Over the next few weeks I will explore the concept of “Basic Income”. I would be most grateful if you would share your comments, suggestions and concerns with me about this topic as we unpack what it all means in a series of upcoming posts. In this first post we simply provide a backgrounder.

1. What is “Basic Income”?

A basic income is a regular payment that the Government makes to individuals or families in its jurisdiction, which is not contingent on recipients fulfilling specific criteria (e.g. proving that they are active job seekers).

Basic income comes in two basic forms: means-tested and universal. In its means-tested form, a basic income is paid only to those whose income from other sources falls below a predetermined threshold, but is not contingent on recipients’ willingness to work. It is often referred to as “guaranteed minimum income”. In its universal form, a basic income is paid to all, irrespective of income from other sources. The unconditional basic income is often referred to as “universal basic income” or a “citizen’s’ wage”.

The idea of a basic income has become more popular recently, and has garnered support from across the political spectrum. In Canada, Ontario is planning a pilot next year, and Quebec, Alberta, and PEI have also raised the possibility of running pilots in the near future. Internationally, Finland and the Netherlands are both staging large-scale pilots in 2017.

2. Background

a. Poverty and Inequality in BC

The levels of poverty and inequality in BC are high relative to the national average. BC has higher than average rates of poverty, with poverty rates up to 16% and child poverty rates up to 20%, depending on the poverty measure used. BC also has one of the highest levels of inequality in Canada, estimated to be second only to Alberta.

For those needing support, our current system of social programs has a number of shortcomings. The siloed approach, with a myriad of different programs with specific eligibility criteria, allows people to slip through the cracks in the system and leaves many unsure which benefits they are eligible for. It also has a substantial administrative cost. There is significant stigma in collecting welfare today, and many argue that the invasiveness of the current approach, with its stringent conditionality and reporting requirements, strips recipients of privacy and dignity. Additionally, the current system may provide a disincentive for many to join the workforce, due to how quickly the benefits are reduced as any income is earned.

b. A Shifting Economy

Unprecedented technological advance, of rapidly increasing pace, is set to have a significantly disruptive effect on our economy. To now, we have seen deindustrialization and the closure of industries, together with a boom and bust economy in British Columbia that almost defines much of provincial economic history. With increasing automation, forecasts suggest the potential for the rapid elimination of jobs across a wide range of sectors. 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. The effects of automation are predicted to be most strongly felt in moderate and low-paying jobs: Barack Obama’s 2016 economic report predicted that jobs paying less than USD$20/hour face an 83% likelihood of being automated, while jobs paying between $20 and $40/hour face a 33% chance. In the UK,  one third of retail jobs are forecasted to be replaced by 2025. The effects of automation are predicted to spread to higher paying professional sectors as well, particularly the medical and legal professions. Technological advance has been attributed as a cause of increasing inequality by a number of economists because of automation’s effects on jobs and technology’s role in further concentrating the accumulation of wealth in the hands of top earners.

We are also heading toward what is commonly termed the ‘gig’ economy. We are shifting away from the 20^th century model of permanent full-time work with benefits toward precarious contract-based work, which is spreading at an increasing rate to workers at all levels of education, trade, skill and profession. Contract-based employment means employers, with an expanding labour pool, can negotiate pay, usually with few or no benefits, outside of union negotiated packages. Examples today include Uber drivers, health care assistants, and sessional lecturers at postsecondary institutions.

3. Potential Effects of a Basic Income: Opportunities and Challenges

Perhaps the most transformational promise of a basic income is its potential to raise recipients out of poverty. Living in poverty takes a significant toll, and the elevated levels of stress that it brings are associated with higher levels of alcohol and drug abuse, domestic abuse, and mental health problems. Those living in poverty are more likely to have inadequate nutrition, use tobacco, be overweight or obese, and be physically inactive. The adverse effects of growing up in poverty on a child’s ability to be successful in school and integrate into the workforce contribute to generational poverty.

The moral case for tackling poverty is self-evident: doing so would have a life-changing effect on the lives of those currently living in poverty and dealing with the problems it brings on a daily basis. The financial cost is also significant: the adverse outcomes of poverty lead to increased use of public health care, more hospitalizations, and lost economic activity, among other effects.

A pilot project undertaken in Manitoba in the 1970s suggests that a basic income policy can have significant impacts on the healthcare system: providing a basic income to residents of Dauphin, Manitoba for 3 years reduced hospital visits by 8.5%. The decrease in hospital visits was attributed to lower levels of stress in low income families, which resulted in lower rates of alcohol and drug use, lower levels of domestic abuse, fewer car accidents, and lower levels of hospitalization for mental health issues.

A basic income could also provide a means to respond proactively to the changes we are just beginning to see in the labour market. As the effects of automation are realized, providing a basic income would enable those affected to retrain for new professions, attend or return to University or College, take entrepreneurial risks, contribute to their communities or other causes through volunteering and civic engagement, and invest time in their families.

A challenge in considering a basic income scheme is predicting its effects on the labour market, specifically the extent to which it might provide a disincentive to work comparable to or stronger than the disincentive often associated with our current social assistance programs. The Dauphin, Manitoba pilot study provides some initial information on this question: it was found that the negative effect on people’s willingness to work was minimal for the general population, but more pronounced for mothers with young children, and teenagers aged 16-18 who completed high school instead of leaving to join the workforce.

A recent report by the Vancouver Foundation advocates paying all youth ages 18-24 transitioning out of foster care a “basic support fund” of between $15,000-$20,000. Doing so, they estimate, would cost $57 million per year, whereas the cost of the status quo is between $222-$268 million per year, due to the range of adverse outcomes that affect youth in transition, including intergenerational poverty, criminal activity, substance abuse, lost educational opportunities, and homelessness. Thus they estimate that establishing a basic support fund for youth in transition would result in savings to the Provincial Government of $165-$201 million per year.

The cost of a basic income program is difficult to predict, and estimates range widely according to assumptions made about the characteristics of the program and its social and economic effects. In costing a basic income it is important not to ignore the cost of the status quo: the direct costs of unemployment, poverty, and homelessness as well as the costs of managing the adverse effects. Nonetheless, the cost of a basic income program to BC is potentially significant, and costs associated with different implementation options must be fully worked out and tested.

4. So what are your thoughts?

While I recognize that I’ve only provided cursory information to initiate this conversation, I would like to hear your thoughts on the idea of a basic income. Do you think a basic income policy holds promise as a potential way forward in BC, allowing us to tackle poverty effectively and prepare for a future in which the nature of work is vastly different from what we have known in the past? What are your concerns about the policy? How would you like to see it implemented? Thank you in advance for your comments.

The community of Valemount is located on Southern Yellowhead Highway 5, twenty kilometres south of the intersection with Yellowhead Highway 16 that connects Prince George to Edmonton. With a population (including the surrounding area) of about 2000, Valemount, like so many other rural communities in BC, used to have a forestry-based economy. In the case of Valemount, it was the Slocan mill that was the engine of their local economy. But that mill shut down for good over a decade ago.

