What do you want in an election platform? Put forward your ideas and suggestions to make this the most collaborative, innovative and inspiring election platform we have ever produced.
I think the working poor-living below the poverty line group of people is an under represented group of people.
I believe the working poor-living below the poverty level group of people, needs to be prioritized, and provide them with the same working and health assistance programs as people that are on EI, Social Assistance, Disabilities or minority groups have.
The working poor, while living below the poverty level group, slip through the cracks of the system, there is very little support for them. They can't access the back to work programs, grants, training, education, employer incentives, that are available to people that are on EI, Social Assistance, Disabilities or minority groups.
The working poor-living below the poverty level groups, do not have access to basic non-cosmetic dentist, eye, and hearing care that people on Social Assistance, Disabilities or minority groups do.
The cost of living for the working poor-living below the poverty line group of people can be greater and have less money to live on then a person on EI, Social Assistance, Disabilities or minority groups, because they don't have access to working and health assistance programs as people that are on EI, Social Assistance, Disabilities or minority groups have.
Basic non-cosmetic dentist, eye, and hearing care coverage should be added to the health care system that covers all people living below the poverty level.
All back to work programs, grants, training, education, employer incentives should be accessible to all people living below the poverty level.
According to Individuals by total income level, by province and territory (Canada). More then 20 million people are living below the poverty line, based on people making less then $17,500 a year.
*( 20 million + people living below the poverty line is a lot of votes, just saying )*
If that means a +/- 3% tax increase on non-essential items that we buy that isn't needed to live, then so be it.
“What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.”
― Albert Einstein
Politicians in power or Politicians running to get elected don't pay much attention to people living below the poverty line because they get flack from people that are in the middle class and upper middle class incomes , which are the main voters, and donators to a particular parties, Liberals, NDP, Conservatives.
The thing I hear from the middle class and upper middle class is, they don't want their tax dollars going to the poor. The poor should just get a job and quit costing the taxpayer's money. They considered it an expensive cost that shows little to no return upon investment.
Politicians dance the line between individual groups of people living in poverty and the Middle, and upper class of voters to get the most votes to get elected into power.
The Green Party should lead the charge in full support of people living below the poverty level.
As the population of people living below the poverty level increases so does the support to the Political Party, that supports that group of people.
People living below the Poverty level NEED a party that supports them. Not just a few groups living below the Poverty line but everyone that lives and works below the poverty line.
You need to develop a robust and well thought out policy against money laundering http://www.antimoneylaunderinglaw.com/2017/03/us-rates-canada-once-again-as-a-major-money-laundering-country-in-annual-report.html 10Years in Jail for conviction if a bank or other financial entity is convicted they loose their licence and are told to LEAVE.
A new 3 % tax for non-essential items
**( Non-essential Items, is any item, that isn't required for a human being to live in order to survive ).** ( Human beings need a place to live, that is warm and dry, clean water, and healthy food in order to survive and live. )
A 3 % tax on items that we don't need to live as well as making Cannabis Legal , on top of an extra 3% tax increase on non-essential items could create millions and potentially billions of extra tax revenue dollars that could be used on infrastructure, as well as creating grants and incentives towards renewable energy system that could be used for creating jobs, training, education, house and building adaptions of solar, wind ect that could be sold back to the energy grid when generating more power then a house or building is using at that time.This could also make the energy system more secure against power outages, if a community could generate enough solar and wind power in a town or city to keep needed services running during a catastrophic power outage from the main power grid, to needed services, while the main grid is being repaired.
That being said I would support a 3% new tax increase on non-essential items to create a poverty reduction strategy / Living Wage System as well as, Investing in grants and incentives for environmentally safe, renewable, sustainable, alternative green energy for households to large scale operations as well as education and training.
1. Investing in grants and incentives for environmentally safe, renewable, sustainable, alternative green energy for households to large scale operations as well as education and training.
2. New infrastructure towards a healthier living,
- Creating exercise parks with Outdoor Fitness Equipment geared for kids to adults connected with bicycle and walk paths.
