How will we pay for stuff without the resource sector?

[Glacier]

Show me the money.

As taxpayers wrestle with another government/teachers collective-bargaining process, and voters look to municipal elections across the province in a little less than six months, let’s get some things straight about the B.C. economy.

First, there is no question that Vancouver and its environs constitute a world-class urban environment. But the Vancouver region is not the centre of B.C.’s universe. In fact, Vancouver is at least as dependent on the natural-resource economy across the province from Port Hardy to Fort St. John as those resource towns are dependent on Vancouver.

You know the towns I’m talking about, where natural resources are turned into valuable export commodities like natural gas, salable minerals and forest products whose value then filters down through the entire B.C. economy, creating employment and a whole host of other economic benefits.

Resource Works recently showed the extent to which the B.C. resource sector drives jobs — more than half of which flow to Vancouver in the form of all those business and financial services purchased by the sector from suppliers, many of them based in the city.

While it should be fairly clear to readers that Vancouver is, in fact, resource-dependent, sadly it’s not clear at all.

So it’s ironic that Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson would support a motion banning the handling, storage and trans-shipment of coal at Vancouver’s marine terminals and berths, while on the other hand he asks senior governments to pony up perhaps a billion dollars to dig a tunnel down the Broadway corridor to help solve the city’s traffic congestion.

Granted, no coal currently moves through Vancouver, so his ban is largely symbolic. But where will the provincial and federal governments find the revenue for a costly tunnelling project if Robertson’s proposed ban on coal were to spread beyond his borders to neighbouring municipalities, where such a ban would have a crippling impact on public revenues?

Further, where would Japan source its metallurgical coal in order to manufacture the high-grade steel components the Broadway project would require?

On a similar note, there’s something equally ironic about a teachers union that pushes for additional studies into the well-studied question of coal shipments and health — not to mention that positions itself against bitumen pipelines — and then looks for a 13.75-per-cent wage increase over four years plus contract improvements to class size, composition and specialist teachers.

The leadership of the B.C. Teachers’ Federation has a right to represent its members’ interests aggressively. But to me it is astounding to see them, at the same time, campaign against a resource sector that helps to pay their wages.

The BCTF’s opposition to the transportation of oil in pipelines or coal on trains makes little sense when these industries operate in a responsible way, employ thousands of British Columbians and contribute enormously to the maintenance of our health care, education and social-service programs.

Last year, a PricewaterhouseCoopers report found that coal contributed significantly to the B.C. economy through employment, tax revenue and contribution to provincial GDP. The report stated that in 2011, the coal industry generated an estimated $3.2 billion in provincial GDP. That’s real money.

Equally important, more than 26,000 B.C. jobs can be attributed to coal. The average yearly wage for workers directly employed by coal companies was an estimated $95,174 in 2011 — more than double the average provincial wage of $43,500.

Taken together, natural resources revenue for B.C. in 2011-2012 totalled about $2.8 billion against B.C. taxation revenue of $20.2 billion, although it fluctuated from year to year between $2.5 and $4.5 billion, mostly as a result of natural gas royalties.

But no matter how you slice it, we’re talking about very large numbers. The contribution of the B.C. resource sector is large enough to be the financial backbone of infrastructure projects like transit tunnels or of public-education improvements.

The real question is: Is there an appetite among urban municipal and BCTF leaders to acknowledge the contribution of resource development to their own aspirations, or will they continue to want their cake and eat it too?

My participation with Resource Works is my attempt at getting more people to question the fundamental contradictions I see in the positions of some urban municipal and BCTF leaders.

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2014/06/01 ... ce-sector/

[GEW]

A very interesting, and accurate article; I had a few thoughts about it.
Leftist politicians don't understand what butters their bread. I would prefer Rob Ford over Gregor Robertson. At least Ford knows where the money comes from.
The BCTF should just shut up and teach. Their members have this misconception that they are "shapeing young minds". Certainly they have an important job to teach reading, writing and math skills, but keep your self righteous political views out of it.
Perhaps if the BCTF stuck to their jobs, and didn't spend money fighting rescource projects, the government would be a little easier on them.