The people of Valemount and their elected Mayor and Council were resilient. Today Valemount has emerged as a tourism centre in northeastern British Columbia. And it’s about to get a whole lot more exciting.

Valemount is a natural hub for ecotourism. It is a fully serviced community sitting next to Jasper National Park and Mount Robson Provincial Park. It’s also located near the head of Kinbasket Lake, created when BC Hydro’s Mica Dam was built on the Canoe River. Canoe river is the northernmost tributary within the Columbia River drainage basin. McLennan river, one of the easternmost tributaries of the Fraser River also flows along the northern edge of Valemount.

Whether it be skiing or snowshoeing in the winter or white water rafting, fishing, hiking or even golfing in the summer, Valemount has a diverse array of outdoor activities for the young and old. The town’s push to become an ecotourism hub even extends to the town’s high school, home to about 75 students. In 2012, the school became branded as a  “mountain school”. The school developed curriculum and learning resources and activities involving outdoor and environmental themes in an attempt to arrest declining enrollment in the area.

Over the last few months I became more and more intrigued about the proposed Valemount Glacier Destination year round ski and sightseeing resort.

On Friday last week, shortly before meeting to learn more from key executives in the Pheidias group, Valemount Glacier Destination’s project proponent, I also met with Gord Stewart, Senior Vice President, and Philip Hochstein, President, of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of BC (ICBA). As noted on their website:

“The Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of B.C. services and represents B.C.’s construction sector. ICBA’s 1,100 members build in the multi-family residential and Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) construction sectors and are involved in virtually all major capital projects in British Columbia.“

The purpose of my visit to the ICBA was to connect with Mr. Hochstein about his work with the ICBA and to learn more about the objectives and priorities of the ICBA and its member organizations. Our conversation centred around responsible resource development. The discussion was far reaching. I emphasized the need for bottom-up project development that starts with community involvement from day one, businesses internalizing externalities, and government clearly outlining and enforcing the regulatory environment and ensuring compliance with it. We both agreed that the construction industry recognizes that project development must be done responsibly. Mr. Hochstein’s challenge to me, a challenge that I accepted, was to define for him what “responsibly” means. I will be working on that in the weeks ahead.

This is an important challenge since in British Columbia, it seems like it is impossible for any resource project to move forward without meeting substantive resistance. In a forthcoming piece I will outline a number of key reasons why I perceive this to be the case as well as solutions as to how we might collectively move forward. The number one reason in my forthcoming post is this:

1. Bottom up project development. Before a project can even get off the ground, local towns and First Nation communities must be treated as partners. After all, our natural resources are more often than not located in traditional First Nation territory and the back yards of our rural communities. Attempting to market a project to a community in a top-down fashion is bound to fail. On the other hand, if First Nations and local towns are supportive, they will become the strongest advocates for the projects.

So what has this got to do with Valemount Glacier Destination — absolutely everything. Some of you might have been following the controversy surrounding a proposed ski development at Jumbo Glacier. Not only was the nearby town of Invermere opposed to the project, but so were the Ktunaxa Nation who ended up in the Supreme Court. But in every failure is the birth of a new opportunity and that is what is playing out now in Valemount.

In a rare example of community-driven success, the genesis of the entire project was actually a phone call from a small citizen delegation authorized by the mayor and council of Valemount in 2011. The phone call was a simple request that Oberto Oberti, distinguished architect and president of the Pheidias Group, consider a proposal similar to what was proposed in the Jumbo Valley for the Valemount area. The Valemount delegation (which would go on to form the Valemount Ski Society), outlined how a project with good elevations (over 3000m), summer skiing on glaciers, as well as world-class year-round sight seeing could be achieved in the immediate area around Valemount, but better still, without the construction of significant new roads into remote valleys. In short, a world-class high alpine development could be achieved in the front country of the Robson Valley, in a busier highway, with a more exclusive existing market-base (Edmonton and Jasper) as opposed to the more competitive market base of Calgary, Banff and the Kootenays. A project in Valemount would also be located very close to, but not within the UNESCO World Heritage Sites of Mt. Robson Provincial, and Jasper National Parks. Oberto Oberti’s first action after receiving the phone call was to arrange a meeting with the Simpcw Nation. The resulting collaboration of local support has survived three changes in Mayor and Council at both the municipality of Valemount and the Simpcw First Nation and no organized opposition has yet to come forward against the project.

After some initial seed money to achieve a Master Development Agreement, a small group of Vancouver based investors who founded Valemount Glacier Destinations Ltd. was joined by Greg Marchant and Hunter Milborne of a larger Toronto investment community. As such, a very rare kind of project has emerged in which a small town joined forces with the local First Nation, solicited expertise from Vancouver, and will build Phase One entirely with no real estate pre-sales with Canadian investment. The undertones of Nation Building can not be denied in this aligning of forces. The Canadian investors are already lined up to make this project a reality and open for skiing by the time the 2017/18 ski season gets underway. But of course, that’s only if the BC government will give its final approval.

So what’s special about this project. I encourage you to see for yourself by browsing through the 325 page Master Plan. In particular, have a look at Appendix 3, Valemount Resort Environmental Impact Assessment put together by Vancouver-based Enkon Environmental Limited. I’ve seen  a number of Environmental Assessments over the years and this one strikes me as a particularly fine example of what can be done.

The Pheidias Group have a vision for an environmentally sensitive year round ecotourism resort that will provide visitors to British Columbia with another destination rivaling that of Whister-Blackcomb. It will give visitors stunning views of Mount Robson, the highest mountain in the Canadian Rockies. The peak elevation of the site is on Mt. Arthur Meighen (3,205 metres). Compare this to the peak elevations at Whistler (2,240m), Blackcomb (2,440m),  Sun Peaks (2,080m), Mount Washington (1,588m), and Big White (2,319). The high peak elevation is such that skiing on glaciers will likely be year round for quite some time to come. In addition, this elevation, coupled with a more northerly location bodes well for long term operations in light of ongoing global warming and the increased likelihood of more precipitation at lower elevations and latitudes in the form of rain instead of snow in the years ahead. What’s more, the resort has the potential to be carbon neutral by tapping into the nearby 5.7 MW Hystad Creek small scale hydro project. There’s also incredible geothermal energy potential in the region.

After meeting with the Pheidias Group, peppering them with questions, taking copious notes, and subsequently reading the Master Plan, it’s clear to me that this is an exciting project that I am keen to see move forward. So what’s the delay?

The irony is that for a government so proud of touting the “let’s get to yes” mantra and so chuffed with itself for proclaiming in law that the first Wednesday in March is “Red Tape Reduction Day“, the delay falls squarely in the realm of government red tape precluding the project from getting to yes.

The project is six months behind and the latest layer of red tape is a bizarre new requirement for a four lane 80 km/hr highway to take skiers on an 8km journey from Valemount to the Resort Base village.