B: A Poverty Reduction Strategy / Living Wage System for a single person living below the poverty level $0. - $17,500 a year.
1. Implement a Poverty Reduction Strategy / Living Wage System A Poverty Reduction Strategy / Living Wage System for a single person living below the poverty level $0. - $17,500 a year..
2. Implement a min level of rent and rent increases based on people living below the poverty level. $0. - $17,500.
3. Allow a person making a wage below the poverty level, $0. - $17,500 to access programs, education and training that are offered to people on Social Services, EI, Disabilities, and other back to work programs.
- A person may need training and education for employment, that they are interested in but can't access the same programs offered to people on Social Services, EI, Disabilities, and other back to work programs, because they are not on or don't qualify for Social Services, EI, Disabilities, and other back to work programs.
4. Create more Subsidized Housing for people that are living below the poverty line that are working and making a wage less then the poverty level. $0. - $17,500.
• Most Subsidized Housing is geared towards Minority Groups, People on Disabilities, Seniors, and Families, but very few Subsidized Housing Places have available suites or rooms for the working poor.
5. Implement a wage buffer for people on Social Services, EI, and Disabilities that allows people to make a wage to cover the cost of living while on the system.
- If you get a job, you are deducted any assistance from Social Services, EI, and Disabilities. Since Social Services, EI, and Disabilities does not cover the cost of living. People should be able to make a wage equal to the poverty level $0. - $17,500, and not be punished and deducted for their effort to live in poverty, while struggling to get out of poverty. From what I know if you make any money , when you claim it on your Social Assistance stub, you get deducted dollar for dollar. which currently is $600 for a single person.
- Example 1 , If a person on Disabilities was receiving $1000 dollars a month from Social Assistance , the person on Disabilities should be able to make an extra $625 per month before getting deducted anything.
- Example 2 , If a single employable person receiving $1000 a month from Social Assistance , they should be able to make $250 ( including up to $250 from an EI claim ) before being deducted. EI should allow a person to make $250 over a $1000 claim without being deducted. That being said a person receiving $1250 from a EI claim would not receive Income Assistance from Social Assistance but still be able to access the Social Assistance Programs for getting back to work.
6. Increase the available amount of money a person can have in their bank account from $1500 to $17,500 that doesn't make them ineligible for Social Assistance Programs ,
• If you have more then $1500 in your bank account and assets you are denied Social Assistance . Social Assistance Programs should be accessible for people that have $0. - $17,500 in their savings . Although not be eligible for Income Assistance if an individual has $1500 to $17,500 in their savings, but be able to access programs, training, and employer incentives from Social Assistance and other back to work programs.
7. Add basic non-cosmetic dentist, eye, and hearing care coverage to the health care system that covers people making below the poverty level $0. - $17,500.
• People on Social Assistance and Disability have some coverage but people working below the poverty line have near 0% coverage, unless it's an emergency situation . Basic non-comedic dentist, eye, and hearing care coverage should be apart of the health care system for people living below the poverty level $0. - $17,500. ( this would create more jobs for people in the health care field ).
8. Combine Social Services, EI, Disabilities and other back to work programs into a Poverty Reduction Strategy / Living Wage System.
People have disposable income to buy non-essential items, people living below the poverty line have a lot less disposable income. Creating a poverty reduction strategy / Living Wage System is going to cost money to keep going. It should act as a bounce back net, supporting system to catch people from slipping through the cracks and giving people not only support but a bounce back initiative to make more then a living wage to have more disposable income that they spend on non-essential items that get taxed and supports the system that gave them the bounce back initiative . Everyone rich and poor shares the responsibility to support the Living Wage System through a new 3% non-essential items tax by purchasing non-essential items, every one gets taxed equally.
