BC Worker

The oil monopolies and big banks with which they are merged, the think tanks of the rich, and the Harper, Clark and Redford governments have carried out a huge PR campaign to try and convince the people of BC and Alberta that exporting bitumen from the oil sands is the road to prosperity. It seems that, according to the rich, the biggest problem facing Canada is the lack of pipeline capacity to export bitumen and that the job of governments is to act as salespeople for the pipeline monopolies Kinder Morgan, Enbridge and Trans Canada.

Christy Clark and the BC Liberals are trying to rescue themselves by claiming that they are the ones who can be counted on to "manage the economy" and that opposition to the Kinder Morgan pipeline is bad for the economy. NDP leader Adrian Dix recently announced that the NDP "does not support a radical transformation of the ports of Metro Vancouver into major oil export facilities." Dix pointed out, "The revised Kinder Morgan proposal would significantly increase tanker traffic passing by Stanley Park."

The private interests of Kinder Morgan and the mainly foreign oil companies that dominate the oil sands cannot be equated with the public interest. Facts show that building pipelines to export bitumen does not solve any problem of the economy. They provide a means for the mainly foreign-owned oil monopolies, which dominate the tar sands, to enrich themselves but do not lead to the building of a vibrant self-reliant diverse economy based on manufacturing and stable public services. Even existing refining capacity is threatened.

Why the Kinder Morgan Pipeline Is Bad for the BC Economy

The Kinder Morgan Pipeline runs from Edmonton to the Westridge marine terminal in Burnaby. It was built in 1953 as the Trans-Mountain Pipeline. Kinder Morgan bought the pipeline in 2005 and has increasingly been using it to carry diluted bitumen from the tar sands. Kinder Morgan is proposing to twin the existing line, increasing capacity from 300,000 to 750,000 barrels a day.

Operation of the pipeline involves only 35 permanent jobs. Kinder Morgan's track record makes an oil spill a very real concern, and a spill would put many other industries at risk. The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers' Union (CEP) has raised another concern that the pipeline expansion would make BC even more dependent on imported gasoline and refined products. Vancouver used to have four refineries. Only one is left, the Chevron refinery, which produces about 55,000 barrels a day of gasoline, jet fuel, diesel fuel and other products and where there are 400 jobs at stake. The Chevron refinery is supplied by the Trans-Mountain pipeline.

Since Kinder Morgan acquired the pipeline, it has increased the amount of oil shipped by tanker to the U.S. and Asia from 22 to over 60 tankers a year. CEP reports that the Chevron refinery may have to scale back production because it cannot secure enough oil to maintain current production because of these increased exports. According to Kinder Morgan's data, in 2010 only 25 per cent of the oil shipped in the Trans-Mountain system was refined for use in the Lower Mainland. Four per cent remained in Kamloops, 44 per cent was shipped to Washington State via pipeline, and 27 per cent was loaded onto tankers for shipment to the U.S. and Asia.

With the expansion, Kinder Morgan plans to increase marine exports to close to 80 per cent of the total pipeline capacity. Most or all of this would be diluted bitumen from the Alberta oil sands. Export of bitumen deprives Canada of value-added jobs in upgrading, refining and the associated petrochemical industry, threatens existing refining and increases Canada's irrational coast to coast dependency on expensive imported petroleum products.

Tanker Traffic in Vancouver Harbour

If expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline were approved, the terminal in Burnaby would be expanded from one berth to three to handle 400 tankers annually up from the current traffic of 60. The Aframax tankers proposed to serve the pipeline are approximately 245 metres long and have a capacity of 879,000 barrels. At this time, they are not usually fully loaded because of draft restrictions. Kinder Morgan is proposing to dredge under the Ironworkers Memorial Bridge to allow even larger Suezmax tankers access to the terminal. Suezmax tankers are 275 metres long and have a capacity of 1,759,200 barrels.

Bitumen spills pose different problems than conventional oil. This means that more and possibly different methods of remediation are required should a spill occur, particularly once bitumen sinks into the water column or soil. During the hearings into the Northern Gateway Pipeline, it became clear that Enbridge had not submitted plans for clean-up based on a bitumen spill, but only for a spill of conventional oil. There is no reason to believe it will be any different when Kinder Morgan submits its application. Efforts by the leading Canadian scientist in the field to conduct the necessary research on this problem have been blocked by the Harper government.

