission recommendations should therefore receive as much support as possible during this pre-election and election period.



The Morrison letter and Hamaoka "Fact Book" are typically both full of outrageously self-serving distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies carefully expressed so as to leave the liar with ways to try and explain or qualify himself out of the fallacious impression which he has deliberately fashioned -- should he ever encounter someone who absolutely knows better. Those kind of lies make clear that the liar just isn't ignorant of the facts but knows that he's lying, and that he's lying with calculation and deliberation -- in this case as a function of conscious corporate policy and strategy.



The Morrison letter, for example, repeats the company line which first appeared in an April 12, 1991 letter to the Chairman of the Toronto-based Task Force on the Churches and Corporate Responsibility that there was never "a verbal understanding between Daishowa and the Lubicons involving the Lubicon traditional territory". Mr. Morrison makes this knowingly fallacious statement in response to the conclusion of the Lubicon Settlement Commission that Daishowa has indeed breached an agreement with the Lubicons to stay out of the traditional Lubicon territory until there's a settlement of Lubicon land rights and an agreement negotiated with the Lubicon people respecting Lubicon wildlife and environmental concerns. In other words Mr. Morrison creates one quite distinct impression for one audience, one purpose, one set of circumstances; namely, he creates the fallacious impression that there supposedly never was "a verbal understanding between Daishowa and the Lubicons involving the Lubicon traditional territory".



The Hamaoka so-called "Fact Book", on the other hand -- addressing a different audience with a different purpose and in the context of a different set of circumstances -- deliberately fashions a quite different but no less conscious deception. Responding to a Daishowa-conjured question "Has Daishowa failed to honour a pledge given to the Lubicons not to cut or use forest resources from the Lubicon area of concern until the land claim issue is settled with the Federal Government", Mr. Hamaoka states that "Daishowa believes that it has honoured its commitment (to the Lubicons) not to harvest on the proposed Lubicon "Reserve Area" and to consult with the Lubicons prior to harvesting near the reserve area". Mr. Hamaoka goes on to say that this "proposed Lubicon Reserve Area... is the area that the Lubicons negotiated with the Alberta Provincial Government".



Thus contrary to the fallacious impression deliberately created by the Morrison letter that there never was "a verbal understanding between Daishowa and the Lubicons involving Lubicon traditional territory", Mr. Hamaoka deliberately seeks to create the equally fallacious impression that Daishowa has "honoured a pledge (or commitment) given to the Lubicons not to cut or use forest resources from the Lubicon area". However, in order to create that impression without actually locking Daishowa into a commitment to act accordingly, Mr. Hamaoka purposefully answers a quite different question than he asks. While the question which he poses to himself pertains to the 4,000 sq. mile so-called "Lubicon area of concern" which the Lubicons discussed with Daishowa on March 7, 1988, Mr. Hamaoka's response pointedly refers only to the much smaller 95 sq. mile so-called "proposed Lubicon Reserve Area... negotiated with the Alberta Provincial Government" on October 22, 1988 -- over 7 months later. (Needless to say it wouldn't have been possible for Daishowa to agree to stay out of an area which wasn't delineated until over 7 months later. And it wouldn't have made any sense in any case for the Lubicons to make such a "proposed reserve area" agreement with Daishowa prior to final settlement of Lubicon land rights over the entire 4,000 sq. mile traditional Lubicon territory. But those are the kind of logical and logistical inconsistencies one creates by taking such gross liberties with the truth. Things get all twisted-up, confused, non-sensical, out-of-order and require further lies to try and explain.)



Similarly, after earlier trying out a half-a-dozen differing characterizations of the relationship between Daishowa and Daishowa contractors or subsidiaries in the Lubicon area -- including one company which is wholly owned by Daishowa -- Mr. Morrison's letter to Father Johnson repeats the company line which first appeared on October 17, 1990 in the form of claims to the media that "these companies are not considered Daishowa sub-contractors in that they'd normally be harvesting the spruce and leaving the aspen to rot on the ground (instead of providing that aspen to Daishowa's giant Peace River pulp mill)". He writes that "the logging companies referred to are in fact sawmill operations that have logged in the region for many years". He claims that "the logging equipment that was torched (on November 24, 1990) belonged to a contractor for an independent sawmill that is totally unrelated to Daishowa-Marubeni's operations". And he concludes that "it is therefore incorrect to imply that Daishowa-Marubeni has control over independent sawmills and their contractors, which of course have separate coniferous timber quota agreements with the Alberta Government (underlining added)." (Mr. Morrison of course here fails to mention that there has never been logging in the Lubicon territory of the horrific scope and magnitude now contemplated by Daishowa, or that the "separate coniferous timber quota agreements" to which he so cryptically refers in fact stipulate -- as a convenient function of Daishowa's extremely advantageous agreement with the Alberta Provincial Government -- that these supposedly "independent, totally unrelated" companies must provide Daishowa with the aspen which they cut down when they clear-cut unceded Lubicon territory.)



