Today in the legislature debate continued on the Speech from the Throne. Late this afternoon it was my turn to respond. As you will see from the text and video of my speech, reproduced below, and as I noted in my initial statement, the BC Liberals are out of ideas and out of touch with the issues facing ordinary British Columbians.

The government started the throne speech with the words ‘Your government has a plan’. They spent the next forty minutes congratulating themselves for their past actions. Clearly, there was no plan and they have no plan. Perhaps the most telling statement within the throne speech comes from the section entitled “A Plan for the Future”. It says this:

“Government is in a position to do this because it has a plan to continue growing our economy into the future. From small business to tourism and technology, to natural resources, trade, and manufacturing.”

That quote is literally all it says under that heading. The BC Liberals did not present any plan for the future. Their message is ‘trust us’, we’ll keep doing more of the same. Yet to quote Albert Einstein, the definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

Text of Response to Speech from Throne

A. Weaver: I must confess that that truly was one of the more enjoyable speeches — fantasy, frankly — that we’ve heard in this Legislature.

I think I live in a different British Columbia. I think I live in a world of facts, as opposed to alternate facts, which is something that I’ll get to during the course of this response. I’m going to frame it in six different subsections. First, I’ll do a brief introduction about why I got into politics. Then I’ll go and talk a little bit about the February 2013 throne speech and the promises on LNG. Then I’ll come to this throne speech, and I’ll go over the alternate facts put forward by the B.C. Liberals and compare them with the true facts as to what is the state of our economy. Then I’m going to point out that the B.C. Liberals spend most of their time in reaction mode in terms of dealing with issues, rather than a proactive role. Finally, I’ll point out that they have no plan, and I’ll offer a brief plan that the B.C. Green Party will bring to this upcoming campaign.

You know, the Speech from the Throne, instead of presenting British Columbians with a vision or a plan, really was nothing more than a laundry list of old, unfulfilled promises and old projects repackaged as new. The speech represented an abandonment of any attempt by this government to actually address the realities affecting British Columbians today.

That’s one of the reasons I got into politics. I had a nice job at the University of Victoria as a faculty member in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, serving on international committees, working in the field of climate science. I was there early on when Mr. Gordon Campbell struck his climate leadership team. I was there when I witnessed a government, for the first time anywhere, recognize that this was an important issue to deal with and that it was important to bring together a suite of policies to think about the long-term consequences of the decisions we make today.

I was there and watched this play out, and then, come 2012, I started to see these policies unravel. I started to see a government tweak the Clean Energy Act to exclude the liquification of natural gas in LNG facilities. I started to witness the hype of promise of prosperity to one and all here in British Columbia through LNG.

I watched our provincial leadership unravel the promises and the policies of the former administration, and it’s continued through this period now, chasing this pot of gold from the proverbial LNG rainbow that’s always just moving a little bit further down the road. Now it’s because of market forces. I’ll come to that again shortly.

I told my students time and time again in public lectures, in high school lectures, in university lectures across British Columbia — frankly, across North America, and frankly, across the world — that when I talk about climate policy, I talk about the fact that it’s a matter of intergenerational equity. The decision-makers of today think more about re-election, in many cases, than they do about doing what’s right for the next generation.

One of the examples I use…. I say this to my students. I say: “How many need a hip replacement or a knee replacement? How many of you are in urgent need of surgical treatment?” None of them put their hands up. If I do the same thing with seniors, half of them have already had hip and knee replacements. What I say to them is this. If I’m a politician who only cares about re-election, maybe what I’m going to do in the election campaign is throw a bunch of money to reduce surgical wait times just shortly before the election.

Then I can point to that after the election and say: “Look. I listened to you, the people. I’ve responded to your needs. I’ve reduced those hip and knee replacement lineups, and now you can get those replacements and you’re no longer living in chronic pain with arthritic pain.”

But when a leader stands up and takes the policies forward to actually benefit the next generation, not just re-election, it requires support. What’s miraculous…. Well, not miraculous. Somewhat ironic is that we just heard an announcement from said-people opposite that they’re going to dump a pack of money to reduce surgical wait times. It’s exactly what I’ve been saying to my students for four, five, six, seven…. More than a decade. I’ll come to that in a second.

One of the other things I would say to them is that it doesn’t matter who you vote for, what matters is you actually get out and vote, because things won’t change unless you participate. They would say: “Well, they’re all the same. I don’t like any of them.” I would say to them: “You know what? Run yourself. Or find someone else to run.” There’s only so many times you can do that until you take a look in the mirror and say: “Well, I should do it myself.”

Low and behold here I am, and what an opportunity this has become as I’ve witnessed an opportunity for change that needs to occur in this province. I look across at the B.C. Liberals and I say they’re tired. They’ve been in power for 17 years. They don’t know what to do anymore, and that is exemplified in the throne speech today. I’ll come to that again a little later.

Let’s take a journey back to the February 2013 throne speech. Why I want to take a journey back to that date is because it’s important to put the context of the throne speech we’re debating today in with the last one, so that British Columbians can understand the kind of rhetoric this government puts out as promises that will never transpire. Let’s take a look at a few quotes.

From the Speech from the Throne, the B.C. Liberals say this. Seizing the LNG opportunity “can trigger a possible one trillion in cumulative GDP benefit to our province over the next 30 years. An estimated 39,000 new full-time jobs on average will be created during a nine year construction period. Once all facilities reach full production that could be over 75,000 new annual full-time jobs.”

They also say this:

“The second stream of revenues comes from new royalty revenues directly for the province. British Columbians’ share of resource profits could exceed $100 billion over the next 30 years.