The Harper and Clark governments have put up roadblocks to the people, including the First Nations, to discuss in a rational manner these matters that are of great concern, particularly to deliberate on the direction of the economy. The considerations of private monopoly interests such as Kinder Morgan and Enbridge are very self-serving and narrow. Environmental destruction and harm to peoples' health are considered collateral damage. These monopolies and those who own and control them do not take into account the effects of such development on the broader economy, such as the necessity of manufacturing and investing in a vibrant stable public service sector and social programs, as their focus is narrowly on the return on their own particular capital and quarterly reports of their companies. These monopolies such as Kinder Morgan and Enbridge cannot be left to themselves to decide; they must come under the restrictions of government. The record of the Clark/Campbell Liberal government on serving private monopoly interests and not the people is an open book. Those who oppose the expansion of the Kinder Morgan Pipeline must work hard to make sure the Liberals are not returned to power on May 14. This is a good place to start to provide a new direction for the economy.

For Your Information
Kinder Morgan

Kinder Morgan is a U.S. energy monopoly formed in 1997 when a pair of former high-level Enron executives, Richard Kinder and William Morgan, bought pipelines and other assets from Enron. In the last 16 years, Kinder Morgan has amassed huge assets, describing itself as the third largest energy company in North America. It reports private ownership of 80,000 miles of pipelines, 180 terminals and two producing oil fields in Texas. It operates as four companies with a combined market value on stock exchanges of $115 billion. Kinder Morgan purchased the Trans-Mountain pipeline system in 2005.

Kinder Morgan has accrued a significant number of spills in its 16 years of operation, including four along the Trans-Mountain since 2005. Kinder Morgan's track record has been described as one of pollution, law-breaking and cover-ups. Kinder Morgan has been fined by the U.S. government for stealing coal from customer stockpiles, lying to air pollution regulators, illegally mixing hazardous waste into gasoline and the illegal dumping of chemicals to avoid landfill charges. It has also been found guilty of numerous labour violations including failure to pay overtime and repeated workplace safety violations.

CEO William Kinder was a major financier of George W. Bush's two presidential election campaigns and donor to Republican candidates and committees.

Time to Reverse Damage Caused by Clark/Campbell Government's 2003 Attack on Appurtenancy

In the late 1990s, powerful monopoly interests in the forestry sector began to campaign against forest regulations, which had existed in one form or another for over a hundred years. These regulations, specifically the concept of appurtenancy, required a company that harvested trees from BC forests to maintain nearby mills to process the logs.

The forest monopolies, especially those with mills elsewhere in Canada or the U.S., demanded the right to cut, mill and ship the logs in whatever way served their narrow private interests without restrictions even if this meant closing local mills and damaging BC forest communities. Responding to the demand of the private interests of the forest monopolies the Campbell anti-social Liberal government introduced its Forestry Revitalization Plan in March 2003.

The Liberal government plan made the regulatory changes demanded by the forest monopolies, which wiped out the requirements for appurtenancy. This resulted in a jump in the export of trees harvested in BC as raw logs either to the U.S. or Asia. The regulatory changes became one more factor in the cascading economic and natural crises in the sector, which tumbled one after another leading to mass layoffs and the bankruptcy closure or sale of many sawmills and pulp mills. The upheaval precipitated further consolidation and concentration of ownership of the forest industry in the hands of large monopolies, which have unprecedented power to dictate the direction of the economy to serve their private interests.

The changes brought in with the Forestry Revitalization Plan affected the following arrangements, which had been in place for some time. The description of the regulatory target of the Revitalization Plan comes from the anti-social Liberal government itself.

The plan states: "In exchange for the right to log portions of BC's public forest lands, the Forest Act requires licensees to abide by various existing regulations. Historically, these included an obligation to log a certain minimum level of timber each year; requirements to process that timber at certain mills (known as appurtenancy) or, more generally, in mills owned by the licensee (known as timber processing requirements); and penalties for transferring any part of a tenure, in addition to restrictions on subdividing tenure licences."

Forest workers and their communities did not have a say or control over the changes brought in by the Forestry Revitalization Plan, which eliminated the regulations described above. No profound discussion took place as to the consequences of such changes in the lives of forest workers, their communities and the forest economy. Any discussion in the mass media prior to the changes was simply to disinform public opinion. Spokespeople and economic experts of the most powerful monopolies, their political representatives in the Liberal government and mass media dominated talk around the proposed changes and did not allow any opposition or alternative proposals to develop. When problems or misgivings about possible bad consequences were pointed out, these problems were dismissed as necessary hardship to revitalize the sector.

The Liberal government quickly pushed through its neo-liberal forestry agenda with support from the mass media. This onslaught did not allow an opposition of workers, small business and community members to form or develop a pro-social alternative that would modernize the forest industry in ways that served the working class, the forest communities and local businesses in a sustainable self-reliant way. The people, in particular the forestry working class, lacked a vibrant organized independent political voice that could confront monopoly right and defeat it.