Mr. Hamaoka's so-called "Fact Book", on the other hand -- addressing a different audience under different circumstances and again wishing to create a different deception -- doesn't try to deny the obvious relationship between Daishowa and the network of small companies which by design and agreement with the Alberta Provincial Government feed Daishowa's giant Peace River pulp mill. Rather he denies, in another of those disingenuous questions which Daishowa carefully chooses to ask itself for the supposed elucidation of anybody dumb enough to take carefully constructed Daishowa propaganda at face value, that "Daishowa-Marubeni (or its subsidiaries or contractors) practice harmful and unrestricted clearcut logging". Instead, Mr. Hamaoka says, "Daishowa-Marubeni uses a two pass harvesting system whereby we patch cut less than 1% (5,000-6,000 hectares) per year of our productive forest area in about 150 scattered blocks which average about 40 hectares each in size". (The actual percent of the Daishowa lease to be "patch cut" annually by and/or for Daishowa is a matter of controversy. Some information suggests that the Provincial Government has overestimated the "productive forest area" in other parts of the Province by 30% with the result that Daishowa's annual allowable cut could be as much as 7%. The term "patch cut" used by Mr. Hamaoka to counter charges of clearcutting is in fact just a cynically calculated euphemism for clearcutting, indicating a bunch of 40 hectare clearcuts instead of simply one continuous clearcut. For those unaccustomed to thinking in terms of 40 hectare plots, something upon which Mr. Hamaoka is of course counting, he's in fact talking about clearcutting 150 areas each about the size of 80 football fields, "harvesting" about 11,000 trees a day to produce 1,000 metric tonnes of dehydrated pulp per day -- volumes and numbers reportedly about to be doubled to 300 areas each the size of 80 football fields and some 22,000 trees daily to produce 2,000 metric tonnes of dehydrated pulp per day.)



Other self-serving questions posed by Daishowa to itself in Hamaoka's so-called "Fact Book" further illustrate and underscore the nature of the Daishowa forest monster and Daishowa's deceitful propaganda campaign.



Mr. Hamaoka's so-called "Fact Book" asks "Is Daishowa-Marubeni cutting or using forest resources from anywhere within the Lubicon area of concern?" Daishowa then answers its own question by stating "No, Daishowa-Marubeni does not harvest or utilize any logs or residual woodchips obtained from the Lubicon area of concern". It says "In the past a small owner operator sawmill which became a subsidiary of Daishowa (Brewster Construction) traditionally harvested trees for 15 years without incident from an area recently defined by the Lubicons as their area of concern". It says "The Lubicons objected to this practice after Daishowa-Marubeni's acquisition, therefore alternate sources of timber have been found for this sawmill".



Phooey!



In fact Daishowa is not "cutting or using forest resources from anywhere within the (so-called) Lubicon area of concern" only because of a herculean effort by the Lubicons and Lubicon supporters to block repeated attempts by Daishowa to clearcut Lubicon trees -- attempts by Daishowa which have included, among other things, Daishowa "acquiring" Brewster Construction specifically to try and circumvent the now denied agreement between Daishowa and the Lubicons. (At the time of the Brewster "acquisition" Daishowa wasn't denying that there was an agreement with the Lubicons but only that its subsidiary Brewster Construction -- purchased after the agreement with the Lubicons was made -- wasn't covered by this agreement.)



As for the Lubicons only "recently" defining their area of concern -- an interesting choice of words obviously intended to create another fallacious impression -- it of course depends on how one defines the word "recent". Certainly the Lubicons were asserting their legitimate jurisdiction over unceded traditional Lubicon territory well before any non-aboriginal person ever set foot in Lubicon territory; well before there was a country called Canada; well before there was a Province called Alberta and well before there was a Japanese forest monster called Daishowa ravaging the world's forests. Moreover the Lubicon people had specifically defined their traditional territory publicly and in the Canadian Courts at least 8 years before Daishowa supposedly obtained rights to Lubicon trees from the Alberta Provincial Government; the Lubicon struggle had been front page international news for at least 4 years by the time Daishowa supposedly obtained rights to Lubicon trees from the Alberta Provincial Government; the Lubicon struggle complete with related maps of the traditional Lubicon territory was front page news specifically in reaction to the announcement that Daishowa had supposedly obtained the rights to Lubicon trees from the Alberta Provincial Government, and the Lubicons themselves provided Daishowa with a map outlining the traditional Lubicon territory pursuant to and immediately following negotiation of the now denied March 7, 1988 agreement between Daishowa and the Lubicons.



Cascading fallacious illusion upon fallacious illusion, as though one fallacious illusion has no relationship to the other, Mr. Hamaoka's so-called "Fact Book" next poses the question to Daishowa "Has Daishowa-Marubeni agreed not to cut or use forest resources from the Lubicon area of concern until the Lubicon land claim has been settled with the federal and provincial governments?" Daishowa's answer to itself, incredibly, is "No, to agree not to cut for an indefinite time could mean the closure of the Brewster sawmill...(and)...Daishowa-Marubeni does not believe that the Lubicon people or Lubicon supporters wish to threaten the jobs of the (Daishowa-owned) Brewster sawmill workers who had traditionally used a small quantity of logs from the disputed Lubicon area of concern for 15 years without incident".



That's a bit much even for Mr. Hamaoka and more than anything suggests his complete lack of regard for the literacy and intelligence of Daishowa's Canadian customers. Nobody who knows anything about the internationally publicized and well-known struggle of the Lubicon people, or for that matter about the internationally publicized and well-known misadventures of the Daishowa forest monster, could conceivably for one moment believe that Daishowa is going through all of these top level contortions over a few jobs in a small Daishowa-owned sawmill -- especially when Daishowa clearly didn't even buy Brewster for its piddling little sawmill but as a tactic to try and circumvent the agreement with the Lubicon people to stay out of the unceded Lubicon territory until there's a settlement of Lubicon land rights and an agreement negotiated with the Lubicon people respecting Lubicon wildlife and environmental concerns.