Valemount Glacier Destination is an ecologically sensitive project that will provide an incredible economic stimulus to northeastern BC. In the words of Oberto Oberti, President of the Pheidias Group, “We want to work with nature, not against nature”.

If the BC government spent a fraction of the energy they are spending in a desperate attempt to land a hypothetical LNG facility on actually moving real projects forward, we would be leading North America in the development of a 21st century diversified economy.

The “forces of no” within the BC Liberal government really need to “get to yes” in a timely fashion on this project.

Earlier this month I toured the Prince George region to meet with a number of key stakeholders in the region. It became apparent from my visit that we have an incredible opportunity in British Columbia for continued innovation in our resource and tech sectors.

Prince George real estate is still reasonably priced, the surrounding environment is picturesque, there’s a first rate university in town. Prince George is a hub for northern BC and on the rail line from the Port of Prince Rupert to Chicago, one of greatest, if not the greatest, rail distribution centres in North America.

So what is missing? Why is there not a thriving and expanding hub of local technological innovation in partnership with the resource, forestry and agricultural sectors and capitalizing on the research expertise at UNBC? Why wouldn’t companies that are concerned about access to renewable energy, a skilled workforce and being able to attract and retain their workers not setup in Prince George? They’re located on the railway connecting Chicago’s North American rail distribution centre to Prince Rupert, a gateway to Asian markets.

The answer is simple. Broadband redundancy in the region precludes major investments in this area.

Today in the legislature I rose to question the Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizen Services about government’s plans to introduce broadband redundancy in Prince George.

Question

 A. Weaver: I wish to thank the members opposite for applauding my introduction of my question again.

It’s become perfectly clear to everyone in this House — and, frankly, everyone in British Columbia — that this government’s plans for LNG have been nothing short of a monumental failure. There’s no backup plan. The government is void of ideas and in desperate need of help.

As leader of the B.C. Green Party, a party that cares about social, economic and environmental prosperity for all British Columbians, I visited Prince George earlier this month. I was struck by the potential for this region.

Prince George is a home of a first-class research university, the hub for northern B.C.’s forestry and natural resource sectors and is on the rail line from Port of Prince Rupert to Chicago, one of the greatest distribution centres in North America. The cooler climate of Prince George, relative to other jurisdictions on the west coast, also offers it certain unique advantages.

My question to the Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services is simple. Has this government considered providing broadband redundancy for the Prince George region

Answer

Hon. A. Virk: I’d like to thank the member from Oak Bay for his leadership, first of all, and for the question. The fact that he has gone to Prince George and recognized the great universities and the great north of British Columbia. Perhaps those to his right could learn from that leadership and go realize that there’s more to this province than those four or eight or ten square blocks in downtown Vancouver.

But I digress. The question that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head poses…. I’ve had staff, in fact, look into that. There are actually multiple backbone fibre lines to Prince George — up 97, east on Highway 16 and south on Highway 5. So there are redundancy lines to Prince George.

We’re going to continue to work on connectivity all across the province. If the member so wishes, I can certainly have him have a briefing with our connectivity experts at his earliest availability.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: In fact, the broadband redundancy does not exist in Prince George as we speak. Bringing the typically urban-based tech and the typically rural-based resource sector together, through partnership and innovation, will play a vital role in a 21st century economy that builds on British Columbia’s strategic advantage.

Prince George is an obvious strategic location for such growth, but in order for this to happen, it’s critical that broadband redundancy exist in the region — high-speed broadband redundancy. The government launched a $5 million ad campaign promoting its actions this past November. But instead of the slogan “Our opportunity is here,” the government could actually create that opportunity in investing in needed infrastructure to benefit B.C.’s northern communities.

At $20,000 to $25,000 per kilometre, a 300-kilometre distance from Prince George to Chetwynd would cost a mere $6 million to $7.5 million to lay. Tech investors, data distribution centres and other innovators will not invest substantively in Prince George until broadband redundancy exists. The best part about this opportunity is that the cost to government is small and the potential benefits are unbounded.

To the Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services, my question is simple. Will the government commit to invest the $6 million to $7.5 million, today, required to ensure high-speed broadband redundancy for Prince George and real, sustainable and diversified economic prosperity to the north? And, if not, why not?

Answer

Hon. A. Virk: I know that the members from Prince George and members of the rural caucus certainly applaud the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head in terms of his continued interest in rural British Columbia and continued interest in the north.

As I said, there is multiple backbone fibre lines to Prince George, but let’s look beyond that. The member will certainly recall the additional $10 million committed to increase connectivity all across British Columbia. We’re at 94 percent. We’re at 94 percent right now; 94 percent of British Columbians currently have access to high-speed Internet — considered in today’s technology environment.

We are committed to ensuring that every single British Columbian is connected to high-speed Internet because it’s become a stable item. We are committed that every single person in British Columbia by 2021 has access to high-speed Internet.

Video of Question Period

Media Release

Media Release: February 25, 2016
Andrew Weaver – Tech investment in Northern BC lacking
For immediate release

Victoria B.C. – Andrew Weaver, Leader of the B.C. Green Party and MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, today offered government an untapped opportunity for job creation and technological innovation in northern British Columbia through the introduction of broadband redundancy into the region.

Prince George is home to a first class research university, the hub for northern BC’s forestry and natural resource sectors, and on the rail line from the Port of Prince Rupert to Chicago, one of greatest rail distribution centres in North America. The cooler climate of Prince George, relative to other jurisdictions on the west coast, also offers unique advantages for data centres.

“Bringing the typically urban-based tech and typically rural-based resource sectors together through partnership and innovation will play a vital role in building a 21st century economy that builds on British Columbia’s strategic advantages,” says Weaver. “In order for these to be possible, it is critical that broadband internet redundancy be brought to the region. This means investing in another line of broadband connectivity for Prince George.”

Broadband redundancy is when a city has at least two lines of connectivity to the rest of the world. Currently Prince George only has one direct highspeed line to Vancouver.

“Tech investors, data distribution centres, and other innovators will not invest substantively in Prince George until the infrastructure is there,” says Weaver. “The best part about this opportunity is that the cost to government is negligible and the potential benefits are unbounded.”

At a cost of about $20,000 to $25,000 per kilometre, the 300 km distance connecting Prince George to Chetwynd would cost between $6 million and $7.5 million to lay.

Telus invested $75m in a new data centre in Kamloops which opened in 2014.

“The fact that Kamloops has broadband redundancy is one of the key reasons they invested $75 million in a new data centre,” says Weaver. “This is just one example of the potential opportunities that could exist.”

Andrew Weaver asked the Minister of Technology and Innovation if he would support an investment in broadband redundancy for the city of Prince George today in Question Period.