Monopoly right and its political representatives in the anti-social Liberal government effectively marginalized and victimized the actual producers and forest communities with these changes over which the people exercised no control. The Clark/Campbell anti-social Liberal government acted as political representatives of the most powerful, privileged private interests and did their bidding. This must cease! It is time for an alternative! The people must be in control of their destiny, which importantly includes their livelihoods and the direction of their economy and the political affairs of their industry, communities, province and country. Changing the direction of the economy in BC begins with defeating the Liberals on May 14.

Preventable Seniors' Homes Fires and Deaths

In the early morning on April 3, an 80-year-old senior, died when his residence, The Elms, a seniors' complex in Langley, BC caught fire. A number of other seniors were injured and hospitalized. The thirty-year-old structure was not legally bound to provide a sprinkler system, and did not have one. Martha Jane Lewis, executive director of the BC Centre for Elder Advocacy Support told media, "the government must be involved [because private owners] are not going to go the extra mile. It's costly to install sprinklers." A change to the BC Building Code in 1992 in BC made sprinklers mandatory in residential buildings four storeys or higher or in any building classified as a care facility. But older buildings are exempt from installing them unless they undergo major renovations.

In January 2013, the Ontario government promised to invest $20 million to install sprinklers in some of the thousands of senior care facilities in that province that do not presently have them. A major BC study, Sprinkler Systems and Residential Structure Fires, Exploring the Impact of Sprinklers for Life Safety and Fire Spread, written by Fire Chief Len Garis and Dr. Joseph Clare was published in January 2013 by the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Simon Fraser University.[1]

The statistics reveal the enormous importance of ensuring apartment buildings, and most certainly senior care facilities, be equipped with sprinkler systems:

"Overall, 8.7% of fires at residential properties occurred in buildings with complete sprinkler protection.

"94.1% of injuries and 99.3% of deaths overall occurred in properties that did not have sprinkler protection.

"Over one-third (36.6%) of fires in apartments occurred in sprinkler protected buildings. 95.0% of the deaths and 85.1% of the injuries in apartment buildings occurred without sprinkler protection.

"Less than one percent (0.9%) of the fires in single detached residential buildings occurred in the presence of sprinkler protection. All of the deaths and 99.4% of the injuries that occurred in these single detached structures occurred in the absence of sprinklers."

After the tragedy on April 3, co-author of the study Fire Chief Garis of Surrey, told a CBC noon-hour radio show that without question it is a social responsibility to provide seniors' homes with sprinklers. He underlined that they are life-savers and prevent horrible burns and smoke inhalation damage to seniors and save valuable care facility structures that are in short supply in BC. However, when the CBC interviewed Mayor Peter Fassbender of Langley City, who is now running as the Liberal candidate in Surrey-Fleetwood riding, he said that installing sprinklers would be so expensive for privately-owned facilities as to make the residential fees too high for the seniors. He said it was the policy objective of the Liberals to ensure sprinklers were installed, but he had no specific program to do so. Indeed, he reiterated several times that cost was the main obstacle to protecting seniors from devastating fires such as the one that destroyed The Elms in Langley and killed the 80-year-old resident.

Fassbender is an advocate of "austerity," part of the neo-liberal agenda of Christy Clark. For him and his political ilk, it's all about cost, not about the lives and well-being of vulnerable seniors living in residences without sprinkler systems, nor about preserving the structures in such short supply throughout the province.

On May 14, the polity in BC, most especially workers, youth and students, and seniors must get out and vote to throw out those who put "costs" before lives, those who shamelessly promote the delivery of services where a "bottom line" determines everything. Safe and quality seniors' residences are a social requirement to guarantee the rights of seniors in BC to a dignified old age. No self-serving excuses and no empty policy objectives are acceptable! The people demand action!

Regional Statistics for BC

British Columbia's development regions are: Vancouver Island/Coast, Mainland/Southwest, Thompson-Okanagan, Kootenay, Cariboo, North Coast & Nechako, and Northeast.

Each development region is made up of a number of regional districts. There are 29 regional districts in the province.

Population Distribution

Most of B.C.'s population is located in the southwestern corner of the province. In 2008, the proportion of the population, by region, was:

Mainland/Southwest -- 60%
Vancouver Island/Coast --17%
Thompson-Okanagan -- 12%
Cariboo -- 4%
Kootenay -- 3%
North Coast & Nechako -- 2%
Northeast -- 2%

About 88% of British Columbians live in urban areas -- cities, towns, villages and other incorporated districts. The remaining 12% live in rural (unincorporated) areas, some close to urban centres and some in more remote areas.