Mr. Hamaoka's so-called "Fact Book" asks Daishowa "Does the Daishowa-Marubeni Peace River pulp mill utilize advanced protection technology to meet environmental standards?" The answer Daishowa gives itself, not surprisingly, is "Yes, our mill uses advanced process technologies that reduce the amount of chlorine bleaching required". It says "These systems, combined with modern effluent treatment equipment and processes, ensure that the water and air resources are protected". And it claims that "Daishowa-Marubeni operates well within very strict licenced (sic) limits for major effluent quality parameters, including biological oxygen demand, total suspended solids and absorbable organochlorides". (This is a technical area where the Lubicons are advised by environmentalists that Daishowa's Peace River pulp mill in fact represents the ultimate development of the environmentally worst kind of outmoded pulp mill technology; namely, a bleached kraft pulp mill. As for meeting "very strict licenced (sic) limits for major effluent quality parameters", Alberta Provincial environmental standards are in fact industry (self) monitored (with predictable results), are generally recognized as inadequate and are seldom enforced even when it becomes unavoidably clear and publicly admitted that prescribed limits are being dramatically and continuously exceeded.)



Mr. Hamaoka's so-called "Fact Book" asks Daishowa "Does Daishowa-Marubeni replace what it cuts down?" Again not surprisingly the answer Daishowa gives itself is "Yes, all areas logged by Daishowa-Marubeni in Alberta are reforested and must meet strict Alberta Government free-to-grow standards".



In fact reforestation in Alberta is an internationally recognized scandal and Alberta is known to environmentalists around the world, along with the neighbouring Canadian Province of British Columbia, as the "Brazil of the North". Exactly how much logged forest is actually being reforested is another matter of continuing controversy but for sure reforestation in Alberta -- like the monitoring of pulp mill effluent -- is officially the responsibility of the involved forestry company; forestry companies are given a ten year grace period before they have any responsibility for reforestation and even the Provincial Government admits that nearly 40% of reforestation efforts in the Province are a failure.



Mr. Hamaoka"s so-called "Fact Book" asks Daishowa "Is the forest ecosystem in northern Alberta threatened by Daishowa-Marubeni's management practices?" Again the answer which Daishowa predictably provides itself is "No, on the contrary Daishowa-Marubeni is managing the forest resources on a sustained yield basis through a well planned harvesting and reforestation process, incorporating public input, which parallels the natural cycle of burning and renewal" (or, as one wag put it, "better than God himself").



In fact so-called "public input", like the monitoring of effluent and supposed reforestation in Alberta, was again orchestrated by Daishowa itself where and when and however Daishowa saw fit. Daishowa didn't see fit to seek input from the Lubicons at all, for example, claiming that they'd been advised by the Alberta Provincial Government that consulting with the aboriginal owners of the land Daishowa was proposing to clearcut might "jeopardize (non-existent) land claim negotiations".



Moreover to suggest that clearcut logging "parallels the natural cycle of (forest fires) and renewal" is just simply long since discredited hogwash. Dehydrating the northern Alberta forest and shipping it off to Japan for processing into paper products is significantly different than a natural process of forest fires and renewal, which, among other things, doesn't ship the involved biomass out of North American altogether (or at least until considerable value has been added providing Japanese jobs and contributing to the Japanese economy).



Lastly Mr. Hamaoka's so-called "Fact Book" has the unmitigated gall to have Daishowa ask itself "Is Daishowa-Marubeni cutting or using timber from the Wood Buffalo National Park?" That's one which you'd think Daishowa would like everybody to forget but apparently not if you believe that your readers are complete illiterate morons and your purpose is to simply and unabashedly to re-write well-documented history.



Daishowa's direct and straight forward answer to its Wood Buffalo Park question is "No, Daishowa-Marubeni does not have a logging lease in the Park, or manage a logging operation there". (Maybe not in the strict legal sense or at the moment but Daishowa's infamous and duplicitous involvement with the clearcutting of Wood Buffalo Park is in fact a matter of incontrovertible public record.)



For those who don't already know it Wood Buffalo National Park is an area to the north of the traditional Lubicon territory. It contains the largest remaining stand of giant white spruce in Alberta and is an area of international ecological significance recognized by the United Nations as having the same World Heritage Site status as the Pyramids and the Grand Canyon.



In the 1940s a company called Canadian Forest Products (Canfor) obtained a 49,700 hectare (124,250 acre) logging lease in Wood Buffalo Park from the Canadian Federal Government allowing it to clearcut 98% of the harvestable timber. That lease contained none of the minimal cutting and reforestation standards normally required today. In 1982 renewal of that same lease was rubber-stamped until the year 2002 -- apparently without any kind of critical review and still without incorporating the most minimal cutting and reforestation standards.



In 1990 Daishowa purchased all of Canfor's Alberta operations with the exception of the Wood Buffalo Park logging lease. The Wood Buffalo logging lease was deliberately left in the name of Canfor in order that Daishowa could avoid having to re-negotiate the extremely advantageous terms of that lease. As a condition of the sale, however, all of the logs clearcut in Wood Buffalo Park under the Canfor logging lease would go exclusively to Daishowa.



That's what Mr. Hamaoka means when he says "Daishowa-Marubeni does not have a logging lease in the Park, or manage a logging operation there". In fact that's the kind of slimy, deceitful word game he plays most of the time making him both difficult and unpleasant to deal with.