“This resource belongs to the people of British Columbia — both here, today, and those that follow. It must be spent wisely, not just for the benefit of today’s citizens but also for our children and grandchildren.

“To protect this second stream of revenue for generations to come, your government is establishing the British Columbia prosperity fund” — which has had not a single penny of natural gas revenue put into it and has actually had revenue come into it from the hard-working British Columbians who have had to face increasing MSP premiums, hydro rates and ICBC rates.

That is where the money comes from that’s injected to this so-called prosperity fund. Another failed promise.

This is what else they say: “This will be a transformational change for our province, and we cannot afford to be shortsighted.” It goes further: “The B.C. prosperity fund can also target measures to improve social services and make life more affordable for families.” I would argue that in the four years since this throne speech, life has become far less affordable for British Columbians’ families, particularly in light of the out-of-control Vancouver and rest of province real estate market.

Whether it’s eliminating the provincial sales tax or making long-term investments in areas like education or vital infrastructure that strengthen communities, these are the kinds of opportunities that the B.C. prosperity fund was supposed to provide.

Here’s another quote: “Fellow British Columbians, this is the opportunity before us, but only if we seize it. It is not years away; it is now.” Unbelievable, because they truly were. And continue to be. Even after four years in this House, I find it hard to believe that the B.C. Liberals have the gall to tell people about their LNG Plan. Like, what planet are they living on?

Back in 2012 — back in 2012 — I pointed out that the reason that they were touting this was that there was a $12 gap between land and LNG in Asia and the price at Henry’s Hub here. That was in 2012. But I also pointed out that Russia had entered into 30-year contracts with China, that Australian supply was coming on stream, that the Isthmus of Panama would soon to be widened and America had infrastructure on the coast that was ready to ship natural gas, that B.C. had zero infrastructure on the coast, the world had a glut in LNG, and there was simply no market for it.

For the minister of gas to think that we’re going to build an LNG industry when the landed price of LNG in 2021 is less than it costs to take it out of the ground in B.C., I don’t know what planet he’s living on. It’s shameful that this message is being put to British Columbians, because it’s reckless irresponsible economically, and we have had lost opportunities as a direct consequence.

You know, let me flashback to March 3, 2015, when the minister of gas said this to me: “You didn’t do your research. You don’t know what you’re talking about.” And he further said this: “I know the status of discussions. I know when FIDs are coming. I know when the companies are planning on making those. I will enjoy the meal, to watch the member opposite eat his words in the next year or two. I will enjoy watching him eat his words, as final investment decisions come that are coming down the pike and he sees the construction of LNG.”

That’s two years ago. Well, you know, I haven’t had meals on my words yet, but I sure hope the minister has the courage to stand up and look British Columbians in the face and say, “I was wrong,” instead of trying to sell us more snake oil about how we’re all going to be wealthy and prosperous from an industry that we’re years behind and we’re uncompetitive with.

It’s reckless. It’s reckless economics, and I’m glad that the B.C. NDP have realized that this is reckless as well. So while he says, we on this side are all about the forces of no, the reality is that we are the forces of reality. You don’t chase Nortel stock and double down at $70 and invest taxpayers’ moneys at $50 just to say “Oh, what a great deal I have,” and then realize that you can’t sell it for a buck and change.

It’s this case with this government. Let’s go to Woodfibre LNG, an example that this government has touted. Well, what is Woodfibre LNG? It’s a plant that I argue will never be built. It’s a plant that every community around the Howe Sound is opposed to. It’s a plant where the government so desperate to land one LNG facility subsidizes that facility to the tune of more than $440,000 per job, per year, in perpetuity — 100 jobs created, subsidized at $440,000 a year.

You could take 880 people in Downtown Eastside Vancouver, give them $50,000 a year and say: “Go, find a home.” And we’d be better off, because we know that that money would be injected into the B.C. economy because low-income people spend the money that they’re given. They don’t scurry it away for some trickle-down economics 25 years from now.

But this is the economics of this government: build Site C, which will cost 13½ cents a kilo an hour, and subsidize LNG so that the ratepayer not only builds Site C at a crazy prize but subsidizes LNG. It’s not free market. There’s nothing free market about this government. It’s all about picking winners and losers and fulfilling irresponsible election promises that they’ve made to their corporate, crony donors.

Let’s come to this throne speech as another example of the alternate facts put forward by this government. It’s fascinating that the member for Surrey–White Rock talked just earlier in the members’ statements today, the two-minute statements, about the post-truth era that we live in. There is an example opposite of an entire caucus bound up in a post-truth reality, trying to squeeze water from a rock, just saying whatever it takes.

You know, let’s make B.C. great again. I guess that’s kind of the way the minister is going. Just remarkable — remarkable. Come May 9, people in British Columbia will recognize that we must move on. It is not responsible for us to continue down under the leadership of this government.

In the 2013 pre-election Speech from the Throne, the B.C. Liberals were a trillion dollars off the mark. In light of that, what are we going to make from this year’s Speech from the Throne? Once again, we’ve got a whole bunch of numbers tossed at us, and as most of us already know too well, things aren’t quite as rosy as their cherry-picked alternate facts.

Let’s have a look at this. Let’s talk about climate change in the throne speech. It says this: “B.C. is a recognized global leader on climate action, receiving the United Nations Lighthouse award for our revenue-neutral carbon tax”. Well, I might remind this House that that revenue-neutral carbon tax was introduced by Mr. Gordon Campbell in the year 2008. Actually, under this government, under Premier Clark, it’s simply been weakened and not increased, and there’s simply no climate plan.