[shoo]

This article makes a lot of sense!

[maryjane48]

i agree with the statement about coal, but not the pipeline companies, theres been to many accidents to say they operate in good faith

[Omnitheo]

The BCTF should just shut up and teach.

How are they supposed to teach if you're telling them they need to shut up? Or do you just want them to shut up and not teach things that go against your opinion?

BC has a large resource sector that goes beyond non-renewables. Teachers, along with scientists don't like the idea of basing an entire industry on coal, the dirtiest of all fuel sources, mostly because of scientific studies regarding how it negatively affects health, air quality, pollution. Also because of accidents like in Quebec (or anywhere in the world that fossil fuels get transported through).

And we pay for things through other resources, or through industries such as tourism, technology, sciences. If we're so strapped for cash that we can't fund our teachers, perhaps the first place we should look is what we're doing with the money we do have (such as giving it to private schools for example). It seems strange to me that BC has the lowest education funding in canada, but claims that we can't afford to give them more. Somehow Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick etc all manage to fund their teachers more with less income than BC.

[hobbyguy]

"The devil's in the details".

Properly and responsibly done and truly "in the interests of Canada and Canadians", I'm all for resource development.

Unfortunately those three things often clash with corporate maximization of profits/ROI - and that includes jiggery-pokery to minimize taxes paid.

If you step back, and look at things logically, you may find, as I do, that many of the directions in the development of our resources are illogical, and not really in the "interest of Canada and Canadians".

Perhaps the most controversial at the moment is the notion of shipping dilbit out through the west coast to Asia.

1. Does it make sense to burn a cleaner fuel, natural gas, to make a lower grade product like dilbit? Why not just export LNG?
2. Eastern Canada imports vast quantities of crude through important maritime areas. No question that pipelines are safer than maritime transport. Why not supply eastern Canada with the tar sands product via pipeline and achieve the following:

- reduced environmental risk, especially maritime as far fewer tankers would ply Canadian waters.
- far more jobs as the product would be refined and used in Canada.
- further enhancement to environmental protection can be achieved by recycling back the diluent via pipeline - instead of importing it.
- higher tax revenues. Much higher tax revenues, and little chance for "offshore" jiggery-pokery on those taxes.
- this one change of direction could solve our ongoing debacle in terms of our balance of trade and current account deficits - which costs YOU money every day in terms of a weaker Canadian dollar.

Hmmm...

And then meantime, go ahead and develop some LNG exports to Asia, thus bringing in the foreign currency to pay for stuff...oh, and also dramatically improving Canada's balance of trade/current account and providing a bunch more tax revenues...

The other logical question that keeps arising in my mind is that we have lots of Canadians unemployed. Should we not then be shifting our emphasis away from shipment of raw minerals etc. Think about how many jobs in BC are maintained/generated because we emphasize the shipment of lumber, not raw logs. Every single one of those folks employed in sawmills and pulp mills pays taxes, buys stuff in our communities etc. etc.

Logically, we can not process/refine/smelt ALL of our resources, but surely we can achieve a better balance.

And no, without resource development we can't pay for stuff. But let's try be less than dumb about the way we develop and utilize those resources.

[Rwede]

^^^ Great idea, HG! Too bad you forgot to figure out the economics of refining and processing here in Canada versus what our international customers are willing to pay for it.

Unfortunately, we pay too much for inefficient labour, making many of our refined/processed products far too expensive on a global basis. There's no market domestically to consume our huge resource production and there is always someone with cheaper and/or more efficient labour willing to supply our international customers.

Big fail on the leftists' part when they present simplistic solutions to complex international markets. That's why leftists are on the outside of business and government looking in.

[Omnitheo]

^^^ Great idea, HG! Too bad you forgot to figure out the economics of refining and processing here in Canada versus what our international customers are willing to pay for it.

Unfortunately, we pay too much for inefficient labour, making many of our refined/processed products far too expensive on a global basis. There's no market domestically to consume our huge resource production and there is always someone with cheaper and/or more efficient labour willing to supply our international customers.

Big fail on the leftists' part when they present simplistic solutions to complex international markets. That's why leftists are on the outside of business and government looking in.