-30-

Media contact
Mat Wright
Press Secretary – Andrew Weaver MLA
Cell: 250 216 3382
Mat.wright@leg.bc.ca
Twitter: @MatVic

Parliament Buildings
Room 027C
Victoria BC V8V 1X4

Two weeks ago I visited Prince George to meet with a number of key stakeholders in the region. The purpose of my trip was threefold. First, on my way to Prince George I passed through Kelowna where I participated in a panel at the Western Silvicultural Contractors’ Association (WSCA) 35^th Annual Conference, Tradeshow & AGM. Second, I had accepted an invitation by Spruce City Wildlife Association to participate in a political panel at the University of Northern British Columbia on hunting and wildlife conservation. Third, I arranged meetings with local councilors and business leaders to learn more about the existing and potential future economic opportunities in region. I also gave a lecture on carbon pricing, clean energy and LNG in Dr. Kyrke Gaudreau‘s Carbon Neutrality ENVS498/NRES 798 class, and accepted an invitation from the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions at UNBC to give a public lecture on science and politics in the evening of Friday, February 5^th.

Before proceeding I’d like to point out how unusual the weather was. It got as high as 7°C while I was there and the 10mm of rain that fell during the 5th was enough to clear away much of the snow. While not a normal Prince George winter’s day, it was perfect weather for driving my rented Toyota Scion iQ which seemed a little out of place beside some of the picture cars in the area.

As you will see below, we have an incredible opportunity in British Columbia for continued innovation in our resource and tech sectors.

1: WSCA 35th Annual Conference

The Western Silvicultural Contractor’s Association is an organization that represents individuals and companies that serve as contractors for the Silvicuture Industry — an industry involved in the growing as cultivation of trees. As noted on their website, these individuals and companies:

“grow seedlings, plant trees, tend stands, brush plantations, fight wild fires, prepare planting sites, survey forest regeneration, burn slash piles and restore forest and range ecosystems.”

I participated in the plenary panel: Forestry Policy Panel to answer: What’s the Big Idea?  The guiding question was “What is the forestry goal in the post-mountain-beetle-increasingly-intense-wildfire-season-pending-climate-change-looming-timber-shortfall world we are heading into and where does silviculture fit into it?”

Independent Forester Bill Dumont from the Forest Practices Board, Ian Meier, Director, BC Wildfire Services, and Bob Fleet, VP, Environment & Forestry, Tolko Industries Ltd, joined me on the panel. The goal of the panel was to stimulate big picture challenges and opportunities within the forest sector in the years ahead.

The focus of my presentation was on the challenges and opportunities arising from global warming. The conversation initially focused on the increasing likelihood of extreme precipitation, larger-area wildfires, summer drought, extreme temperatures and what this might mean for forestry. I pointed out that the challenges of global warming will also lead to opportunities. But if we want to capitalize on these opportunities BC and Canada need to invest more heavily in research within the government and academic sectors.

In addition, I outlined potential opportunities for innovation within the forest sector that could arise through partnership between the forest sector and BC’s vibrant tech sector (see more below). To conclude, I recommended that those interested in this area consider reading the book by Stefan Heck and Matt Rogers entitled Resource Revolution: How to Capture the Biggest Business Opportunity in a Century.

All in all, it was a fascinating event and I was honoured to have the opportunity to serve on the same panel as the other panelists.

2: Spruce City Wildlife Association Symposium

As many who follow this blog will know, I have written extensively about wildlife conservation, habitat protection, hunting and the rights of resident hunters over the last year. One of the issues I have been concerned with is the allocation of hunting permits between guide outfitters and resident hunters. I’ve also spoken out strongly against trophy hunting and I’ve introduced two private member’s bills in an attempt to end this practice.

Over the last year I’ve engaged in countless on-line conversations with hunters, environmentalists and regular folk just seeking clarification as to the intent of my bills and blog posts. What has become abundantly clear to me is that concerned urban environmentalists and hunters share more commonalities than they do differences. First and foremost is that both groups are committed to supporting conservation.

Second, I have found that the overwhelming majority of people I have spoken with support a science-based, ecosystem-based approach to wildlife (and forestry/natural resource-based) management. In so doing we end up as a society grappling with ethical questions like is it justifiable to kill one animal in the name of saving another? What if one of those animals is endangered? Predator management in certain cases is fundamental to wildlife management for it is unrealistic for us to think that humans have not disturbed the habitat in which the wildlife live. Some might argue that we should let nature take its course. I would respond that this would be inconsistent with a science-based, ecosystem-based approach to wildlife management as we have already disturbed all aspects of nature.

Third I have realized that the term “trophy hunting” has a different meaning to hunters compared to what is commonly understood in urban areas. For many, including me, trophy hunting means hunting exclusively for a trophy (head, skin or antlers) with no intention of packing out the meat to your home. Guide outfitters can offer foreigners the opportunity to come to BC and kill an animal. The meat could either be given away (or left to rot in the case of grizzlies) and all that the foreign hunter takes home is the trophy. It is this that the overwhelming majority of British Columbians, including resident hunters, abhor. But to many hunters, trophy hunting means hunting a trophy animal. It’s a bit like trophy fishing. The trophy fish is a big fish; it’s a keeper, not one you catch and release. Sure the antlers will come out, but so will the organic, free-range meat which will be used to feed a family for many, many months.

The purpose of the Spruce City Wildlife Association Symposium was to explore these issues more thoroughly with representatives from the four major political parties. Invitations went out at the end of November last year and I immediately accepted. Joining me on the panel were Katrine Conroy from the BC NDP, and Dan Brooks, Interim Leader of the BC Conservative Party. MLA Mike Morris (Prince George-Mackenzie) was also invited to attend but declined to do so just two days before the scheduled event. This was disappointing as he was in town on the day and no other Liberal MLA was dispatched to replace him either.

A number of the questions were given us in advance. These ranged from questions regarding grizzly bear hunting, to funding of wildlife management and restoration, to First Nation hunting rights. Neither Dan Brooks nor I prepared answers in advance. I was, however, disappointed to see Katrine Conroy read from prepared answers written and approved by the party. All in all it was clear to me that the audience was profoundly troubled with the direction British Columbia is heading both in terms of wildlife conservation and the rights of resident, versus foreign, hunters.

3: Technology and the Resource Sector in Prince George

During the morning I met with Oliver Ray, Executive Director of the North Central Local Government Association, Meghan Ginter, membership and events manager with the Prince George Chamber of Commerce and Prince George Councillor Jillian Merrick to learn more about the existing and potential future economic opportunities in region. We discussed how British Columbia could use our strategic advantage as a destination of choice to attract industry to BC in highly mobile sectors that have difficulty retaining employees in a competitive marketplace. In particular, we discussed the availability of our boundless renewable resources — energy, water and fibre — which could be used to attract industry that wants to brand itself as sustainable over its entire business cycle.

It’s just like what Washington has done. BMW announced an expansion to the Moses Lake carbon-fiber plant, which would see a tripling of its capacity. BMW uses the plant to produce carbon fiber ribbon employed in its i8 concept “sustainable car”.  There are two hundred 21^st century jobs from just this one investment alone. Oregon is also heading down this path. Google, a company that sees itself as a powerhouse of the 21^st century wants to ensure it has access to clean, renewable energy. Oregon was able to provide Google with price certainty and so the company invested $1.2 billion in the creation of a major data distribution centre in The Dalles. And that’s another eighty 21^st century jobs from another investment.