For the B.C. Liberals, the present crop, to claim any leadership on the file is just an alternate fact. The leadership, well-deserved, goes back to Mr. Campbell; Mr. Barry Penner, who was the environment minister at the time; and the climate action secretariat that was put together and brought together leaders in policy from across the world.

Let’s take a look at poverty. This is what the throne speech says: “And between 2006 and 2014, the number of children living in low-income families in B.C. has fallen by half. Even as we continue to grow in population, British Columbia has 79,000 fewer children living in low-income situations.”

More alternate facts provided by the B.C. Liberals. The claims are widely out of sync with the numbers from the B.C. Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition, a respected group comprising 95 organizations across B.C. Their statistics are based on a poverty measure used internationally by researchers and organizers in the field. The coalition’s 2016 annual report shows that we have barely moved the dial on child poverty in B.C.

B.C.’s child poverty rate is 19.8 percent, or roughly 1 in 5, down only 5 percent from 2006. And that slight decline that occurred in B.C. occurred across the country and had nothing to do with policies that were brought in by the B.C. government.

Moreover and more shockingly, we are the only province in Canada without a poverty reduction plan. And we continue to have higher rates of poverty than the national average, no matter which measure you use, despite our wealth as a province and despite the beauty of the province — a place that we should be proud of, a place where there is no excuse for poverty to exist. It’s an unconscionable situation. Ending child poverty is within our reach, and both the evidence and strategies are there. All that’s missing is political will.

But this government would prefer to use cherry-picked numbers, rather than recognizing the severity of the problem for children across B.C. and committing to helping these children. It’s unacceptable.

Think about this: the throne speech, in light of the couple of days of questions we’ve had, on the tragic suicide of Alex, the young teenager who took his life. A child living in poverty fell through the cracks, and we tout numbers and are proud of numbers. Alternate facts. Shame on the B.C. Liberals.

Now let’s move to addiction treatment beds. The throne speech says this: “British Columbia was the first province to declare a public health emergency for fentanyl and the first to deregulate life-saving naloxone kits and get them into the hands of first responders and at-risk British Columbians. By March 31, 500 new addiction treatment beds and more than 20 overdose prevention sites will have opened.”

Now, it’s true that B.C. was the first province to declare a state of emergency for the overdose epidemic. But the tragedy of the crisis has continued to escalate post-declaration of that state of emergency such that we had 914 of our fellow British Columbians die of an overdose in 2016 alone. So the province declares a state of emergency, and fentanyl deaths go up. What does “state of emergency” mean to the B.C. Liberals?

In reference to emergency, they say they’ll have 500 new addiction treatment beds by next month, as if the 500 treatment beds weren’t an unmet election promise from four years ago, as if the number of treatment beds for youth haven’t actually decreased since they promised more and as if the province hasn’t been devastated by the rampant illicit drug crisis since then.

So 500 treatment beds promised in 2013 may have been appropriate when illicit drug overdoses were killing under 300 people in B.C. per year. But the rate of fatal overdoses has skyrocketed by more than 300 percent since then. And not only has the government failed to appropriately increase treatment access in response to this emergency, they are years behind in terms of beds guaranteed for us. There are currently 300 beds in the province, not 500 — 300 beds. The promise for 500 beds was made in the last election, to be met by 2017 — another failed promise.

In this year’s throne speech, the B.C. Liberals repackage old and unmet promises as somehow new and impressive plans. They are political calculations made with literally hundreds of lost lives.

To come back to the throne speech, a little more on LNG. Remarkably, I was ready to count the number of times LNG was referenced, and I couldn’t believe they were going to mention it. Well, they talked about unforeseen headwinds having created challenging opportunities for LNG. There is nothing unforeseeable about the current situation.

Last election, the official opposition was 20 points up in the polls. Everyone thought they were going to win. The B.C. Liberals had to come up with some Hail Mary pass of hope that they could con British Columbians with. So they threw that Hail Mary pass, much like the New England Patriots did in the recent Super Bowl. You know what? The pass was caught. And they went: “Whoops. We won the election. Now we have to deliver.” At what cost? They can’t deliver, and they’re still talking about unforeseen headwinds.

Again, going back to 2012, I’ve got my PowerPoint presentations from 2012, where I would talk publicly about the reckless folly of this promise, how the economics did not work, how there is a glut of oversupply and that it won’t work. There was nothing unforeseeable.

The global glut is getting worse too, and for this minister to have the gall to go to First Nations and tell them, “I’m going to offer you hope through LNG,” when Iran has just had sanctions lifted…. Now the world’s largest reserves of natural gas — natural gas where you just have to put a hole in the ground…. You don’t need to do horizontal fracking. You just put a hole in the ground. The world’s largest reserve is now available, and they have infrastructure on the coast.

The Philippines have recently discovered large reserves. It is folly. China has multiple times the shale gas of all of Canada combined. We are but bit players in the global market, and to think that somehow this is the path to prosperity — folly.

The singular focus on LNG has been detrimental to other sectors, like the tech sector that I’ve been speaking about for four years. Let’s go to the throne speech. It says this:

“In five years your government has supported tech through the BCTECH strategy, including a $100 million tech fund, and worked with B.C.’s teachers to introduce the basics of coding to all students in the sixth grade.

“Your government recently established a new provincial innovation network with UBC president Santa Ono as chief advisor. And this spring, Vancouver will once again welcome people from all over the world for the second annual B.C. Tech Summit.”

Well, you know why the first tech summit happened. The beauty of living in Oak Bay–Gordon Head is that there are an awful lot of civil servants who live in my riding, and I bump into them all the time. They were simply instructed: “Oops. LNG is a failure. Better come up with plan B. We need to have a tech summit.” This happened in August — plan B strategy, no foresight. So they held a tech summit.

