Nuanced. - 227. Emily Lowan: BC Green Party Leader on Taxing Billionaires

Episode Date: March 9, 2026

BC Green leader Emily Lowan joins Chief Aaron Pete to debate eco-socialism, wealth taxes, capitalism, government spending, inflation, and the future of British Columbia politics.Send a textSupport the shownuancedmedia.ca

A few people had responded to comments and said, you're a communist. Is this true? Yeah. I describe myself as an eco-socialist. I believe that capitalism has made many of our lives just unattainable. You know, in BC, a third of us are struggling to meet our bills every month. We're paying half of our income on rent alone. What is your perspective on the general size of government? I believe that wealth inequality is corrosive,

both to our economy and to our society. How much goes into your political philosophy? Where did it come from? And how did it change over time? When I say wealthiest, I mean, I'm mostly talking about the 650 centimonaires and billionaires in BC. I think wealth flight is largely sort of a mythical narrative perpetuated by the billionaires who don't want to chip in with their fair share.

The BC government is the largest it's ever been in terms of, of public sector workers. If you were in power tomorrow, would you want it to be smaller? Would you want it to be larger? Thank you so much for being willing to join us today. It's a pleasure to have you. Would you mind briefly introducing yourself for people who might not be acquainted? Yeah, of course. It's great to be here, Erin. My name is Emily Lohen, and I'm the new-ish leader of the BC Green Party. Fantastic. Can we start with a question that I had actually asked one of your team members? What's your position on communism? A few people had responded to comments and said, you're a communist.

Is this true? Yeah. I describe myself as an eco-socialist. I believe that capitalism has, you know, made all, most, many of our lives just unattainable. You know, in BC, a third of us are struggling to meet our bills every month. We're paying half of our income on rent alone. And we see this worsen year and year after year. And so I think part of our affordability crisis growing up in my generation has really, you know, politicized me to those basic facts.

And, you know, I grew up loving the library. And I think it really instilled a value that, you know, the government should be really delivering a number of our basic needs. needs and ensuring that, you know, everyone has a roof over their head and is, you know, able to access affordable groceries and all of the things that will, you know, allow us to, to thrive in our communities and in the workplace. And we've seen just a complete concentration of wealth in our province and globally, of course. And, you know, this in BC, that was really accelerated through massive tax cuts by a conservative premier Gordon Campbell in the early 2000s. So right now, big corporations in BC are paying less taxes than they did in 2005. And so we've seen just this

hollowing out of our tax system that's made it harder for government to really deliver on these basic services for British Columbians. And so, you know, we can get into this more. But I think that's really what's informed my, my worldview is just the reality of being a Gen Z person and growing up in, yeah, a cost of living and, and yeah, the multiple crisis we face today. Can I ask, where did you develop your political philosophy from? Is it purely like your lived experience? Have you read books on like conservative economics, like left wing economics? Like, how much goes into your political philosophy? where did it come from and how did it change over time?

Yeah. I was initially politicized on a via rail train car in 2016 when Trump was elected. I was in sort of in a social studies class and we took this train trip across Canada visiting different parliaments, which was such a thrilling and novel experience for me. And I was just starting to learn about the gravity of the climate crisis. And here sweeps in this, you know, bigoted Petro State actor, Donald Trump. And I just, I had this real watershed moment where I realized, okay, no one's coming to save us. You know, it is going to be our generation who has the most on the line that is going to really, you know, need to take a step up and tackle, build the world that we need. And so that's what started me into climate activism.

I then led a student union at UVIC, and yeah, we won a fossil fuel divestment campaign at the time. And so I would say academically, you know, it was actually my degree partially in economics that formed a lot of this worldview for me. because I found myself sitting in these mainstream economics classes pointing out, okay, we're externalizing the climate. We're externalizing all these human and social costs from these market models. And it was so clear to me that that was having a real world effect on our economy. And it was just allowing these models to further concentrate wealth in the hands of the few. And so then I started reading more ecological economics, you know, informed by people like Kate Rawworth and Herman Daly and many others. And I started to sort of form an alternate model in my head where, you know, I started to wonder, okay, how do we make our economy like a donut after Kate Rawworth's donut economics? How do we bring our humid economy?

our world within ecological limits under planetary boundaries, where we're still, you know, meeting the needs for social well-being. But right now, if you sort of look at our current economy, our sort of boundary lines are far overshooting our ecological limits. And it's, you know, we're spending many, many planets, I think like seven planets worth of our resource, carrying capacity. So those were some like early texts that were really formative for me. And I, yeah, I started to just get really fascinated about, you know, how can we build an alternative economy that, you know, meets the needs of everyday working people and, you know, our ecological limits and respects indigenous sovereignty throughout the process and that transition.