According to an internal Canadian Parks Service report embarrassed Parks officials had high hopes of renegotiating the archaic terms of the Canfor lease prior to Daishowa's "acquisition" of Canfor. Those negotiations predictably broke down when Canfor sold its Alberta interests to Daishowa. Parks officials were quoted publicly as saying that they "suspect(ed) that Daishowa is not interested in re-negotiating because it arranged the sale so that Canfor retains ownership of the lease in its own name while Daishowa gets exclusive rights to the timber". (You sure can't slip anything past those stalwart guardians of the Canadian public interest -- except maybe archaic lease terms in the first place.)



Following Daishowa's "acquisition" of Canfor the rate at which Wood Buffalo Park was being clearcut nearly doubled -- from 130,000 cubic metres to 220,000 cubic metres of wood per year. At that increased rate it was expected that all of the remaining harvestable timber would be clearcut by 1995 -- well before the end of the lease in 2002. The Daishowa plan clearly was to clearcut all of the remaining timber before the world community realized what was going on and put a stop to it.



The story about what was going on in Wood Buffalo Park hit the newspapers in October of 1990. By December of 1990 all hell was breaking loose with front page stories describing the pillage in gory detail, critical editorials and appeals for the United Nations to intervene.



By January of 1991 public pressure had become so extreme that then Federal Energy Minister Robert de Cotet felt compelled to announce that the Federal Government was going to try and buy back the Wood Buffalo Park logging lease. Daishowa responded by stepping up logging operations in the Park to 24 hours a day and indicating through Canfor that Canfor would be "receptive to the idea (of the Federal Government buying back the lease) as long as Daishowa's interest in the Wood Buffalo timber is satisfied by other sources".



In May of 1991 it was learned that Daishowa's terms for selling back the Wood Buffalo lease to the Federal Government included a ten-year, $12.5 million interest free loan; money to cover the cost of replanting all of the trees which it has harvested since 1982 and the right to continue clearcutting Wood Buffalo Park for another year. Shrewd Federal Government negotiators countered with an offer to allow "contractors for Daishowa" to continue clearcutting Wood Buffalo Park for another two years if they would pay their own reforestation costs. In the meantime of course "contractors for Daishowa" were literally working 24 hours a day to clearcut as much of Wood Buffalo Park as possible.



In September of 1991 Parks officials admitted that the clearcutting of Wood Buffalo Park "will continue for at least another year... (and)...could continue indefinitely if the current negotiations continue as they have for the past few months". In fact there had been no negotiations since the non-productive exchange of offers the previous May "because no common ground for an agreement has been found".



In December of 1991, under burgeoning pressure from environmentalists, New Federal Environment Minister Jean Charest took another unsuccessful run at Daishowa. Following the meeting a senior advisor to the Minister indicated that "the price for the buy-out is the chief stumbling block". The Ministerial advisor said that the two sides "are really at an early stage in the negotiations...(and that)...it would be adventurous if not stupid to put a date on when the public might expect a resolution to the issue". In the meantime of course "contractors for Daishowa" were continuing to clearcut as much of Wood Buffalo Park as possible.



Finally in January of 1992, in a manner strongly reminiscent of Daishowa's reluctant decision under pressure to at least temporarily stay out of the unceded Lubicon area, Daishowa/Canfor announced that they would not be proceeding with clearcut logging of Wood Buffalo Park at this time. However, also in a manner strongly reminiscent of Daishowa's position on clearcut logging of the unceded Lubicon territory, Daishowa/Canfor made clear that they reserved the "option" to return to clearcutting Wood Buffalo National Park at any time based on the lease which they argue gives them the right to do so until the year 2002. The "option" they were really reserving for themselves, of course -- again like in the Lubicon case -- is to proceed again in either or both places based upon their continuing assessment of what they think they can get away with.



What Daishowa figures they can get away with depends on how the rest of us react to their deceitful machinations. Let them know that people haven't forgotten the increasingly desperate plight of the Lubicons by supporting the boycott of Daishowa paper products. And let candidates for Parliament in the up-coming Federal election also know that people haven't forgotten the increasingly desperate plight of the Lubicons by pressing them to publicly accept and support the recommendations of the Lubicon Settlement Commission.


Attachment #1:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 16, 1993



BOYCOTT WOOLWORTH DEMONSTRATION



Friends of the Lubicon (FOL) will be holding a rally at the Woolworth outlet at the Intersection of Bathurst and Bloor Saturday, July 17, 1993.



A solidarity rally will also be held in Calgary at 11 am Calgary time to spread the boycott to the West.



FOL has called for a boycott on all stores owned by Woolworth Canada, Inc. to protest that company's use of paper bags manufactured by the transnational paper company Daishowa-Marubeni Ltd. The boycott was launched at a press conference on June 23, 1993, attended by the Chiefs of Ontario and the National Association of Japanese Canadians.



Over 26 other companies, representing over 2,700 retail outlets, have now joined the boycott of Daishowa paper products to protest that company's plans to clear-cut almost the entire unceded territories of the Lubicon Lake Cree Nation in northern Alberta. The Lubicon community has been devastated by oil and gas development over the last 15 years and sees clear-cut logging as the final blow to their once self-sufficient society. The boycott has been successful in keeping Daishowa off Lubicon lands for two consecutive logging seasons.



Despite months of attempted negotiations, Woolworth Canada Inc. has remained obstinate in its refusal to consider choosing another supplier for its paper bags. As past campaigns -- such as our successful three-month boycott against Pizza Pizza -- have shown, the economic impact of presenting such an issue to a company's consumers has proven effective in convincing that company to find another alternative. We hope that Woolworth Canada Inc. will listen to the rest of the buying public even if they are unwilling to listen to the concerns of First Nations here in Canada.