Nobody takes them seriously on tech, particularly the tech sector. The reason why is this. This government is so afraid of bringing forward legislation to enable ride-sharing, so afraid that their taxi driver lobbyists will not donate money to them, that they’ll kick the can down the road. You know, you can’t be considered tech innovators if you’re not willing to embrace tech innovation yourself. This government is not. B.C. should, and it’s a missed opportunity.

I’m proud to say that we will have four CEOs of tech companies running on the B.C. Green ticket in this upcoming election, tech companies who are coming to us, because they look at the B.C. Liberals and say: “You have forgotten us.”

What about the teachers? B.C. Liberals say that they worked with B.C. teachers to introduce basic coding to all students. The amount of work that is done is essentially standing up…. I’m sure it happened this way. The civil servants were sitting around having their morning coffee. They opened the papers and went: “Oh my goodness. The Premier has announced that we’ve got to put coding in schools.” That’s the way policy is made in this government, and they just instruct that that coding is going to happen. You don’t just suddenly teach coding if you’ve never taught coding before. It’s remarkable the way this government thinks.

The tech sector has advanced in B.C. in spite of Liberal policies. On top of that, though, they are struggling to attract and retain employees because of the affordability crisis.

I’ll outline, when we put forward our platform, a path towards prosperity that actually builds on our strategic advantages, including the tech sector in this province, and recognizes that the resource sector has played, historically, a critical role and will continue to play that. But the way we will compete is by bringing the tech and resource sectors together, not by somehow imagining that in the race for the bottom we will be able to dig dirt out of the ground cheaper here than in, say, Indonesia — where we have to internalize externalities associated with the environmental and social costs here that they do not have to internalize.

Let’s come to agriculture. This is what the throne speech says: “In five years, your government has focused on identifying more markets and opportunities and succeeded in increasing the sector by 18 percent.” You know, it’s beyond belief that the B.C. Liberals would celebrate the success of B.C. agriculture, citing a marketing program that producers can only access by putting up money first, when in fact “local” in B.C. is now also code for Alberta and Washington.

Then there’s the tax credit to farmers for food donations to charities, so that producers, hard-put to keep their operations viable, can solve the Liberals’ inability to deal with poverty issues and get a tax credit instead of actual income. They’re hosting a conference to focus on food supply security in B.C.

For hard-working ranchers in this province growing quality animal protein — now barely able to stay afloat in the value chain of market factors orchestrated by this government — these comments are, frankly, insulting. That they are made by the same policy-makers that are happy to flood the fertile Peace Valley — calculated to have a capacity to feed one million people — for an irresponsible and badly conceived dam, is unconscionable. The disconnect, between what this Premier represents as a happening for farmers and what life is really like, is staggering.

Let’s come to “A plan for the future.” This is my favourite part of the throne speech. To those people watching this, riveted at home on channel 119, if you’re going to clip one section, clip this: a plan from the throne speech. Here’s what the throne speech says, under the heading “A plan for the future”:

“Government is in a position to do this because it has a plan to continue growing our economy into the future — from small businesses to tourism and technology, to natural resources, trade and manufacturing.” That’s it. That quote is literally the plan for the future. I’m not making this stuff up. You can’t make this stuff up. “Government is in a position to do this because it has a plan to continue growing our economy into the future — from small businesses to tourism and technology, to natural resources, trade and manufacturing.” That’s the plan.

So what is it? Honestly, I can’t believe that these people put this forward. You know, if one of my students had written this in a first-year exam, I would have given them a failing grade. If my children in elementary school came home and said, “Dad, I have a plan, and the plan is to have a plan. Trust me; we know what we’re doing,” I’d look at them and say: “You know, Son? You know, Daughter? It’s not quite good.” A plan requires some details, some evidence, some facts, some information — not: “Trust us; we know what we’re doing.”

My friend and colleague from Cowichan Valley has pointed out precisely what this is. I must quote it, because I am truly sad that he will not be here next session. What he said is this: “It’s all jiggery-pokery.” Hon. Speaker, it is jiggery-pokery.

I’ve got so many pages of notes. I could go one for another half-hour. I know that the members opposite would love that, but I won’t. I won’t talk about the opioid crisis, the false promises with health care, education, housing affordability. I could go on and on, but I see the green light there.

I will say this. The throne speech was 40 minutes of self-congratulatory patting on the back to alternate facts — put out as, somehow, truth. You know, we will offer an alternative to British Columbians in the coming election. I know my colleagues down this side of the House will also come up with a plan.

Let me just say this to the people of British Columbia. If people in British Columbia actually come out to vote, no matter whom you vote for, just come out to vote. We will be done with this government, and we will move on to a government that will actually put your interests first — not your corporate donors first; your interests first. It doesn’t matter if you vote B.C. Green or B.C. NDP. A 75-percent voter turnout means we all win.

In my riding in the last election, we had a 70 percent voter turnout. The member for Saanich North and the Islands, who’s sitting before me here — second-highest in the province, 69 percent. The member for Delta South, 68 percent. The top three ridings in the province where B.C. Greens — or independents — ran.

If people get out to vote and get beyond the cynical voter suppression tactics that will be put forward by the B.C. Liberals — the say-anything-John campaign, the Greens have no chance of forming government. Get past that. Come out to vote. Let’s be done with this lot. It’s time for British Columbia to get on a path forward, a responsible path forward that puts people first.

Video of Response to Speech from Throne

On Friday, February 3rd, I spoke to the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade. In my presentation I offered a vision for a prosperous British Columbia that builds on our strengths, not the weaknesses of others.

For those wondering about the direction that a BC Green government would take this province, please consider watching.

