If there were ever a ship that couldn't be turned on a dime it was the granddaddy of B.C. forestry, Macmillan Bloedel. Somebody must have been thinking outside the box to even consider putting Tom Stephens behind the wheel of that behemoth several years ago. Never mind the restrictions of the box; Stephens defies the geometry that creates the box. He made significant positive changes to the company and was extremely popular with employees because of his management restructuring and communications. (Stephens has since left and MB is now a part of Weyerhaeuser).

Joanna Piros wrangled a few words from the man of few words, as he was loading his Vancouver-moored boat for a couple days at sea.

Q. What is the "Why Not" question we aren't asking about the Canada/U.S. Softwood mess?

A. I think you know that I've been a proponent of the idea that rather than kow-towing to the United States, Canada should exercise some strength at the bargaining table and remind the U.S. that it is extremely dependent on energy from Canada. If the U.S. wants to tax one natural resource, why not tax the others?

Q. Wouldn't that put us in a somewhat dangerous position of provoking the Americans?

A. You're already in a dangerous situation. You need to give George Bush some political cover, a reason [to deal]. So far Canada hasn't given U.S. politicians a reason to negotiate a deal. For a long time I advocated getting our customers to fight our battles for us and that has had some play but not nearly enough. In the absence of creating a coalition with our customers I think it's time for Canada to play tough. Most people in the U.S. don't have a clue how dependent we are on Canada. Most don't have a clue about the impact of the softwood agreement. Support from the homebuilders and others is, in many respects, too little, too late.

Q. The Senate just gave approval to a bill that gives the White House more power to negotiate trade deals. Is there some hope for us there?

A. That could be helpful but one of the problems we have is that we don't have a line item veto so there's a lot of baggage associated with that bill.

Q. I've heard an idea floated that would see you team up with Brian Mulroney to resolve the Softwood dispute. What do you think?

A. [laughs] I'm not really known for my political aplomb. I'm better at stirring the pot and raising hell. My approach to any problem, like Softwood, or like the labour problems we had in B.C. is to take a different shot. Generally speaking, conventional approaches have all been tried and didn't work in the first place so you have to try something new and different. You have to get passion involved and passion is a very powerful force. It's amazing what you can accomplish with it.

Q. Passion, as opposed to anger?

A. Passion is a positive thing whereas anger is generally negative. Passion to me is the most potent business drug there is. Get people passionate about their work or an issue and they can do what I used to call "outrageous things".

Q. What outrageous things are you doing now?

A. I'm a professional director; I sit on six corporate boards where I irritate the hell out of some CEOs. After being a CEO for many years it's fun to ask questions and not have to worry about having the answers. I'm in Vancouver regularly as I sit on two Canadian boards - TransCanada Pipelines and Norske Skog Canada.

Copyright © 2002 COUNTERPOINT Communications. All Rights Reserved. Terms & Conditions