Stores which are subject to the boycott campaign include:

Kinney Canada

Woolworth

Northern Reflections

Northern Traditions

Northern Getaway

Casuals

Footlocker

Lady Footlocker

Champs Sports

Randy River

Ashbrooks

Reflexions

Woolco

Karuba

Canary Island

Fredelle

Willow Ridge

Silk and Satin

The Best of Times



For more information please contact:

Friends of the Lubicon (Toronto) 416-783-4694

or

Rosemary Brown, Calgary Daishowa Boycott Coalition at 403-282-7283


Attachment #2: The Edmonton Journal, Sunday, July 18, 1993



BAG BOYCOTT HITS STORE



The Canadian Press



Consumers shouldn't shop at Woolworth Canada stores until the company finds another paper bag supplier, say supporters of an Alberta Cree band locked in a land dispute.



Members of the Friends of the Lubicon, who demonstrated outside a Toronto Woolworth store Saturday, say the chain is using paper bags, produced by a company planning to clear-cut trees in territory claimed by the band.



"Such logging would be a death blow to Lubicon society," said group spokeswoman Suzanne Methot, who grew up on the territory 340 kilometres northwest of Edmonton.



She said her group hopes public pressure will keep the Japanese multinational paper company, Daishowa-Marubeni, Ltd. off the land.



The group also wants to help force the federal and Alberta governments to resume land claim negotiations with the Lubicon.


Attachment #3: June 15, 1993, letter from Daishowa-Marubeni to Jacques Johnson, co-Chair, Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review

DAISHOWA - MARUBENI INTERNATIONAL LTD.

Edmonton Office

1530 Royal Trust Tower, 10205 - 101 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5J 2Z2

Telephone: (403) 425-9122 Facsimile: (403) 426-7206



Dear Father Johnson:



I am writing this letter to express our concern about an issue raised in the Final Report of the Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review pertaining to Daishowa-Marubeni's activities.



As you know, we feel that the current logging moratorium has helped provide a suitable environment for meaningful discussion to take place directly between the Lubicons and the two levels of government. We share the disappointment expressed by the Commission Report that substantial progress does not yet seem to have been made to resolve this long-standing conflict. Daishowa-Marubeni cannot resolve this dispute, however, you can be assured that we have maintained pressure on the Federal and Alberta Governments to give this matter the highest possible priority.



In addition, Daishowa-Marubeni does not own the forestry lands in question. We must obtain our harvesting authority from the Alberta Government on an annual basis. As in past years, we are currently preparing our plans for submission to the Alberta Government and it is our sincere desire to continue to avoid the Lubicon area of concern while negotiations are proceeding. We would therefore encourage interested parties to express their concerns directly to the Alberta Government so that the current logging moratorium can be extended as long as possible.



If I may, there is one error of fact in the Commission Report that I would like to bring to your attention so it may be corrected for the record. Specifically, page two, fifth paragraph reads as follows:



"Lubicon negotiators presented a draft settlement agreement to provincial negotiators June 1, 1990. Negotiations with the provincial government broke down at the end of the month. In the fall, despite verbal understanding to the contrary, Daishowa confirmed that four companies would log in the disputed territory. In November some logging equipment was torched on Lubicon traditional territory. Seventeen Lubicon were arrested. Trial was set for January 1993."



These statements incorrectly say that there was a verbal understanding between Daishowa and the Lubicons involving the Lubicon traditional territory. Daishowa has stated publicly many times that no such understanding ever existed. We believe that the alleged existence of an "agreement" may have been based on a miscommunication originally, but the fact remains that there is no such understanding. In addition, the logging companies referred to are in fact sawmill operations that have logged in the region for many years, and in some cases, several decades, without incident. For example, the logging equipment that was torched belonged to a contractor for an independent sawmill that is totally unrelated to Daishowa-Marubeni's operations. It is therefore incorrect to imply that Daishowa-Marubeni has control over independent sawmills and their contractors, which of course have separate coniferous timber quota agreements with the Alberta Government.



Finally, we were disappointed that the Commission Report was silent on the fact that some Lubicon support groups continue to spread false information about Daishowa-Marubeni's activities and plans, and initiate boycotts and other hostile actions against us. This is a fundamentally dishonest approach that only serves to undermine the credibility of those involved. It is difficult for us to remain committed to helping the Lubicon Band achieve a fair and just settlement if such irresponsible actions continue.



We certainly hope that 1993 is a year in which this complex matter is finally resolved and that we can find a way to work constructively together to assist in the process.



Yours truly,

Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd.



J.P. Morrison

General Manager,

Edmonton Office


Attachment #4: July 13, 1993, letter from Jacques Johnson, co-Chair, Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review, to Daishowa-Marubeni



Dear Mr. Morrison,



Thank you for your letter of June 15th regarding the report of the Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review.



I agree with you that "the current logging moratorium has helped provide a suitable environment for meaningful discussion to take place directly between the Lubicons and the two levels of government". Indeed I remember writing a letter to Mr. Tom Hamaoka on September 27, 1991, asking specifically that Daishowa desist from its intentions of pursuing logging in the disputed area. I was most pleased that your company demonstrated the wisdom that it did and maintained the moratorium on this territory.



I also appreciate the fact that Mr. Hamaoka has brought public pressure on the governments to come to the negotiating table and bring a fair resolution to this long-standing issue. Such pressure is the kind of talk our governments are bound to hear and act upon.