The cooler climate of Prince George, relative to other jurisdictions on the west coast, led me to ask if Prince George was exploring options like this. From our discussions, later reaffirmed when I met with Mayor Lyn Hall, Councillors Murray Krause, Garth Frizzell and district staff, it became clear to me that a barrier for this to occur is the lack of broadband redundancy in the region (see summary).

In our discussions I further emphasized that I believe it is critical that we bring the typically urban-based tech and typically rural-based resource sectors together. Innovation in technology will lead to more efficient and clever ways of operating in the mining and forestry industries. Earlier, Oliver Ray had also noted the importance and potential for the agricultural sector as well. And in addition to our natural resources, we would also have the potential to export innovation in the rapidly emerging knowledge-based economy. But once more, a barrier to building Prince George as a hub for natural resource/tech innovation is limited by the availability of broadband redundancy

Recently, for instance, I learned about the story of a BC-based technology innovator (Minesense Technologies Ltd.) partnering with a local mine to dramatically improve the efficiency and environmental footprint of their mining operations. Rather than hauling thousands of unnecessary tonnes of rock for processing, the new technology allowed the rocks to be scanned for ore content on site. This meant that prior to trucking, the company could determine if it was more cost-effective to simply put the rock to one side for use as fill later.

While in Prince George I was fortunate to be given a tour of the Carrier Lumber Ltd. Prince George mill by its president, Bill Kordyban. Carrier Lumber is a family owned business that was started by Bill’s father in 1951. It wasn’t until 1976 that the facility at Prince George was built. The Prince George mill currently employs around 300 people, with the majority of workers being members of United Steelworkers Local 1-424. Carrier is one of a number of mills in the Prince George area but what is remarkable about this particular enterprise is the fact that the company is diversified.

Carrier owns the Prince George Mill and another Mill in Saskatchewan. In addition, Carrier has its own fabrication shop situated in a 76,000 building a stone throw away from their Prince George mill. Being the largest fabrication shop in BC, the shop not only builds much of Carriers milling equipment, but it also builds for other industries in the area.  The 8000 acre Bar-K ranch with over 2000 head of cattle is also part of the Carrier group of holdings.

During the tour, Bill was quick to point out that the “thing about saw mills is that it’s all about flexibility”, and it was abundantly clear that Carrier lumber has figured out how to compete in highly competitive forest products sector. State of the art technologies are used throughout the mill in order to maximize recovery of wood products. Every bit of fibre in each and every log is used one way or another. Logs are maximized for lumber production with each resulting board being marked with a unique serial numbered. Hog fuel arising from stripping the logs of bark is shipped to Canfor for use as a biofuel. Wood chips end up being used for pulp and paper and sawdust is sent to Premier Pellet Ltd in Vanderhoof to be converted into wood pellets. And of course there is lumber, which is produced at a rate of about 300 boards a minute.

Like other mills in the area, there is growing concern that as government reduces the allowable cut in the near future due to pine stands devastated by the Mountain Pine Beetle beginning to run out, it is done so as to allow both family-owned and larger multinational mills to survive. In addition, as negotiations proceed between Canada and the US about extending the Softwood Lumber Agreement, there is ongoing trepidation within the forestry sector across all of Canada. Given the importance of forestry to our economy, it’s critical that government ensure that it does what it can to ensure this sector remains vibrant.

Innovation at the interface between technology and forestry not only extends to the production of lumber, but also to the value-added forest products sector as well. As Mayor Hall, Councillor Krause, and I set off to visit the Peaking Backup Energy Centre associated with the Prince George Downtown District Energy System, we stopped in to visit the award-winning Wood Innovation Design Centre (WIDC).

Completed on October 31, 2014, the WIDC is a six story building constructed entirely of wood, engineered wood and wood products. It is yet another marvellous example of innovation and creativity that arises when the resource and tech sectors are brought together. Upon entering the WIDC one is immediately greeted with the sweet aroma of wood and the stunning architecture. It would be an inspiring place to work and the University of Northern British Columbia obviously thinks so too.

The WIDC is the home of UNBC’s Master of Engineering in Integrated Wood Design program, with an objective “designed to enhance the students’ understanding of wood as a versatile and sustainable building component.” In fact, I had wanted to visit the WIDC for quite some time as I was first learned about the building while visiting the Structurlam manufacturing facility in Okanagan Falls, during my September 2015 visit to the Okanagan.

Structurlam is an outstanding example of a BC based business in the value-added forest sector. Their two main products Glulam and Crosslam are 100% engineered-wood laminations that can be used as replacements in building construction for steel and cement, respectively. Structurlam played a key role in supplying product for the building of the WIDC. For those on southern Vancouver Island or in the Vancouver region, you can see their beautifully engineered products in one of the buildings below. In addition, Structurlam is presently manufacturing panels for UBC’s 18-story Brock Commons Student Residence which when completed will be the world’s tallest wood building.

One of the things that impressed me during my tour of the Structurlam facility was their commitment to source  lumber from BC-based companies. During my visit last September, vast quantities of  ready-to-be-used lumber were on site. This lumber was used from Kaleshnikoff Lumber Co. Ltd., a family owned business located in Tarry’s BC (on Highway 3A between Castlegar and Nelson) that was started in the late 1930’s by the children of Doukhobour immigrants who came to Canada in 1911.

4: Clean Energy, Sustainability and Leadership in Prince George

Prince George is home to the University of Northern British Columbia which in 2007 branded itself as Canada’s Green University™. With a name like that, you can bet I was thrilled to visit the campus, give a lecture in a class and tour their bioenergy facility. In fact, in 2015, and for the fourth year in a row, UNBC was listed as one of the Top 100  Canada’s Greenest Employers. To say I was impressed would be an understatement.

UNBC was recently ranked #1 in primarily undergraduate category of the annual Maclean’s university rankings and it was clear to me that the university has worked hard to deserve this reputation. I was taken on a tour of the bioenergy facility by University of Victoria engineering graduate David Claus, Assistant Director of Facilities Management.

The bioenergy facility consists of a Nexterra Systems Corporation gasification system that became operational in May 2011. Powered entirely by wood waste (hog fuel) and housed in a LEED Platinum building, the bioenergy facility provides enough energy through its hot water distribution system to allow UNBC to reduce its consumption of fossil fuels for heating by 85%.

It’s not only UNBC that recognizes the potential to convert wood waste into heat. In fact, Prince George  has also introduced its own district energy system that connects buildings downtown with a bioenergy facility at the nearby and newly rebuilt Lakeland Sawmill. Heated water at the Lakeland facility is piped underground to the downtown Peaking Backup Energy Centre. There distributions pumps and backup natural gas heating boilers are housed.