Video of Presentation to Greater Vancouver Board of Trade

Introduction

Over the fall, we have explored the concept of basic income in a series of posts on my website, asking for your feedback on each post. The responses I have received, through comments on the website and my Facebook page, as well as in calls and emails to my office, have shown me that there is significant interest in the idea. The reaction has included high levels of support and enthusiasm, as well as a number of concerns and questions.

Your comments and our research have informed our proposal for moving forward with exploring how basic income could contribute to building a better future in BC. In this final post I will summarize what our series has explored so far, and why we should consider basic income as a tool to help us rectify some of the problems that we face today in BC, and those that we may face tomorrow.

The status quo in BC

After a general introduction to the concept of basic income, our second post in the series discussed what poverty looks like in BC, the social assistance programs available and how they can fail to help those most in need. It also explored how basic income could help to alleviate poverty in our province. We know that BC has higher rates of poverty and child poverty than the national average: poverty stands at 11-16% and child poverty is even higher, at 16-20%, depending on the measure used. We also know that poverty is not spread evenly across population groups and regions in BC. Amongst lone parent families, for example, 50% of children live in poverty; aboriginal people, immigrants, and people with disabilities are also more vulnerable. Some regions are disproportionately affected: on the Central Coast, for example, the child poverty rate is above 50%.

After looking at poverty and social assistance in BC, we focussed on the trends we are seeing in the world of work: the rise in precarious employment and the trend towards increasing automation of jobs. Our third post outlined the shift we are experiencing as a population away from long-term, full-time work with benefits, toward short-term, part-time, and contract-based work. Federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau said recently that Canadians must get used to “job churn”, and this is a national trend that BC has not escaped: 75% of jobs created in the last year have been part-time. This situation has left many with significant financial insecurity,  juggling part-time jobs, struggling to make ends meet, and worrying about an uncertain future.

We also examined the increasing automation of jobs. Many studies predict that automation will eliminate a huge number of jobs across a range of sectors: one study, for example, predicts 47% of jobs are at high risk of computerization over the next 20 years. Jobs in manufacturing, transportation and warehousing, and office and administrative support are widely cited as the most susceptible (see here and here, for example). The impact on BC of job losses in these sectors would be very significant: the transportation and warehousing sector employs 140,000 people, while manufacturing employs 168,000, down 12,000 from a year ago. Already BC is one of the most unequal provinces in Canada, a problem that automation would exacerbate as it replaces mostly moderate-paying jobs and concentrates the benefits in the hands of a few beneficiaries.

Automation is an issue that those in the technology industry are taking very seriously: Amazon’s chairman, Jeff Bezos, has said “It’s probably hard to overstate how big of an impact it’s going to have on society over the next twenty years.” Yet despite widespread acknowledgement that automation poses a serious threat to our workforce and could have widespread social implications, it does not seem that our government is considering the seriousness of the issue. As politicians we have an obligation to take the threat of automation seriously and prepare for the possibility of a future in which the world of work as we know it is fundamentally altered. We cannot be left playing catch-up, merely reacting to the moves of industry and the development of technology, and rushing to create policies to mitigate the adverse consequences after they have already taken hold.

Recommendations

Already, the economy in BC is not working for many. Despite our wealth as a province, and the many resources on which we can draw, many people in our province face substantial financial insecurity. While we have seen economic growth and the Province projects a budget surplus of $2.24 billion, we have poverty levels that have remained unchanged for years, welfare rates that haven’t increased since 2007 and that leave recipients well below the poverty line, cities that are increasingly unaffordable, and unprecedented rates of food bank use. This is a reality that we have the opportunity, and the obligation, to change.

Moreover, simply raising the minimum wage is not an adequate answer, given the changing conditions in the world of work. A higher minimum wage alone fails to provide financial security to those affected by the rise in precarious employment, as you only benefit to the extent that you maintain stable employment with sufficient hours, something that is becoming unattainable for more and more people. Furthermore, it does not respond to the threat of automation. You need to have a job in order to benefit from a higher minimum wage, so it does not help people made redundant due to automation. Combined with the increasing ability of companies to automate, a higher minimum wage alone also runs the risk of accelerating the drive toward automation, by making humans relatively more expensive than their robotic counterparts.

Basic income could be an effective tool to tackle the persistent, intergenerational poverty we see in BC, and the shortcomings of our current social assistance programs. It could also help those who are suffering from the rise in precarious employment by providing some measure of financial security, and preventing those on the edge from slipping into poverty due to inadequate hours or job transitions. It could also provide a means to make up for the structural unemployment and inequality created by automation, and keep the economy going by providing people with purchasing power. Moreover, basic income has more visionary potential: it could provide people a stable base on which they can take entrepreneurial risks, pursue further education or retraining, or spend more time doing work that is essential to our society but is not financially rewarding, such as taking care of family members in need. It could therefore improve our wellbeing as individuals, and our resilience as a society.

To achieve these goals, a basic income would need to be high enough to raise individuals and families across the Province above the poverty line. To be affordable, it would likely need to be conditional on income (i.e. not a universal basic income to all individuals regardless of income, but rather a targeted payment to those who fall below a determined threshold). It would also need to take into account the differences in the cost of living across BC,  to ensure that people are not consigned to poverty in our cities.

Basic income holds exciting prospects for improving the lives of many in our Province and securing us against an uncertain future. However, it is important to recognize some of the uncertainties inherent in the idea and respond to the concerns raised by a number of people who have commented on previous posts.