Our Commission expressed regret that your company chose not to present evidence to our hearings at any time, despite an explicit invitation to do so while we were holding hearings in Peace River. Our final report was, of necessity, compiled on the basis of evidence presented to us, rather than on the basis of evidence withheld. The evidence presented convincingly by the Lubicon to members of this Commission is that your company had agreed to a moratorium on logging pending a settlement. This position of yours would have been taken, the Lubicon tell us, on March 7th, 1988, at Daishowa's Vancouver office. They tell us there was a demonstration of Lubicon supporters outside your office and Chief Ominayak and his consultant as well as Haida Chief Miles Richardson and President of the United Native Nations Ron George went in and had a congenial meeting with Mr. Kitigawa and Mr. Wakabayashi. Immediately following the meeting the Chief went outside and reported the good news to the demonstrators that an agreement had indeed been achieved between Daishowa and the Lubicons, ie, that there would be no logging until a settlement was achieved. It does not appear probable that the Chief would have invented such an important matter had he not heard it with his own ears. Could the real scenario be that your leaders, after having taken a fair and courageous stand in the meting with the Lubicon reversed it as they started to appreciate the real consequences in terms of possible delays and other costs to the company? It is our understanding that since that meeting Daishowa has made several claims about the nature of that agreement, and only relatively recently has Daishowa started denying that there was any agreement at all. Your letter appears to be part of a public relations campaign designed to re-write history in your favor and against the Lubicons' stated position on this issue.



You go on to deplore the fact that Lubicon support groups have been successfully mounting opposition to your company through boycotts and other actions and you deplore the fact that our Commission has not condemned such activities. Again, are you not a bit late to lodge such a protest with us? I'm convinced that the best way to remove this irritant would be to state in writing, publicly and unequivocally, that the company will under no circumstances engage in logging, or cause or allow others to engage in logging in its behalf, in the area claimed by the Lubicon people as their ancestral territory, until the Lubicon land claims have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Lubicon Nation. My understanding is that, if such an undertaking were made, the boycott of Daishowa products would be called off immediately, and I for one, would urge those engaged in the boycott to abandon it.



Sincerely yours,



Jacques Johnson, OMI

Co-Chair


Attachment #5: "DAISHOWA FACT BOOK"



May 27, 1993, Cover letter from T.R. Cochran, Director, Corporate Development



Thank you for your telephone call regarding the Friends of the Lubicon.



As I mentioned, we want to help our customers as much as possible to understand what is going on with this group. We know that it is very un-nerving to be threatened in this way, especially in the case where you and we are both innocent victims of something that can only be resolved by the Federal Government.



As promised, I am sending you a couple of copies of a brochure prepared by Daishowa-Marubeni (the company that has the mill in northern Alberta) which attempts to explain the background to this situation.



Please do not hesitate to call if you or any of your colleagues wish to discuss this further. If need be, I am also available to meet with you personally if you think that might be useful.



Yours very truly, T.R. Cochran


FACT BOOK

DAISHOWA BOYCOTT



CONTENTS



1. Introduction/Background

2. Daishowa-Marubeni's Position

3. Questions and Answers



ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/MATERIALS



4. Daishowa Customer Contact

5. Sample Boycott Letters

6. Sample New Release/Public Statement



1. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND



A Toronto-based native rights organization called "Friends of the Lubicon" initiated a national boycott of Daishowa consumer products on the grounds that the Peace River pulp mill and forestry operations in northern Alberta threaten the lives and well-being of the local Lubicon Lake Indian Band. Similar organizations have also been formed in Edmonton and Calgary that mimic this approach.



Daishowa has been targeted for this boycott action because Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd.'s Forest Management Agreement with the Alberta Government covers territory over which the Lubicon Band claim jurisdiction, in their ongoing dispute with the Federal Government.



The boycott action usually takes the form, initially, of a letter (see item 5) addressed to the principal of a retail business, requesting that they cease using Daishowa products -- bags or packages -- to support the case of the Lubicon Band against the Federal Government. If the business refuses to comply, the letter continues, the general public will be asked to withdraw their patronage.



These letters also indicate that copies, naming the retail business, are being sent to a wide range of provincial and federal government officials (the Prime Minister, Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, provincial premiers, etc.) -- a step which is calculated to cause considerable concern to the average retail business.



These businesses will also be identified on an international, environmental, computerized bulletin board.



It is important to Daishowa-Marubeni that any customer who receives such threats clearly understand the situation, the facts, and the issues involved before they respond to such correspondence.



This briefing package provides that information.



2. DAISHOWA-MARUBENI'S POSITION



In summary, Daishowa-Marubeni's position is that this boycott is unjustified, because:



1. Daishowa-Marubeni's Peace River operations are in no way harming the Lubicon people,

2. Daishowa-Marubeni has asked the federal and provincial governments to give the Lubicon land claim the highest priority.



Because Daishowa-Marubeni is completely confident that the boycott is unjustified, the company urges:



any customer that receives such correspondence, or any other form of boycott threat, should contact Daishowa-Marubeni at the address provided in this document (see item 4).



Daishowa-Marubeni will then provide any public/media information, legal advice, and spokespersons required to support any customer experiencing boycott pressure.



3. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS



Q. Is Daishowa-Marubeni cutting or using forest resources from anywhere within the Lubicon area of concern?



A. No. Daishowa-Marubeni does not harvest or utilize any logs or residual woodchips obtained from the Lubicon area of concern to support its Peace River pulp mill operations. In the past, a small owner operator sawmill, which became a subsidiary of Daishowa-Marubeni (Brewster), traditionally harvested trees for 15 years without incident, from an area recently defined by the Lubicons as their area of concern. The Lubicon people objected to this practice after Daishowa-Marubeni's acquisition, therefore alternate sources of timber have been found for this sawmill.