Mainland/Southwest is the most highly urbanized region: only 2% of its residents live in rural areas. By contrast, about 43% of residents in North Coast & Nechako live in rural areas, as do 36% in both Northeast and Cariboo, and 20% in both Thompson-Okanagan and Vancouver Island/Coast.

Seventy-seven per cent of British Columbians live in the southwestern corner of the province (left). About 88% of British Columbians live in urban (incorporated) areas (right).

Population Age Distribution

B.C.'s population is aging. In 2006, for the first time since census-taking started in the province, the median age in B.C. was just over 40 years.

Between 1995 (the first year for which regional workforce data is available) and 2008, the number of seniors -- people aged 65 and older -- grew by 34%. That was more than double the increase in B.C.'s total population during the same period (16%).

In 2008, 15% of the population of the province was aged 65 and older. By comparison, 19% of the Thompson-Okanagan population was in this age category. Seniors accounted for the smallest percentage of the total population in Northeast (8%) and North Coast & Nechako (11%).

Changes in the size and age structure of the population are linked to changes in employment over time. For example, because many people 65 years or older are retired, a large senior population in a region will mean that a smaller share of its residents is likely to be available for work.

Northern regions of the province have a more youthful population than other regions

Between 1995 and 2008, the number of children (under 15 years) living in B.C. decreased by 8% while the province's total population grew by 16%.

Mainland/Southwest, where the population grew by 23%, is the only region that saw an increase in children (3%) from 1995 to 2008.

Overall, the northern regions have a youthful population compared with other regions of the province, but even in the north the number of children is declining. In North Coast & Nechako, for example, children made up 20% of the population in 2008. Yet, between 1995 and 2008, the number of young people there declined by a greater proportion than in any other region (34%). North Coast & Nechako's total population shrank by 14% in the same period.

In 2008, Cariboo also had a relatively large number of children (18%), as did Mainland/Southwest (16%). Thompson-Okanagan (15%) and Vancouver Island/Coast (14%) had proportionally fewer children.

In every region, at least two-thirds of the population is between 15 and 64 years of age.

The largest share of the population in every region is of working age; that is, between 15 and 64 years. In 2008, the largest percentages of working-aged residents were in Mainland/Southwest (71%) and Cariboo (70%). Proportionally smaller working-aged populations were in Thompson-Okanagan (66%) and Kootenay (67 per cent), both having large senior populations.

Twenty per cent of the population in Northeast and in North Coast & Nechako is under 15 (left). Relative to its population overall, Mainland/ Southwest has the largest number of working-aged residents of any region in B.C. (right)

Workforce

In 2008, the number of working-aged women (1,530,600) in B.C. was slightly higher than the number of working-aged men (1,528,500). However, women made up slightly less of the workforce (47 per cent) than men did.

Among regions, women made up the largest share of the total workforce in Vancouver Island/Coast (49 %) and North Coast & Nechako (48%). In Northeast, where men outnumbered women, the percentage of the workforce that is female was lower (43%).

Women make up 47% of B.C.'s workforce (left). Eighty per cent of workers in B.C. have full-time jobs (right)

In 2008, 80% of people working in B.C. had full-time jobs (meaning they usually spent at least 30 hours a week on the job). Full-time work was most common in Northeast (83%) and Mainland/Southwest (81%), and least common in Kootenay (77%).

Although Kootenay had fewer full-time workers than any other region in 2008, it had proportionally more self-employed workers (23%) -- well above the average for B.C. as a whole (18%). Self-employment is much less common in North Coast & Nechako, where 13% of workers are self-employed.

Over the past two decades, unemployment rates have generally been lowest in Northeast and Mainland/Southwest and highest in Cariboo and North Coast & Nechako. While B.C.'s unemployment rate averaged 7.2% between 1995 and 2008, the rate in these regions averaged:
Northeast -- 5.7%, Mainland/Southwest -- 6.6%, Cariboo -- 9.4%, North Coast & Nechako -- 9.3%.

The self-employment rate is highest in Kootenay and lowest in North Coast & Nechako (left). Northeast and Mainland/Southwest typically have the lowest unemployment rates in B.C. (right)

Regional Economies

The regions' economies are as varied as their geographies and populations. In more rural areas, goods-producing industries play a larger role than they do in more urban areas.

The goods sector employs the largest share of the workforce in Northeast (39%), Kootenay (31%) and North Coast & Nechako (31%) -- all regions with a relatively large rural population.

The most highly urban regions are the least dependent on goods production as a source of employment. These are Vancouver Island/Coast (18% share of the workforce) and Mainland/Southwest (20%).

(Source: http://www.workbc.ca/Statistics/Regional-Profiles/Pages/Regional-Profiles.aspx)