And so, yeah, it's, that was, my, my degree was in political science, environmental studies, and, and economics. And I then went to work in civil society at Climate Action Network Canada for, for three years after graduating. What is your relationship with government? Like, do you think if government's bigger, it can solve more problems, it's smaller, it can be more effective? What is your perspective on, on the general size of government? You know, I'm going to start with an example because I really like what Zohran Mamdani is doing in New York to challenge some of those sort of, that binary, basically, because I believe in an efficient and effective government. And I think what we've seen under neoliberalism is a hollowing out of government services where we're

It feels like government's kind of a shell, and we're contracting out so much of government services. And I think that's bad for transparency. We have this issue with our FOI system. If, you know, and I was doing this as I was doing investigative research and working in civil society, I realized, you know, I reached so many dead ends in that research because I would, you know, go and try to submit a freedom of information request in FOI. and they would say, oh, sorry, that was a contracted services, and it's a private business. You know, they're not able to send you that information. And, you know, I've talked to other and to journalists about this, and they've had similar experiences. And we find that these, you know, we're paying consultants so much more than we would pay regular public servants. And so there's a real, I think,

imbalance and a need to get back to, you know, a good, effective, efficient government. And yeah, that's, that's obviously a whole can of worms about the A to B and how we get there. But as I said in the beginning of my answer, I was really inspired by Zohr and Mumdani's snow clearing day in the great New York blizzard this year where he was, people were, you know, conservative pundits were freaking out because he was paying, like, snow clears. He was paying New Yorkers to $30 an hour to clear the streets. And they were like, that's, you know, that's so much money. Like, this is, this is just like overspending. The streets were cleared perfectly, meticulously, you know, within that day. It was like everyone was commenting on the high quality service. And I think that's a great standard.

to, or a great sort of bar to set, that when you're paying people a living wage, I think they show up to work feeling respected. They feel like, you know, this is a dignified wage. They're able to work hard and, and feel good about themselves at the end of the day. And so, you know, I think that's, that's the spirit and culture we need to bring into government is, you know, let's stop outsourcing all of our government services to, to these third parties. to this consultant class. And, you know, let's start paying British, British Columbians a living wage to do this work well. Interesting. I'll follow up with that question on the BC government is the largest it's ever been in terms of public sector workers, as is the liberal federal government right now. Would you, do you think that that's the right size? Would you, if you were in power tomorrow, would you want it to be smaller? Would you want it to be larger? Like, what would your immediate next step? And the reason I ask is because you're right that there is this pull back and forth between we employ more and then perhaps the work is better than consultants. But then we employ more. And it's also the biggest part of our economy right now is public service workers. And that's very expensive. How would you grapple with that issue?

Yeah, no, it's a great question. And yeah, I think, you know, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, pretty concerned about the effects of this recent budget on the quality and delivery of our public services. 15,000 public service jobs were cut under this budget. And so I think for me it's a big question about like, you know, where are those cuts coming from? How will that affect services? And a big government where? For me, if it's in, you know, cutting LNG checks, uh, to these big resource corporations. I have some questions about, you know, the revolving door of corporate lobbyists into BC's government and, you know, the high wage increases that we see there.

But, you know, when it comes to real delivery on, you know, our housing crisis, supporting public servants to get out there and to be building cooperative and social housing, you know, these are deeply complex issues that require institutional knowledge and, yeah, support from the public service. But I do worry that our government is growing perhaps in the wrong departments and in the wrong areas. We've seen this government significantly cut, you know, jobs in the environment, like the climate action secretary, it was was pretty much slashed entirely. So that's really limiting any future for the Clean BC plan. Thank you for sharing all of that.

The reason I wanted to outline those questions first is I wanted to get a deeper understanding of the philosophy that underpins your understanding. So that when we talk about the issues, I know kind of the roots in which you're starting from. Just to share a little bit about my own perspective and then we can dive into, I think, some of the issues. I would have landed in a very similar place to you. I supported the BC NDP when I was graduating high school and thought a lot of the perspectives you're sharing today were correct. And I actually moved over time more towards a Chief Clarence-Louis perspective. I don't know if you've met him or heard of him, but in BC, he has the most businesses per capita of any First Nation community in all of BC. And the reason that's interesting is because he believes

the only path for First Nations to rise out of poverty and reach their full potential is through employment opportunities. And he has a very low percentage of people living on social assistance and where there's more government programs in First Nation communities. There's more need for those government programs and funding for social services. And so I'm not saying that he's 100% correct, but I learned a lot through a case study of looking at his community and seeing the real life impacts that that has on his members. And so one of the first pieces I wanted to kind of get your thoughts on, you had done an interview with Rachel Gilmore, where you guys were talking about this is the largest wealth transfer in human history and how the wealth gap has grown. And over the

last 10 years, to me, I would put that at the feet of the federal liberal government and the amount of spending that's been taking place. Because when you spend more, there's more supply and less demand. And And then what that results in from my perspective is wealthy people getting more access to those dollars and investing. So when inflation hits, they're invested in the stock market, their assets grow, everyday Canadians, their dollar isn't reaching as far. How do you think about this government spending and its impact on some of the problems you've described? Yeah, no, that's another excellent question. And I think to bring it back to BC specifically, you know, I criticized this budget that BC recently passed as being, you know, full of hidden austerity.