We were given a tour of the Peaking Backup Energy Centre by Todd Angus, Engineering Assistant, Public Works/Utilities. There he explained the functioning of the both the main and peaking backup systems. What’s remarkable is that the the underground hot water pipes transfer heat to numerous buildings in the downtown core including City Hall, the Coliseum arena, the Civic Centre, the Four Seasons pool, the library, the newly constructed RCMP building, the Two Rivers Art Gallery and the WIDC. Not only is this district heating system considered carbon neutral, it is also more efficient. The hot water heat exchangers are 99.9% efficient compared to typical ~80% for natural gas boilers.

5: Summary

It became apparent from my visit to Prince George that the opportunities for the region are enormous. Real estate is still reasonably priced, the surrounding environment is picturesque, there’s a first rate university on site. Prince George is a hub for northern BC and on the rail line from the Port of Prince Rupert to Chicago, one of greatest, if not the greatest, rail distribution centres in North America.

So what is missing? Why would Google, for example, not jump at the idea of building a data distribution centre in Prince George? Why is there not a thriving and expanding hub of local technological innovation in partnership with the resource, forestry and agricultural sectors and capitalizing on the research expertise at UNBC? Why wouldn’t companies that are concerned about access to renewable energy, a skilled workforce and being able to attract and retain their workers not setup in Prince George? They’re located on the railway connecting Chicago’s North American rail distribution centre to Prince Rupert, a gateway to Asian markets.

The answer is simple. Broadband redundancy in the region precludes major investments in this area.

So what is broadband redundancy? The term broadband redundancy means that a community is not reliant upon a single high speed internet connect into their region. Prince George presently has a single high speed connection to the rest of North America via Vancouver. But if for some reason the line (between Prince George and Vancouver) goes down, Prince George is out of luck in terms of communicating at high speed with the rest of the world via the internet.

As you can see from the image to the left from BCNET, Kamloops has high speed internet connectivity to both Vancouver and Calgary. And so, if the Kamloops to Vancouver connection drops, redundancy is built in so high speed internet traffic can still go via Calgary. The fact that Kamloops has broadband redundancy is a a critical reason why TELUS recently built a $75 million data distribution centre there.

If government wants to stimulate the northern economy it should first stop throwing good money after bad ideas. I’ve been saying it for more than three years now, there will not be any significant development in LNG in BC anytime soon. The market is saturated; prices will remain low for many years; China already has more contracted supply than it actually need. China is now a seller in the marketplace. Add this to sanctions being lifted recently from the world’s largest natural gas reserve (Iran) and the proximity of the second largest reserve (Russia) to Asian markets with signed deals in place, and it should be clear that British Columbians have been misled by the government for quite some time about the future of LNG in this province.

In my view, perhaps the single biggest stimulus to the area would be for government ensure that broadband redundancy is introduced to Prince George. And this would not be very expensive. After a number of meetings it was clear that what was needed was timely investment to connect Prince George to Chetwynd via high speed broadband. At a cost of about 20,000$ to 25,000$ per kilometre, the 300km distance would cost between $6 million and $7.5 million to lay. Yet the potential benefits would be enormous.

So while I am calling on the government to show leadership in this area now and invest in this critical infrastructure, I can ensure people in the area that if I were premier, it would be one of my top priorities.

At the UVic University Club on November 24, 2015 I formally announced my intention to seek the leadership of the BC Green Party. And on December 7, 2015 I was elected by acclamation as our new leader. Below is the text of the speech that I gave at the announcement. In the speech I outlined the reasons why I sought the leadership and I offered a vision for a prosperous future for all British Columbians.

Introduction

Thank you Elizabeth. You’ve been an absolute inspiration to me. And I am honoured that you were able to make it to tonight’s event knowing that you will be heading to the COP21 meeting in Paris imminently.

I’m also very grateful to Claire Martin for coming over from Vancouver to act as our MC. I know that she’s also off to COP21 shortly. And I am especially grateful to Butch Dick from the Songhees nation for welcoming us tonight.

Finally, this event tonight would never have happened if it weren’t for the efforts of the incredible group of individuals that I have the honour of working with: Judy Fainstein, Mat Wright, Evan Pivnick and Karin Lenger along with all of the volunteers. Thank you.

It’s humbling for me to see so many people here. I sincerely appreciate you all joining me this evening and I look forward to answering your questions and chatting with you one on one afterwards.

The University Club in which we stand has a special meaning to me. It first opened in 1967 in the old army hut that stands today as E-Hut. I remember as a little boy being taken by my parents to visit Santa at the annual Christmas parties, including the very first one they hosted. Over the years I’ve had many dinners and attended countless functions in the old E-Hut facility. And in 1982, when Phase II of the University Club was completed — the building we are in now — I had just started my final year of undergraduate studies.

I left Victoria in 1983 and it wasn’t until 1992 that Helen and I returned to our hometown. As a young faculty member I joined the newly created School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, appropriately located in E-Hut, the former location of the University Club. In 1992, if someone would have told me that I would be standing in the University Club as the elected BC Green Party MLA for Oak Bay Gordon Head, I would have thought they were crazy.

I was a scientist. I was a teacher and I had no interest in politics.

Yet two decades later, in the fall of 2012, Jane Sterk, after a number of previous attempts finally convinced me to run in the May 2013 provincial election.

I had spent many years understanding the basic physics of the past, present and future climate system. It became evident that global warming was emerging as the defining challenge of our time, and that there were enormous opportunities available to those jurisdictions that were first to act boldly in transitioning to a low carbon economy.

I advised governments at all levels on available policies that could allow them to seize those opportunities. And I saw British Columbia begin to show leadership by doing just that.

But as the government then shifted all of its efforts, and all of its hopes, to the LNG pipedream, I saw us lose that leadership. I watched as we went from leaders in developing a 21st century economy, to laggards, scurrying back to the 20th century, hoping for an out-dated and unrealistic LNG windfall. For three years now I’ve been saying the same thing. The economics simply does not work for BC to build a thriving LNG industry any time soon.

As I watched our provincial leadership unravel, I was reminded of something I would tell my students. If you want your government to show leadership on the issues that you care about, I would tell them that you need to elect people who will act on your concerns. Or, if you feel like none of the candidates is seriously addressing the issues you are worried about, you should consider running for office yourself.

Ultimately, I decided that I needed to take my own advice. I ran for office because I saw an opportunity to help build a vision that would put our province on a path of developing a 21st century diverse and sustainable economy. Now, after 2 1/2 years in office, it’s clear to me that this is more important than ever.

In the shadows of the massive challenges that we face, our province needs new leadership.

Leadership that offers a realistic and achievable vision grounded in hope and real change.

Leadership that places the interests of the people of British Columbia — not vested union or corporate interests— first and foremost in decision-making. And it’s not only today’s British Columbians that we must think about, it’s also the next generation who are not part of today’s decision-making process.

Leadership that will build our economy on the unique competitive advantages British Columbia possesses, not chase the economy of yesteryear by mirroring the failed strategies of struggling economies.

Leadership that will act boldly and deliberately to transition us to 21^st century economy that is diversified and sustainable.