The most common question is whether basic income would provide a disincentive for people to work. Would basic income encourage people to leave the workforce, or discourage them from joining in the first place? Or, on the other hand, would it provide a safety net, and a level of autonomy necessary to encourage entrepreneurship, retraining, and the pursuit of educational goals? What would be the overall balance in a community? Would there be an effect on young people specifically? The question of how basic income would affect people’s choices about working is difficult to answer in the abstract, and we have limited real-world experience from which to draw. The Dauphin, Manitoba pilot found that the negative effect on people’s willingness to work was negligible for the general population, but more pronounced for mothers with young children, as well as school aged teenagers from low income families, who completed high school instead of leaving to join the workforce.  The question of cost has been the second-most discussed issue. What would be the net cost of basic income? Would basic income create an inflationary effect? How would the social benefits translate into cost savings? Which social programs could be streamlined or eliminated, and which supports would need to be maintained, perhaps in an altered form?

Pilot Projects

The need to answer these questions, and others, leads me to conclude that pilot projects are a necessary step in considering implementing basic income in BC. A policy change of this magnitude has significant associated opportunities and risks, many of which cannot be quantified in the absence of real world results. Pilot projects would allow us to test how such a policy could be rolled out effectively, calculate the net costs, and measure the outcomes on families, individuals, and communities in BC.

A number of other jurisdictions are undertaking pilot projects. Finland and the Netherlands are both staging pilots in 2017, while the charity GiveDirectly is staging a pilot in Kenya. In Canada, Ontario is currently undertaking community consultations to inform their roll out of pilot projects in 2017: they are designing their pilots to determine whether basic income would be more effective than their current social programs in lifting people out of poverty and improving health, housing and employment outcomes. Quebec has also shown considerable interest in basic income. And earlier this month, MLAs in PEI voted unanimously to approve a motion calling for developing a basic income pilot project in partnership with the Federal Government. There is no reason why BC should be left behind in the move to test this idea.

To be effective in tracking the effects of basic income on some of the most pressing problems facing BC, including poverty, inequality, and economic change, the places selected for pilots should be particularly affected by these issues. Places such as Port Alberni and Prince Rupert provide examples of potentially appropriate sites for a pilot. One pilot site should be a relatively small town, to enable saturation in order to measure the effects on the community as a whole, as well as on individuals and families within that community. The project would likely need to be at least five years long, in order to enable us to measure the poverty, health, education and employment outcomes, and to calculate the net cost of such a program, taking into account the social benefits that accrue over time. We would seek the partnership of the Federal Government in testing basic income, as PEI has decided to do. We would also need to create residency requirements to avoid a large influx of people into the pilot site.

Beyond these fundamentals, a committee that is independent of the governing party should be established to undertake further analysis of basic income, to hold community and stakeholder consultations, and to advise on the details of how pilot projects should be designed and implemented. There are a number of specific issues that need to be investigated, such as: parameters for tax rates on earned income above the basic income threshold; interactions with other social programs and supports; how to mitigate risks to vulnerable groups; and how to incentivize the pursuit of education as well as paid and unpaid contributions to society.

Conclusion

We must address the unacceptable levels of poverty and inequality in our province, mitigate the adverse consequences of the rise in precarious work, and prepare for a future that may bring fundamental economic change through technological advance. To address these challenges we must create forward-thinking policies, informed by a commitment to a more equitable future and strong evidence on how to get there.

Basic income could be one such policy. It could help us alleviate poverty, foster healthier families and communities, encourage entrepreneurs and volunteers, enable education and retraining, and allow British Columbians dignity and autonomy while they navigate a changing world of work. With the right tools and foresight, and guided by evidence all the way, we can support a 21st century economy that is resilient, and craft a future that works better for everyone.

As premier in a BC Green government, I commit to introducing pilot projects that explore the costs and benefits of basic income.

I continue to welcome your comments, particularly if you haven’t yet had a chance to share your thoughts on basic income and the role it could play in BC.

Today I sent Rachel Notley an open letter inviting her to participate in a public debate to discuss the merits of the Trans Mountain pipeline and the evidence that underpins the decision to approve it. I also asked that it be televised so that every British Columbian who wants to know the facts can hear them live and unscripted.

Below I reproduce the open letter and media release.

Open Letter to Rachel Notley

December 5th, 2016

The Honourable Premier Rachel Notley
307 Legislature Building
10800 – 97 Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2B6
premier@gov.ab.ca

Dear Premier Notley,

British Columbians believe that economic development and environmental stewardship go hand-in-hand. We are home to one of the most pristine coastlines in the world – and we value it deeply. The approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline is perceived by many as a betrayal of these values, leaving us profoundly concerned about the risks our coastlines now face.

Last week, you announced your plans to come to British Columbia to market the merits of the Kinder Morgan pipeline. You looked forward to being able to make the case to British Columbians as to why you believe that the federal approval of this pipeline is a good decision. You noted that it was important for you to inform those British Columbians who link the pipeline to increasing greenhouse gas emissions and subsequent global warming, that in fact your climate change leadership plan has very effectively delinked these issues. If those are your honest intentions, I respectfully request that you hold these conversations publicly and not behind closed doors.

In the spirit of that request, I would like to invite you to a public debate where we can discuss the merits of this pipeline and the evidence that underpins the decision to approve it. I would also ask that it be televised so that every British Columbian who wants to know the facts can hear them live and unscripted.

I sought intervention status in the Trans Mountain National Energy Board hearing both as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and as a scientist with a PhD in atmospheric, oceanic and climate physics/applied mathematics. As an MLA, I represent the constituency of Oak Bay-Gordon Head, which is located along the Trans Mountain tanker sailing route on the southeastern tip of Vancouver Island.