And I think David E.B. has really capitulated to the Conservatives frame on the deficit. But when we zoom out, we see that BC has actually one of the lowest deficits or the, yeah, the lowest debt to GDP ratios in all of Canada. and one of the highest credit rating scores. And so I do worry that when there is too much, there is this like rush to cut the deficit to cut government spending, that that is often balanced on the backs of working people. And that's what we saw in this last budget, that, yeah, the working people saw the highest rate of tax increases in this budget.

it wasn't the ultra wealthy. And, you know, we've seen this shift for now several decades, my entire lifetime, effectively, where, you know, as I was mentioning Premier Gordon Campbell in the early 2000s, you know, cut tax rates most significantly for the 1% and the largest corporations. And so we've been limping along with this hauled out tax system for several decades now. And the NDP hasn't had the political courage to reverse those changes, which has wound us up in a situation where BC has the highest rate of wealth inequality in all of Canada. And I believe that wealth inequality is corrosive both to our economy and to our society. And so, you know, I have real concern about our economy being now dominated by a few number of resource extraction companies,

mostly foreign multinationals and a small handful of billionaires in BC's economy that are driving this wealth gap. And we see that effect on businesses. You know, I'm a strong advocate for small businesses and medium-sized enterprise owned by British Columbians and indigenous communities. But, you know, when we have that wealth gap and that sort of that, that, that, that, that, you know, when our economy is dominated by larger companies, you know, that is, that has a crowding out effect. And we see that squeezing small to medium-sized business innovation. And I, I think that's, that's really, you know, suppressing, yeah, our imagination and capacity on the ground in communities to, to address what I believe is the real crisis at hand, and financially,

which is a revenue crisis. You know, the conservatives have said that. that their alternative budget would involve major cuts to education and health care, because those are the two largest sources of spending. But when we see economies, you know, sub-nationals or national governments around the world slash education, health care, you know, these sort of, or, you know, social programs, public service jobs, that often triggers more economic. downturn. It's suppressing real wages. People are tightening their belts. And I think that's just a major fallacy that we see in some conservative rhetoric is, you know, when the economy is tough, when people,

when households are tightening their belts, so does the government. But that creates a self-reinforcing downward spiral to the bottom. And so, you know, in in a time of a trade war and general, you know, yeah, slight economic recession. We do need, we do need governments to, to step up to ensure that we're not entering into that, that vicious race to the bottom. And so, you know, that's, my answer is sort of two-prong, is that, you know, I think it's austerity budgets in time like this in, yeah, is, is dangerous on, onto its own. I think the, you know, I think the, the deficit narrative is overblown when you look to across provinces and see Quebec and Ontario have a deficit that's six times larger. And yeah, that we need to seriously look at wealth

inequality in order to unleash the true potential of small business in British Columbia. So as an example, I guess, healthcare is an interesting one to get your take on. we're spending more than we've ever spent in all of our history. And all of our metrics are saying that money is not fixing our system. It's not providing better services. So I don't, it's not clear to me that cutting is necessarily a bad thing. When I read, I think it was the Fraser Valley Current came out and said, we were paying for 15 administrators and they were all making like a quarter million dollars each.

And Alberta had like two administrators and they were making like 100,000 each. that we were overpaying for administrators and the system that was brought in to have regional systems of healthcare, like Fraser Health, Interior Health, island health, that that model has not bared the fruit that we were told in its inception

that it was going to bring. And so it's not clear to me that necessarily continuing to just increase the budget is fixing core services. And so how do you think about that type of issue? Yeah. I mean, I think this is, this is true for my view across multiple issues, you know, including policing. I think we need a

systemic rethink of our health care system. And so that's why the BC Greens are pushing for, you know, a real shift to community health care centers. And because we, we have this insane situation in our health care system right now where, you know, the first point of care for many people is the emergency room. And, you know, we're seeing, you know, ER closures, multi-hour wait times. It is so clear to anyone who deals, who enters our healthcare system that it is broken and that throwing more money at, at a bullet wound, for lack of a better analogy, you know, is, is, is not going to, to save us. And so I think we, we need a real, yeah, rethink. And, This is actually true of the doctor situation in BC as well.