Leadership that doesn’t wait for public opinion — but rather builds it.

It’s clearer to me now than ever before. The province needs new leadership bringing new ideas, new direction and new people to the legislature. For too many decades British Columbia has had to put up with our two-party dichotomy of dysfunction.

On the left there’s the BC NDP. Frankly there’s nothing new or anything particularly democratic about the BC NDP. On the right we have the BC Liberals. And there is absolutely nothing liberal about the BC Liberals.

Too often British Columbians vote for the BC Liberals not because they like what they stand for, but rather because they dislike what the BC NDP stand for. Too often British Columbians vote for the BC NDP not because they like what they stand for, but rather because they dislike what the BC Liberals stand for. And therein lies our opportunity.

The BC Greens will offer British Columbians candidates, ideas and policy that they can vote for, instead of vote against. It’s time for us to create a third viable option.

And so, with the knowledge of the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead, I announce my candidacy for the Leadership of the BC Green Party.

To an Economic Vision for the 21^st Century

We have a unique opportunity in British Columbia to be at the cutting edge in the development of a 21st century economy.

Our high quality of life and beautiful natural environment attract some of the best and brightest from around the globe —we are a destination of choice. Our high school students are consistently top ranked — with the OECD specifying BC as one of the smartest academic jurisdictions in the world. And we have incredible potential to a create clean, renewable energy sector to sustain our growing economy. When we speak about developing a 21st century economy — one that is innovative, resilient, diverse, and sustainable — these are unique strengths we should be leveraging.

Unfortunately, instead of investing in a 21st Century economy, our government has banked all its hopes on an irresponsible, unrealistic fossil fuel windfall, with its Liquefied Natural Gas sector. We are already seeing these promises unravel as we chase a falling stock, doubling down on the way.

A 21st century economy is sustainable — environmentally, socially and financially. We should be investing in up-and-coming sectors like the clean tech sector, and creative economy that create well-paying, stable long-term, local jobs and that grow our economy without sacrificing our environment.

We should be using our strategic advantage as a destination of choice to attract industry to BC in highly mobile sectors that have difficulty retaining employees in a competitive marketplace. We should be using our boundless renewable energy resources to attract industry that wants to brand itself as sustainable over its entire business cycle, just like Washington and Oregon have done. We should be setting up seed funding mechanisms to allow the BC-based creative economy sector to leverage venture capital from other jurisdictions to our province. Too often the only leveraging that is done is the shutting down of BC-based offices and opening of offices in the Silicon Valley.

We should fundamentally change the mandate of BC Hydro. BC Hydro should no longer be the builder of new power capacity. Rather, it should be the broker of power deals, transmitter of electricity, and leveller of power load through improving British Columbia power storage capacity. Let industry risk their capital, not taxpayer capital, and let the market respond to demands of cheap power.

Similarly, by steadily increasing emissions pricing, we can send a signal to the market that incentivises innovation and the transition to a low carbon economy. The funding could be transferred to municipalities across the province so that they might have the resources to deal with their aging infrastructure and growing transportation barriers.

By investing in the replacement of aging infrastructure in communities throughout the province we stimulate local economies and create jobs. By moving to this polluter-pays model of revenue generation for municipalities, we reduce the burden on regressive property taxes. Done right, this model would lead to municipalities actually reducing property taxes, thereby benefitting home owners, fixed-income seniors, landlords and their tenants.

Yes, we should be investing in trade skills, as described, for example, under the B.C. jobs plan. But we should also be investing further in education for 21st century industries like biotech, high tech and clean tech. It’s critical that we bring the typically urban-based tech and rural-based resource sectors together. Innovation in technology will lead to more efficient and clever ways of operating in the mining and forestry industries. Just last week, for instance, I was told the story of a BC-based technology innovator partnering with a local mine to dramatically improve the efficiency and environmental footprint of their mining operations. Rather than hauling thousands of unnecessary tonnes of rock to a crusher for processing, the new technology allowed the rocks to be scanned for gold content on site. This meant that prior to trucking, the company could determine if it was more cost-effective to simply put the rock to one side for use as fill later.

Natural gas has an important role to play. But, we should use it to build our domestic market and explore options around using it to power local transport. BC businesses such as Westport Innovations and Vedder Transport have already positioned British Columbia as an innovative global leader in this area.

We should be investing in innovation in the aquaculture industry, like the land-based technologies used by the Namgis First Nation on Vancouver Island who raise Atlantic salmon without compromising wild stocks.

The logging industry is booming yet we send record amounts of unprocessed logs overseas. Now is the time to retool mills to foster a value-added second growth forestry industry.

These are just a few ideas that could help us move to the cutting edge in 21st the century economy.

Fundamental to all of these ideas is the need to ensure that economic opportunities are done in partnership with First Nations. And that means working with First Nations through all stages of resource project development – from conception to completion.

To the issue of Affordability

A 21st century economy must also be an affordable one.

Right now, over half a million British Columbians are currently living in poverty. Today’s report issued by the BC Child and Youth Advocacy coalition noted that one in five children overall in BC live in poverty. More than 50% of children in single-parent families live in poverty. This is unacceptable.

The government responds to these facts with the same old mantra: It can’t do more until the economy grows. Yet, we hear year after year from the government that the economy is growing. The fact is, we have seen growth, we have money to invest, and we know that if we invest capital smartly we will actually save in operating costs. So let me offer just one or two ideas of where we should start:

Let’s fix the Registered Disability Savings Plans and Registered Educational Savings Plans. Currently, RDSPs and RESPs do not receive the same protection that RRSPs and RRIFs do when a family or individual is faced with bankruptcy. This means that when faced with bankruptcy, these already vulnerable individuals lose the one thing that would otherwise provide a glimmer of hope for a financially stable future. By simply providing creditor protection for disabled individuals and children’s education funds we can make the pathway out of poverty that much easier for those individuals experiencing bankruptcy. And let me be clear: This is a policy change—it doesn’t cost anything.

At the same time we know from other jurisdictions, that by providing chronically homeless individuals with a home through Housing First Policies, we not only provide individuals with a basic human right — shelter — but also better health outcomes, all while realizing long-term, overall net savings to government.

Medicine Hat saw a 26% decrease in emergency shelter use in just four years and has housed over 800 people, including over 200 children. Utah has reduced chronic homelessness by 72% as of 2014. A housing first pilot project in Denver, Colorado found emergency related costs and incarceration costs declined by 72.95% and 76% respectively, while emergency shelter costs were reduced by an average of $13,600 per person. Canada’s own At Home/Chez Soi study found that for every $10 invested in housing first services there was an average savings of $21.72.

And we need to deal with rampant speculation in our housing market. Simple steps like closing the Bare Trust Loophole would be effective. Or, as I introduced in a private members bill earlier this year, providing government the means of determining who is purchasing property in B.C. This includes determining both foreign investment flows, the role that corporations are playing in purchasing property and if we have significant speculation coming from other places in Canada.