As a scientist, I served as Lansdowne Professor and Canada Research Chair in climate modeling and analysis in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, where I worked for almost 25 years. I have been a Lead Author on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th scientific assessments and have authored and co-authored over 220 peer-reviewed, scientific papers. I am a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Throughout the hearing process, I have applied my scientific expertise, particularly in physical oceanography and modelling, to evaluate the evidence provided in the National Energy Board application. I reviewed thousands of pages of Trans Mountain’s application and I asked them over 600 questions to test their assumptions.

Based on the evidence Trans Mountain presented, I can say unequivocally that we do not have the ability to clean up an oil spill. Likewise, there is no scientific credibility to the claim that we will be able to build this pipeline and meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets or honour our commitments made under the Paris Agreement.

You are asking British Columbians to take on significant economic and environmental risk without giving us a real opportunity to have ours concerns heard. Hundreds of British Columbians were already excluded from the National Energy Board hearing process. Those who could participate were denied the right to orally cross-examine Trans Mountain on their evidence. Now they are rightfully concerned that backroom political decisions are being made against their wishes and interests.

If British Columbians are going to be asked to consent to a 580% increase in oil tanker traffic, they deserve to hear a full and open debate – not just media interviews and summaries of closed-door meetings. They deserve to hear you make your case, and to have your evidence tested. Until a proper dialogue has taken place on these topics, I do not believe there is any way for us to move forward.

My contact information is listed above. I invite you to please contact my office at your earliest convenience. My team would be happy to organize a public meeting for one of your upcoming trips to British Columbia.

With best wishes,

Dr. Andrew Weaver, OBC, FRSC, FAGU, FAMS, FAAAS, FCMOS
MLA Oak Bay – Gordon Head
Leader, BC Green Party

Media Release

For immediate release
Dec. 5, 2016
Weaver challenges Notley to debate on Kinder Morgan

VICTORIA B.C. – Climate scientist and B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver has written to Alberta NDP premier Rachel Notley, challenging her to a public debate on the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. Weaver’s challenge is in response to Notley’s plan to visit British Columbia several times to “sell” the pipeline project to British Columbians.

“In the last couple weeks we have seen a number of politicians tell British Columbians why the pipeline is good for them, without actually listening to what we are saying. If Premier Notley wants to come to British Columbia to ‘sell’ us on this pipeline, then her visit needs to be about more than media interviews and backroom meetings.  I am asking for a public forum that allows us to have an open and honest debate about what the evidence really says.

“I have heard both Premier Notley and Prime Minister Trudeau make claims that the evidence shows we can safely manage this pipeline. As both a scientist and the only BC MLA to serve as an intervenor in the National Energy Board hearings, I can say unequivocally that there is no evidence that supports the notion that we are prepared to respond to a heavy oil spill on our coast. It is critical that British Columbians are able to witness and take part in an honest debate about the evidence.

Weaver’s letter requests that the debate be televised so that British Columbians who want the facts “can hear them live and unscripted”.

“Part of the reason people are so concerned is that they have been shut out of this process. Hundreds of people were denied the ability to participate in the National Energy Board hearings. Those who could participate were denied the right to orally cross-examine Trans Mountain on their evidence. And now it looks an awful lot like political calculation and backroom horse-trading are ramming this pipeline through, despite serious concerns that have been raised by of British Columbians.

“You cannot address those concerns through closed-door meetings and media interviews. Only an open, unscripted debate will give British Columbians the opportunity to hear their concerns truly represented and responded to.”

A specific date will be set for the debate pending a response from Premier Notley.

-30-

Background:

Andrew Weaver received intervenor status in the National Energy Board hearing on the Trans Mountain Expansion Project both as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and as a scientist with a doctorate in applied mathematics and with specialty in physical oceanography and atmospheric and climate science. As an MLA, he represents the constituency of Oak Bay-Gordon Head, which is located along the Trans Mountain Tanker Sailing Route on the southeastern tip of Vancouver Island. He was the only B.C. MLA with intervenor status in the hearing process.

As a scientist, Weaver served as Lansdowne Professor and Canada Research Chair in climate modeling and analysis in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, where he worked for over 20 years. He was a lead author on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th scientific assessments and has authored and coauthored over 200 peer-reviewed, scientific papers. Weaver is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Throughout the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain NEB hearings, he applied his scientific expertise, particularly in physical oceanography and modelling.

Media contact
Mat Wright, Press Secretary, Office of Andrew Weaver, MLA
+1 250-216-3382 | mat.wright@bcgreens.ca

1. Introduction

This post is the third in our series exploring the concept of a basic income and its implications in BC. Our backgrounder provided an overview of the concept, the issues we are facing today in BC, and the potential implications of a basic income policy. Our second post investigated in more detail the current state of poverty, welfare rates and social assistance in BC. We are grateful for the high level of engagement that our series continues to receive on social media and this website, including the large number of thoughtful comments. Below we continue to engage with the common themes in the responses we’ve received. This dialogue is very important in exploring ideas and creating good policies.

Many of you have noted the current scarcity of jobs and the precarious nature of much work today. A second theme has been disagreement about the role of basic income in either disincentivizing people to join the workforce, or providing people the freedom and self-sufficiency required to achieve personal and professional goals. Finally, many of you spoke with optimism about the potential of basic income to exert a beneficial and potentially transformational effect on society as a whole. In responding to your comments and sketching what we believe are some of the key issues, here we explore the social impacts of precarious employment, the trend towards increasing automation of jobs, and the role that basic income could play in the changing world of work.

2. Precarious Work

The world of work is changing, most dramatically due to technological advance, especially automation, but also due to a trend away from long-term, secure, full-time work with benefits, toward short-term, part-time, and contract-based work.