We pay too much inefficient labour? So now you're making a case AGAINST Canadian jobs and workers? So why are we paying inefficient labour for resource extraction? certainly there are other countries which can extract oil from the ground more cheaply than we do, and not pay their employees as much as we do. Or should we bring in foreign workers to do this for us cheaply so that we don't have to pay as much?

[steven lloyd]

So why are we paying inefficient labour for resource extraction? certainly there are other countries which can extract oil from the ground more cheaply than we do, and not pay their employees as much as we do. Or should we bring in foreign workers to do this for us cheaply so that we don't have to pay as much?

"oh ya - you should see dem der Chinese fellers work."

[erinmore3775]

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/energy-ticker/2013/11/07/opecs-latest-prediction-160-a-barrel-oil-by-2035/

Now if OPEC's predictions are correct that longterm price of oil should hold at $110/barrel or even much higher for crude, perhaps it is time for Canada to develop a policy to upgrade its bitumen and sell the product.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/should-canada-refine-its-own-oilsands-bitumen-1.1248009
Should Canada refine its own oilsands?

Up to now the rationale thought is that it is too expensive to develop upgrading facilities near the tar sands.

[ Production in the oil sands is projected to double by 2035. At the same time, the number of refineries in Canada has been steadily decreasing, from more than 40 in the 1970s to fewer than 20 today. Several of the refineries that still exist are at risk of closing or are already scheduled to shut down.

While the federal government does not want to subsidize the oil industry. Yet there are substantial benefits to developing longterm energy policy the involves the Alberta government, oil producers, and pipeline companies. The government needs to take a page from the development of the Trans Canada Pipeline. They need to take the leadership in starting longterm planning with Alberta and the others involved in Canadian oil production, refining, and distribution. The are long term payoffs through jobs, taxes, and construction and production spinoffs.

The federal government can guarantee loans. It can be the catalyst to get everyone working together. Building upgrading facilities in the tar sand area means that it would face fewer environmental restrictions. The time is now for the government to act.

[The Rooster]

How are they supposed to teach if you're telling them they need to shut up? Or do you just want them to shut up and not teach things that go against your opinion?

BC has a large resource sector that goes beyond non-renewables. Teachers, along with scientists don't like the idea of basing an entire industry on coal, the dirtiest of all fuel sources, mostly because of scientific studies regarding how it negatively affects health, air quality, pollution. Also because of accidents like in Quebec (or anywhere in the world that fossil fuels get transported through).

And we pay for things through other resources, or through industries such as tourism, technology, sciences. If we're so strapped for cash that we can't fund our teachers, perhaps the first place we should look is what we're doing with the money we do have (such as giving it to private schools for example). It seems strange to me that BC has the lowest education funding in canada, but claims that we can't afford to give them more. Somehow Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick etc all manage to fund their teachers more with less income than BC.[/quote]

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

Spoken like a true Liberal . Our ism , sciences and technology , what a dreamer , without resources none of these would be funded , and as for education , teachers need to teach and not brain wash . When a teacher tells a child to stop reading comics and everything isthe governments fault , well , that teacher is is leading and is recruiting for their own cause and should be fired . Teachers need to stay out of family matters and concentrate on their jobs . After my kids started going to school the only colorful things that came ome were the swear words they picked up at school . I asked a teacher why my child was using such language , to which she replied " all the kids do it" .

Well mine didn't before going there. And aren't you incharge when the are there, I asked " do your kids speak like that too"
She responded " no, my kids toto private school , I'd never let them go to public school"

[rookie314]

It's a teachers fault because your kids swear? The ultimate in useless parenting! I thought I had heard it all but you take the cake. *removed*

[The Rooster]

It's a teachers fault because your kids swear? The ultimate in useless parenting! I thought I had heard it all but you take the cake.

*removed* my kids never swore till going to public school , that's why they don't go there anymore . Typical teacher everything is the parents fault , well just remember if we didn't have kids , YOU WOULDN'T HAVE JOBS

[The Rooster]

*removed*

[Merry]

Folks, please stay on topic and cut out all the personal remarks.
Thanks,
Merry