Q. Has Daishowa failed to honour a pledge given to the Lubicons not to cut or use forest resources from the Lubicon area of concern until the land claim issue is settled with the Federal Government?



A. No, although there is a difference of opinion on this question. Daishowa believes it has honoured its commitment not to harvest on the proposed Lubicon "Reserve Area", and to consult with the Lubicons prior to harvesting near the reserve area. This is the area that the Lubicons negotiated with the Alberta Government. In any case, neither Daishowa-Marubeni nor its subsidiary (Brewster) or contractors are currently harvesting or purchasing timber from the area of concern to the Lubicons.



Q. Has Daishowa-Marubeni agreed not to cut or use forest resources from the Lubicon area of concern until the Lubicon land claim has been settled with the federal and provincial governments?



A. No. To agree not to cut, for an indefinite time -- could mean the closure of the Brewster sawmill if alternative harvesting sources are unavailable.



Daishowa-Marubeni does not believe the Lubicon people or their supporters wish to threaten the jobs of the Brewster sawmill workers, who had traditionally used a small quantity of logs from the disputed Lubicon area of concern for 15 years without incident.



Q. Is Daishowa-Marubeni (or its subsidiaries or contractors) practising harmful and unrestricted clearcut logging?



A. No. Daishowa-Marubeni uses a two pass harvesting system, whereby we "patch cut" less than 1% (5,000-6,000 hectares) per year of our productive forest area in about 150 scattered blocks which average about 40 hectares each in size. Patch cutting in this way, combined with other forest management techniques helps protect wildlife habitat and ensures as much diversity as occurs through natural events such as forest fires.



Q. Does the Daishowa-Marubeni Peace River pulp mill utilize advanced protection technology to meet environmental standards?



A. Yes. Our pulp mill uses advanced process technologies that reduce the amount of chlorine bleaching required. These systems, combined with modern effluent treatment equipment and processes, ensure that the water and air resources are protected. Daishowa-Marubeni operates well within very strict licenced limits for major effluent quality parameters, including biological oxygen demand, total suspended solids, and absorbable organochlorides.



Q. Does Daishowa-Marubeni replace what it cuts down?



A. Yes. All areas logged by Daishowa-Marubeni in Alberta are reforested and must meet strict Alberta Government "free-to-grow" standards.



Q. Is the forest ecosystem in northern Alberta threatened by Daishowa-Marubeni management practices?



A. No. On the contrary, Daishowa-Marubeni is managing the forest resources on a sustained yield basis through a well planned harvesting and reforestation process, incorporating public input, which parallels the natural cycle of burning and renewal. (80% of the northern Alberta forest has had a forest fire in the last 80 years.)



Q. Do any Daishowa paper bag or cardboard products contain fibre from the area of concern to the Lubicons?



A. No. All Daishowa paper bags and cardboard products are manufactured using other sources of commercially available fibre. In fact, no Daishowa products of any type contain fibre from the area of concern to the Lubicons.



Q. Is Daishowa-Marubeni cutting or using timber from the Wood Buffalo National Park?



A. No. Daishowa-Marubeni does not have a logging lease in the Park, or manage a logging operation there.





4. CUSTOMER CONTACT



Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd.



Mr. Tom Hamaoka

Executive Vice President

Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd.

Suite 3500 - Park Place

666 Burrard Street

Vancouver, B.C. V6C 2X8

Phone: (604) 684-4326

Fax: (604) 681-8659





5. SAMPLE BOYCOTT LETTERS



COMMITTEE AGAINST RACISM

P.O. Box 3085, Station B

Calgary, Alberta

T2N 4L6

(403) 282-6845





January 11, 1992



BOYCOTT OF DAISHOWA PRODUCTS



Your business has been identified as presently using paper products manufactured by the Japanese pulp & paper company Daishowa.



We have enclosed an article from the TORONTO GLOBE & MAIL, of Friday, December 27, 1991, as a summary of where things stand for the Lubicons at the end of 1991, a letter to Mr. Tom Hamaoka, Vice-President, Daishowa Canada, and a Media Release which shows Daishowa's role in the impending destruction of the traditional Lubicon Indian society by trying to break an agreement struck between Daishowa and the Lubicons in March of 1988.



Based on the information contained in the enclosed material we request that you stop using Daishowa products.



This letter also serves as a notice to you that a boycott of your company, including a series of rotating information pickets, will be initiated unless we receive from you written confirmation, by January 24, 1992, of your intention to stop using Daishowa paper products.



We are looking forward to hearing from you.



Sincerely, Roland Leitner, on behalf of a coalition consisting of: Calgary Labour Council, Calgary Rainforest Action Group, Committee Against Racism, Northern Light and the Plains Indian Cultural Survival School



cc: Lubicon Lake Indian Nation, Ovide Mercredi, Regena Crowchild, Brian Mulroney, Audrey McLaughlin, Jean Chretien, Don Getty, Ray Martin, Laurence Decore, Tom Hamaoka, Takashi Saito, Daishowa Japan





DAISHOWA BOYCOTT COALITION

CALGARY, ALBERTA



27 March 1992



LETTER TO PAPER USERS AND VENDORS, RE: BOYCOTT OF DAISHOWA PRODUCTS



This letter is being sent to consumers and businesses that use and/or distribute paper products, cardboard or wood chips. Its purpose is to ask that your organization or business join the boycott of paper and wood chip products made by the Daishowa corporate group and its subsidiaries. This boycott is international in scope and has the following objectives:



- (1) to force Daishowa Canada Ltd. to honour its 1988 pledge not to conduct timber cutting operations on lands in northern Alberta that are the subject of the on-going land claims dispute between the Lubicon Lake Indian Nation and the Canadian federal and Alberta provincial governments.