The solutions to our province’s affordability crisis are out there, and those solutions themselves are affordable. We just need to invest in them. Given everything we know, the question becomes this: how can we afford not to?

To the issue of Health Care

The need for affordability must extend to quality health care too.

We can be proud that B.C. was recently ranked the healthiest province in Canada. This ranking shines a positive light on the healthy lifestyle choices British Columbians make each day. Yet, while we celebrate our successes, we must also remember that our health care system faces serious challenges.

With a highly regressive health care funding system, an aging population, major gaps in primary care, and surgery waitlists lasting anywhere from months to years, it is time for government to take a serious look at how our Health Care System is funded and administered.

British Columbia is the only province in Canada that continues to charge MSP premiums. Such premiums unfairly burden low and fixed income British Columbians with an overly heavy tax burden. With individuals earning a net annual income of $30,000 paying the same monthly flat fee as those earning $3,000,000 per year, it is evident that MSP premiums are perhaps the most regressive form of taxation in B.C.

Instead of charging MSP premiums, we should look at shifting to alternative, more progressive options such as was done in Ontario and Quebec. Rather than flat-rate fees, health premiums can be paid through the personal income tax systems. This avoids the regressive effects of flat-rate premiums and diminishes the additional costs associated with administering the MSP program.

But it can’t stop there. We also need to address the growing gaps in primary care. Doctor shortages and long wait times to get an appointment have led to increased use of walk-in clinics and emergency room services. Unfortunately, this can be costly for both patients and our health system, as a lack of follow-up and co-ordination can mean problems are missed or poorly managed.

Let’s look at investing more in Nurse Practitioners to help close some of these gaps and provide the high quality and timely care that British Columbians pay for and need. Let’s find more effective ways of funding these Nurse Practitioners. Let’s re-examine our approach to the delivery of chronic care services. Relying on acute care services, such as walk-in clinics and hospital emergency rooms, to deal with chronic health issues is both costly and inefficient.

Let’s consider increasing community and at-home care programs, which have been shown to provide better care at a more affordable cost. And let’s lobby the Federal government for our fair share of Canadian Health Transfer revenue, a share that reflects our demographics and the actual cost of delivering health services.

The possibilities for improving our health care system are plenty. As our population continues to age and gaps in primary health care continue to grow, it is more important now than ever to commit to re-examining how we provide affordable, quality health care in B.C.

To the issue of Education

Public education represents perhaps the most important investment government can make for the prosperity of our province. Each and every one of us has attended school and that experience has shaped who we are, what we do and how we contribute to society. And public education is absolutely critical in teaching the next generation of British Columbians to think critically, contribute responsibly to society, and become the leaders of tomorrow.

Given this, why have we not shown more leadership in the Education sector?

At the end of the strike last year, the government spoke about “an historic six-year agreement…which means five years of labour peace ahead of us.”

The implication of this sound bite is NOT that government is stepping up to the task of finding new ways to fund and deliver a leading public education system. The reality is that they are stepping back, allowing their dysfunctional relationship with teachers to simmer, only to boil over again in a few years.

We are stepping back despite an overall 18% and a whopping 44% aboriginal six-year high school non-completion rate. We have school boards at a loss for how to fund their operations due to seemingly endless budget cuts. Surely this is not indicative of a government properly valuing publication education.

It is time for the government to take leadership.

Leadership means ensuring that the resources needed for success are provided. Over the last 13 years, education funding as a percentage of provincial GDP has declined from a high of about 6.4% to an estimated low of about 5.0%. This is not indicative of a government that is prioritizing education. We need to find new, progressive funding sources to reinvest in education.

Leadership means acknowledging that behind the curtain of the BC Public School Employers’ Association is the provincial government. Yet it is the government, not BCPSEA, that draws the lines in the sand on funding. By dismantling the BCSPEA and bringing its operations back into government, a signal could be sent that government is serious in developing a new relationship with teachers.

Leadership also requires a clear eyed assessment of what’s working, and what isn’t – and clearly a ‘one size fits all’ approach isn’t working. The needs on Haida Gwaii, are different from those on Vancouver Island which in turn are different from those in Surrey or Prince George. Now is the time to explore whether or not class size and composition negotiations are better conducted at the school district level instead of the provincial level.

The status quo on education isn’t addressing the growing challenges. We cannot wait until the next labour dispute. Now is the time to sit down with stakeholders and start a dialogue about what a 21st century education system looks like, including how it is funded.

To the issue of Leadership

Our present provincial political leaders seem to have forgotten the essential traits of a successful leader: being principled, honest, authentic, trustworthy and having integrity. Our political leaders must have the courage to be honest with British Columbians about the risks and consequences of any government decision. Honest about the consequences of reckless hyperbole of government promises.

Perhaps the most striking illustration of the lack of honesty in BC’s political discourse has to do with LNG. In the lead-up to the last election, British Columbians were sold a bill of goods by this government. The promise of 100,000 jobs, a $100 billion prosperity fund, a $1 trillion hit to GDP, a debt-free B.C. and on and on.

This government has spent the last three years touting B.C.’s imminent LNG industrial boom. They sent a signal to the market that if industry wanted to do business in B.C., it had better have something to do with LNG. Yet BC’s venture into LNG has been a monumental failure.

The undeniable truth is that British Columbians were sold a bill of goods in that last election that will not come to pass.

Unfortunately it is British Columbians who will bear the consequences of the BC Liberal decisions.

The government’s all in approach on LNG has seen us lose our place of leadership in developing a 21st century economy.

But it’s not too late to reverse this. What we need is a renewed commitment to evidence-based decision making, and a government that is honest with its citizens.

Leadership builds public opinion – it doesn’t follow it. We need politicians who put the good of the province ahead of the good of the party.

This is the type of leadership that is absent from both the BC LIberals and the BC NDP. The BC Liberals will tell you whatever it takes to win. The BC NDP take positions based on what the BC Liberals do, rather than on what the evidence tells us. They try to be all thinks to all people and hence are paralysed by the decision-making process.

One only needs to sit in the legislature for a single debate to see that positions are taken based on the politics of an issue, rather than the evidence behind it.

British Columbians expect more than this. They want to see government acting to help all British Columbians – not merely those who voted – or funded them. This means an honest and open commitment to seek out perspectives and ideas of others and evaluate them based on their merit. Not their source.

To the issue of Choice

There is a choice that we will face in 2017. Another four years of the same old, same old politics as usual that has been working for far too long against the interests of British Columbians, or a new approach to politics that will focus on putting the interests of British Columbians first.

The BC Green Party is the only party that will offer British Columbians a real choice and a real vision for the province. We will offer real leadership with new candidates who run to put British Columbians first and break down the dysfunctional cycle of partisan politics that has dominated British Columbia for far too long.

It will take all of us to bring this vision forward. We have a lot of hard work ahead of us.

But together we will build a prosperous future for all British Columbians.

Thank you everyone for coming tonight and I look forward to your support in the lead up to the 2017 provincial election.

CBC Radio Interview Shortly Before the Event