So many programs get cut because of not having enough tax dollars to support the programs , so its time that we create a new tax dedicated to supporting an ongoing program that supports itself by making sure the tax dollars spent to make it work are also regenerated back into the system to keep it working. In this case a +/- 3% new tax increase on non-essential items to create a Poverty Reduction Strategy / Living Wage System within the cost of living that maintains a guarantees a +/- 3% tax goes to keep it running . During times of lower unemployment and more people making more then the poverty wage people would have more disposable income to spend on non-essential items and could generate a tax surplus which could be used to create more programs, grants and incentives.
From what I've noticed in the last 30 years based on my experience of living below the poverty line, it's going to get a lot worse. As the poverty line increases the population living in poverty will increase as well, without a Poverty Reduction Strategy / Living Wage System.
Our family is having to use credit to buy groceries in the colder months because of the hydro bills which are totally incongruent with what we actually use. No one can figure out why it's happening and our bills are way more than all of our neighbours. We had the Smart Meter pulled for testing last year and it passed so then we had to pay for that. Our townhouse was audited by an Electrician prior to that. Now there is a study from the Netherlands stating there is proof that Smart Meters can be giving readings that are almost 600% above the actual useage?! Our last three January bills have been $441, $552, and $740! Our next bill in March is expected to be around $600! Nothing we have tried to do keeps us out of Step 2 billing. We have all new appliances that are Energy Star rated and rarely turn on any heat at all. My son is so worried he refuses to turn on the heat in his room even when it is cold at night.
Sixty days before adopting new rules/regulations, an agency should be required by law to: 1. Post its proposed regulations on its website; and 2. Publish an Intent to Adopt Regulations, including the following information: a. A brief description of the proposed regulations b. Date new regulations will be adopted and go into effect c. Website where proposed regulations can be found and commented on d. Phone number where paper copies of proposed regulations can be obtained, and address where written comments may be submitted. Elsewhere, agencies have learned that better regulations result from this more open vetting process.
Civil forfeiture occurs when the provincial government takes assets such as cash, buildings, vehicles, etc.. because they believe that they were acquired through crime or are used in a crime. Since the owner of those assets need not be charged with a crime to have their assets taken, this is a serious violation of their property rights. In BC, we should value individual rights by ceasing this practice. For more information, read a Globe and Mail article http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-ontario-civil-forfeiture-programs-get-a-failing-grade-report-says/article29067454/
PAPER/ PACE is powerful financial mechanism designed as a reaction to the upfront capitol cost and long term paybacks associated with energy retrofits for most home owners . Check out this example , a random link that explains how PACE could be applied, thus incentivizing a HVAC system . http://southlandac.com/pace-program/ The UBCM has passed two resolutions thus far in support of PAPER/PACE The Municipality of North Cowichan's 2014 UBCM resolution B 64 : B64 Local Improvement Charge for Energy Efficiency Retrofits.................................................... 74 B64 Local Improvement Charge for Energy Efficiency Retrofits WHEREAS energy efficiency and renewable energy retrofits in existing buildings offer the best opportunities to reduce community energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in the medium and short term; AND WHEREAS a lack of suitable financing options are a key barrier to residential and commercial building energy efficiency and renewable energy retrofits: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Province: 1. Amend the BC Community Charter, the City of Vancouver Charter and other legislation as required to enable local governments to use local improvement financing mechanisms for energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements on residential and commercial private properties in BC. 2. Work together with BC local governments and energy utilities to develop standards and guidelines for effective municipally-run residential and commercial energy retrofit financing programs. RESPONSE: Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development The Province of British Columbia is interested in supporting local governments to reduce community-wide and corporate greenhouse gas emissions and energy use. Legislative amendments to enable the use of current or additional financing mechanisms for energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements on private property would require significant and careful analysis and are not being considered at this time. The Province encourages local governments and energy utilities to work together to develop financing mechanisms for energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements on residential and commercial private properties in BC. B19 Local Improvement Charge for Municipally-financed Green Powell River City Energy Technologies WHEREAS in May 2016, the Halifax Regional Municipality approved a three-year extension of the Solar City program which provides the opportunity for property owners to save money and reduce their environmental impact by offering property owners a municipal service to