- and (2) to pressure Daishowa Canada Ltd. and the Alberta government to change the terms of the current Forest Management Agreement between them, so as to ensure the survival of the present forest ecosystem.



Please ask your paper product or wood chip supplier to identify the producer of the products you use or sell. If the name of the producer is Daishowa Canada Ltd., Daishowa Forest Products, or any other member of the Daishowa corporate group please refuse to purchase or stock any more Daishowa products. Please make your reason for doing so clear to the supplier.



Your participation in this boycott will support the cause of the Lubicon Lake Indian Nation in their struggle with the giant multinational Daishowa group. Your participation will show industry and government that moral and environmental concerns cannot be ignored when agreements are made. Good corporate citizenship is a must in the modern world, and this includes the need for consumers and business to demand ethical behaviour in resource development.



The boycott of Daishowa paper and wood chip products is sponsored by a coalition of citizens' groups consisting of the Committee Against Racism and Northern Light. We request that you contact us at the address and/or telephone number listed at the head of this letter so that we may know if you are joining the boycott.



Sincerely, Stuart J. Baldwin, Boycott Co-ordinator



cc: Lubicon Lake Indian Nation, Ovide Mercredi, Brian Mulroney, Audrey McLaughlin, Jean Chretien, Don Getty, Ray Martin, Laurence Decore, Thomas Hamaoka, Daishowa, Takashi Saito, Daishowa



6. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY



Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd. knows that our employees and the natural environment are our greatest assets.



The safe, cost effective, and environmentally responsible production of high quality wood products for the world market is our primary goal.



In order to achieve this goal, Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd. is committed to safeguarding the environment.



We protect the quality of air, water, and forest resources by meeting or exceeding local, provincial, and federal regulatory requirements.



We practice sustained yield forestry and follow the principle of multiple use of the forest resources entrusted to our stewardship.



We value public input and we promote environmental awareness in our organization and in our communities.



Thomas Hamaoka, Executive Vice President, Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd.


Attachment #6: RESOLUTION PASSED, July 29, 1993, at the XIV ANNUAL CHIEFS ASSEMBLY at TSUU T'INA FIRST NATION, Resolution No. 37/93



WHEREAS an independent, broadly-based citizen's commission, called the Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review has reviewed and assessed both Lubicon and Canadian Government proposals for settling Lubicon land rights; and



WHEREAS the Chief of the Lubicon First Nation has indicated publicly and to the Chiefs of the First Nations of Canada that the Lubicon people accept and are prepared to work with the findings and recommendations of the Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review; and



WHEREAS the Commission has found that the Canadian Government has not negotiated in good faith but that the Lubicon people have; and



WHEREAS the Commission has found that Lubicon settlement proposals are reasonable and would provide the Lubicons with the means to once again achieve economic self-sufficiency while Canadian Government proposals aren't reasonable and would not provide the Lubicons with the means to once again achieve economic self-sufficiency; and



WHEREAS the Commission has therefore recommended that the Canadian Government agree to settle Lubicon land rights along the lines proposed by the Lubicons, or, alternatively, to refer any items in dispute to an independent three person tribunal consisting of one person selected by the Lubicons, one person selected by the Canadian Government and a third person selected by the first two; and



WHEREAS the Commission has also recommended that the decisions of such an independent three person tribunal be binding upon both the Lubicon First Nation and the Government of Canada and not be appealable to the Canadian Courts; and



WHEREAS the Commission has also recommended that any resource royalties derived from Lubicon lands prior to settlement of Lubicon land rights be held in trust and that there be no more resource exploitation permits or licenses issued by the Alberta Government in the unceded Lubicon territory until the issue of Lubicon land rights is resolved to the satisfaction of both the Lubicon First Nation and the Government of Canada; and



WHEREAS the Commission has also recommended that extinguishment of the Aboriginal land rights of the Lubicon people not be a condition of settling Lubicon land rights; and



WHEREAS the Chiefs of the First Nations agree with and support the findings and recommendations of the Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review; and



THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Chiefs of the First Nations gathered in Annual Assembly at the Tsuu T'ina First Nation this 29th day of July, 1993, do hereby resolve to demand that the Governments of Canada and Alberta accept and implement the recommendations of the Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review, and, to this end:



1. undertake a public information campaign to educate our peoples and Canadians generally about the findings and recommendations of the Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review; and,



2. encourage our peoples and Canadians generally to support the recommendations of the Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review, including candidates for election in the up-coming federal election and the leaders of Canadian political parties; and,



3. insist that candidates for Parliament in the up-coming federal election and the leaders of Canadian political parties spell out in detail exactly how they propose to settle Lubicon land rights and end this long-standing injustice, especially if they are not prepared to support the recommendations of the Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review; and,



4. direct that the Assembly of First Nations Land Rights and Lobby Units assist the Lubicon Lake First Nation to lobby the federal government and all opposition parties to accept and implement the recommendations of the Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review.





MOVER: Chief James Ahnassay

Dene Tha' Tribal Band



SECONDER: Grand Chief Joe Norton

Mohawk Council of Kahnawake