Finance Minister Bill Morneau stated recently that Canadians need to get used to “job churn”, defined as making a number of career changes in one’s life through short-term contract-based employment. Since the 2008-09 recession, the majority of jobs created have been part-time or temporary. The October 2016 Canadian Labour Force Survey highlights this trend: 44,000 net jobs were created across Canada in the month of October, but this number reflects a gain of 67,000 new part-time positions and a loss of 23,000 full-time positions. Men aged 25-54 have been hit particularly hard: full-time employment for this demographic declined by 63,000 positions over the past year, while part-time employment increased by 36,000 positions. The trend is the same in BC: 55,000 new jobs have been created since October 2015, but the majority (41,000) of these have been part-time positions.

Contract-based employment, which is often short-term, with fewer hours and without benefits, is also on the rise. Many speak of the rise of the “precariat” – a workforce that moves from job to job, taking temporary positions with no benefits and little job security. While some individuals prefer the flexibility of part-time or contract-based work, for most, it is not a choice: many are forced to take the jobs available, and suffer from insecurity and low incomes due to lower wages and fewer hours.

Some sectors are hit much harder than others by these trends: the natural resource industries, manufacturing, and education sectors, for example, have seen some of the largest increases in temporary and contract-based work in recent years. There are indications this trend will continue, with the majority of new jobs being part-time, temporary, or contract-based. This would mean significant implications for the financial security and well-being of huge numbers of people across British Columbia and beyond.

3. Automation

Recent years have also seen unprecedented technological advance in speed and scale, and there has been much talk recently about the impending robot revolution – when robots could increasingly replace humans in a variety of jobs, and the rate of automation outstrips the rate of job creation. We are already seeing the impact of technology on work: automated voice recognition software is already replacing many call centre workers, car assembly plants use more robots than people, and driverless cars and trucks are already significantly impacting the taxi and trucking industries.

Looking forward, a number of forecasts suggest the potential for the rapid elimination of jobs across a range of sectors: a study at the University of Oxford, for example, found that 47% of jobs in the U.S. are at “high risk” of computerization over the next two decades. The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs report predicts that we are entering a fourth industrial revolution that will result in the net loss of 5 million jobs across 12 leading economies over just the next 5 years. Barack Obama’s 2016 economic report predicts that jobs paying less than $20/hour face an 83% likelihood of being automated, while jobs paying between $20 and $40/hour face a 33% chance.

Some argue that predictions about the effects of automation overstate the risk: that machine-caused unemployment has been predicted before and always been misguided; that automation lowers costs and creates new jobs; and that any transition would be gradual. Yet the rate of technological advance so far has exceeded most estimates. Furthermore, many of those speaking out most loudly about the disruptive potential of technology, and the need for a basic income policy to deal with the transition, come from within the tech industry itself, and thus have the most intimate knowledge of the technology and its future potential. Y Combinator, the Silicon Valley start-up incubator, is a major proponent of basic income as a way to smooth the disruption it expects to result from technological advance, and is currently running its own basic income pilot project in California.

We are already seeing the exacerbation of inequality as a result of technological advancement, as it further concentrates wealth in the hands of the few. Automation will further exacerbate inequality, as it disproportionately impacts low and moderate paying jobs and affects some sectors more than others: jobs in transportation, manufacturing, and office and administrative support are set to be hardest hit, and soonest. Bill Morneau recently specified that truck drivers and receptionists are most likely to see their jobs disappear in the coming years: these are the second most common occupations for men and women respectively across Canada, so it goes without saying that the social ramifications of large scale job loss in these occupations would be extremely significant.

4. The Role of Basic Income

If automation results in job loss at the rate many are predicting, the outcome could be an unprecedented level of structural unemployment. In this scenario, a basic income would make the transition more humane, as the alternative is a large percentage of people living on current social support systems like employment insurance and income assistance, which, as discussed in our last post, leaves many recipients below the poverty line. If inequality continues to rise, redistribution of the significant financial benefits of the robot revolution – especially for those adversely affected – is a moral imperative.

Basic income could also lessen the psychological strain on those affected by precarious work today, and on those whose work may be made redundant by machines in the future. Among the many comments we received, a number of you spoke to the emotional cost of dealing with uncertain work and an insecure future; in our last post we also touched on the psychological hardships of living on social assistance in BC. Some advocates of basic income even view it as a necessary means to prevent social breakdown resulting from the widespread unemployment and poverty that automation would cause. Basic income could also provide an essential way to keep the economy going by giving people the financial means to continue their participation in the market even if they are unable to find new jobs.

Basic income could also help mitigate against rising unemployment levels due to automation. To adapt to a changing world of work, people need the freedom and means to do so. Basic income could enable those affected by automation or the rise in precarious work to retrain for new professions, attend or return to university, college or trade school, or take entrepreneurial risks. Many basic income advocates view this flexibility as a promising way to spur further innovation and job creation, and create benefits for society as a whole. Basic income could also form part of a more visionary response to a changing world of work: by restoring a measure of financial security and freedom, it could help people create meaningful work (paid or unpaid) and foster social connections, as well as supporting volunteering work and community engagement.

5. Conclusion

At this juncture in our history, the dream of a stable, long-term career is disappearing for many, and the strong possibility exists that automation will fundamentally alter our economy and make many careers obsolete. We therefore have the obligation to create forward-thinking policies that enable us to cope with the magnitude of changes that may be coming our way. But we also have an opportunity to do more than just cope. We have the opportunity to harness these changes and create a more equitable and sustainable society that works better for all of us. 

We want to know what you think about the future of work in British Columbia. Please share your thoughts on precarious work, the threat and opportunities of automation, what work means to you, and the role you think basic income could play in a shifting economy. Thank you in advance for your comments.