procure and install three solar energy technology options for solar photovoltaic, solar hot air and solar hot water; AND WHEREAS the Halifax Regional Municipality is recovering 100 per cent of the program costs through a local improvement charge, as authorized by provincial legislation; AND WHEREAS municipal local improvement charges in British Columbia cannot currently include the provision of cost recovery for municipal services on private property: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that UBCM request the Province of British Columbia to approve enabling legislation to allow the cost recovery of municipally-financed green energy technologies on private properties through municipal local improvement charges. Not presented to the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities UBCM Resolutions Committee recommendation: Endorse UBCM Resolutions Committee comments: The Resolutions Committee notes that the UBCM membership endorsed resolution 2014-B64, which requested the provincial government to: · amend legislation to enable local governments to use local improvement charges for energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements on residential and commercial private properties; and · work with local governments and energy utilities to develop standards and guidelines for municipally-run residential and commercial energy retrofit financing programs. In response to the resolution the provincial government stated that it was not considering legislative amendments “to enable the use of current or additional financing mechanisms for energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements on private property.” Instead, the Province encouraged local governments and energy utilities to work together to develop financing mechanisms for such energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements. RESPONSE To Powell River The Ministry is very interested in working with local governments to support local climate action and continues to collect input and develop ideas in partnership with UBCM and other provincial ministries. However, given the complexity and fundamental policy questions that the LIC approach raises (most specifically related to public borrowing for private acquisitions), the Ministry is not taking this idea forward as a priority for legislative changes or policy development at this time. We did talk to our colleagues to consider how existing tools could be applied to encourage energy retro-fits for private residences in your community. These tools include revitalization tax exemptions, grants or rebate programs for energy efficient upgrades to homes. There are some very effective ways to use these existing tools and ministry staff are available to talk about this with you or your staff. Please let us know if you would like to set up a call. Thanks again for your email and for touching base on this. We appreciate your leadership and interest in climate action and reducing emissions in your community and we look forward to continued conversations. http://www.fcm.ca/Documents/reports/PCP/2015/National_Measures_Report_2015_Local_Climate_Action_Across_Canada_EN.pdf Page 13 of 57 • Create municipal incentives for building retrofits: Offer homeowners and commercial building owners upfront loans with convenient repayment schemes. Two common mechanisms are on-bill financing, in which monthly payments are collected through utility bills (with retrofit costs offset by energy savings), and local improvement charges, in which the cost of retrofits are tied to the property and repaid through property taxes. Programs can also include permit based incentives, such as expedited processing and fee-bates, or tax exemptions. Nearly 80 per cent of plans include measures to improve the energy performance of new developments through a combination of regulatory standards and incentives. The most common types of action are: • Adopt green building standards or bylaws that require new developments to exceed the construction and performance standards under existing building codes. It would appear that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is already reached a conclusion that this (PAPER/PACE , local improvement charges) is the policy /direction that we should head towards . Warmest regards Dion
I hate going to the mailbox because I get about 3 letters and 3" of junk mail. Canada Post gets money from advertisers to force this waste product on us. We pay for it when we buy stamps, we pay for it with our taxes, we pay for it in the carbon waste produced by the production of paper, the gas of vehicles delivering the waste product and the greenhouse gasses produced by rotting paper and plastic that will never rot; we pay for it when we have to pay our municipality to haul away the waste product. It is a sick cycle. What if Canada Post only delivered the three letters? What if the Province of BC could say to Canada Post "not in our landfill?"
BC Green party state they " an integrated, multi-disciplinary healthcare system in which the workload of doctors is reduced by enabling other healthcare professionals such as nurse practitioners and midwives to provide appropriate services." Does this mean more funding for midwifery students? Currently only 20 students are able to enroll every year at UBC. What would the green party do to support and midwives in BC, to better support families? Also, evidence based research has proven the many benefits to mothers and babies( physically and emotionally), of having a doula present at their birth. Would the green party support having a doulas fees covered by the province?? This would guarantee my vote, and I will work tirelessly to campaign for this benefit to our society. I believe this is positive step forward to showing your commitment to our health and safety as well as womans rights.
The Circular Economy concept unites many sustainable practices related to manufactured objects into a well thought out, well documented, and well known concept. For example: reuse, repair, recycling, remanufacturing, and designing objects to simplify those processes are all covered. In a circular economy, waste is considered a design flaw in the system. Manufacturing processes should be designed so that any outputs can be used somehow. From an environmental perspective, waste is reduced, and harmful extraction of new materials is minimized. From an economic perspective, the value of materials and manufactured objects is retained (circulated), rather than discarded. The concept has drawn attention from many national and international organization. A recent example is the company Patagonia receiving a circular economy award at Davos, presented by Accenture. The party should adopt the Circular Economy concept as policy. For more, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_economy https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy
Fight For 15 is a very popular stance supported by many progressives such as Bernie Sanders. The BC NDP have adopted this proposal, it's time for us to do the same. Not only is this an effective way to provide all British Columbians with a livable income, but it will stop the BC NDP from getting a one up on us.
Animal welfare is extremely important to Andrew Weaver and British Columbians. Our core principle of Ecological Wisdom needs to uphold respect and protection to all of BC's creatures. We need to develop stances to improve animal welfare in our Agriculture industry, as well as stances like the banning of grizzly bear trophy hunting to protect animals in the wild.
I checked in with other members of Citizens Climate Lobby http://canada.citizensclimatelobby.org and we suggest: - carbon tax should have NO exemptions (and we should lobby the federal govt. to establish border tax adjustments so that our businesses are not at a disadvantage compared to others in areas that still don't have a full price on carbon) - end fossil fuel subsidies (including the way our transportation system favours carbon intensive transportation) - job retraining, education to help workers make the shift - support for community renewable energy - better public transit (including more user-friendly requirements for long distance bus service, such as more reliable service than that offered currently by Greyhoud)
There is plenty written about the essential functions of wetlands. Putting in legislation to reverse and stop the damage to wetlands is long overdue.
The radiologists here get $600,000 dollars per year plus rural perks, This has got to stop. Most of the x-rays anyone can read and they are not sensitive in determining the age of a fracture in many cases. MRI's reveal so much more, and they can be used to find recent fractures, seeing edema bruising, if taken within a few days of injury. Many injured workers are getting shafted by Work-unSafe and WCRAP. Also, traffic injuries can be clearly identified only with MRI's. Train MRI technicians for decent pay rates, not with ridiculous amounts . Stop making good workers suffer with biased for these employer protection organizations. Make work sites safe. It is criminal what is going on, and there is no accountability process for the injured worker to get the employer to stop injuring more workers.
This has been a key health issue in the diabetes community of British Columbia since the government expanded the program from 18 - 25 years in 2014. Currently people with type 1 diabetes who are medically eligible cannot access a publicly funded insulin pump to improve their quality of life and diabetes management. The age limit needs to be lifted. People aging out of the program are also dropped from the program. This isn't right. Alberta's pump program includes all ages. Many thanks.
In the 1990s, BC and Wash St created the Environmental Cooperation Council to manage our shared ecosystems like the Salish Sea and the Columbia River Basin. This agreement acknowledge the scientific reality that nature does not see random political lines created in 1846. This regional agreement has been neglected by the BC Liberals and responsibilities have been delegated to Environment Canada. With the growth that is expected to occur between Metro Vancouver and Metro Seattle - we really need to work together to create a sustainable region with advanced infrastructure. This will also help scale up opposition against regressive federal policies in both the U.S. and Canada (e.g. Pipelines and shipping Oil). This all dovetails with truth and reconciliation as both Coastal and Plateau communities in BC and Wash were disrupted by the national boundary created.
The UN convention on biodiversity has set goals including protecting 17% of terrestial and 10% of marine areas. Another goal is to stem the rate of biodiversity loss (extinctions) by at least 50% by 2020. The Green Party should remain a voice for promoting recommended international standards on biodiversity.