We do actually have enough doctors in BC to serve all British Columbians. So it's this issue of distribution and of hours. Because we basically incentivize doctors to operate like small business owners. And so, you know, we're seeing increasing wages and decreasing hours for family. and yeah, general doctors in BC. And so people are still unable to find a family doctor or, you know, have reliable and long-term access to care. And so that's why I'm so passionate about the community health care center model is that it would ensure that, you know, you can walk, you can bike, you can bus or drive to a community health center near you. And it offers like long-term,

and team-based care. So basically you have a reliable practitioner that you see, but in that center, you can also talk to a nurse practitioner. You can, you know, talk to, you know, mental health psychologist. There's, there's, you know, it's real, it's true wraparound care. And so, yeah, that kind of model would, would save so many people in rural and remote communities as well from traveling to Vancouver and, you know, seeing ballooning costs in those sort of urban urban hospital systems as well. And so, yeah, I think that's really kind of my, my principle across a lot of issues is that we need to relocalize our care and our economies, yeah, and ensure that we, yeah, we're not, we're not just throwing more money at a problem that that's not

going to be addressed in under the current system. So just out of curiosity, say I brought you the plan that you're describing, community health centers, we kind of, we did away with old models that weren't working, that you're laying out have a lot of flaws to them. But you were able to save $10 billion per year and you could save that money. Would you feel comfortable doing that? Or is the idea of that that would be a cut of $10 billion, make you nervous that there's something in the fine print that's wrong with it?

I'm just trying to get like an understanding of whether or not like savings is a potential good thing. Oh, absolutely. And I think for me, like we just need to be laser focused on on outcomes and delivering high quality care. And, you know, if we can save $10 billion while increasing the standard of care, addressing these systemic failures in our healthcare system, giddy up. I'm all for it. But if the conservatives say that, but they have a different approach, you're concerned about their cuts. I haven't seen a plan from the conservatives to, you know, redesign the system that would, you know, help that would increase our quality of care.

And so, you know, I'm honestly open. Maybe they do have a plan and I'm super open to hear it. But I think that's like I'm just unwilling to, yeah, make, you know, massive cuts to to core sectors like this without, without focusing on outcomes and where that would leave British Colombians. And I feel like historically a lot of the cuts that conservatives have proposed, you know, have been more focused on balancing the books, then, you know, what is going to be the lived impacts in short, medium, and long term? And it feels like they, yeah, opportunistically will make these cuts knowing that they're within a political cycle and that some of, you know, these effects, they won't feel the political consequences of them

immediately, but they'll get that bump for being, you know, efficient or, you know, being seen as, as fiscally responsible. I think that's deeply irresponsible if we're not laser focused on outcomes. Absolutely. I think my main perspective is just we are spending so much money all the time. And there's always a promise of spending 20 billion more on this, 30 billion more on that. And it just feels like money is not our issue. Governance is our issue. Management of programs is our core issue. Like I don't, we're spending records amount across the board on so many different key issues that British communes want solutions to, but we just keep promising, we'll just spend more, we'll just keep spending. And it just, it doesn't seem like there's an end to how much we can spend

on these projects. And it's just, it's, I'm not seeing the results. The NDP has spent records amount, the liberal government federally, has spent record amount of money. And the programs haven't improved and the services aren't getting better and wait times aren't decreasing. And so I'm just, I'm, I become skeptical that more spending is effective. You didn't mention balanced budgets. would you, if you had the opportunity to form government, would balancing the budget make the top 10 list of things that need to be done? Yeah, I think, I don't, yeah, I don't know what the term or the catchphrase would be exactly. But I do think that we need to address first and foremost the revenue issue that we see. And I think it would, yeah, I think we just, British Columbians have such a lived memory of balancing the budget, meaning on their dime. And, you know, meaning cuts to their jobs into their services. And so, you know, I bring in a different perspective that we do need to first and foremost tackle the massive wealth inequality that we see in our.

province. And we need BC's wealthiest to step up and pay their fair share before working British Colombians, you know, face these cuts to their services and higher taxes. So yeah, I think it's all about how you get there. And I do think it's important to make real progress and to have a sustainable deficit and to work towards, yeah, balancing the budget. How do you think about taxes as a whole, the more I think about what taxes are, I did a whole breakdown on taxes and how governments decided to make you pay them up front rather than at year end because they wanted you to not notice. Because they wanted it to, like, it's already off your paycheck when you receive your paycheck. You didn't even get a chance to look at the money. But if we held the money

at year end and looked at the big stack of cash we were handing out, we would have a different relationship with giving up that amount of money because we would experience the sacrifice of giving it up. And that was deliberately done and planned intentionally so we wouldn't have that relationship. So we're just like, yeah, we pay taxes. And now I see somewhat of a defeated country where we don't even get to negotiate. We don't get to say to political parties, we want all of our taxes cut significantly or like those conversations don't even take place. And politicians often talk about taxes as if they're inherited, as if they deserve that money to operate from.

And I just find something very deeply corrupt about that. These systems can work, but there's no negotiation. There's no political party going, is this even fair? Is this the right model? Should we be taking money from citizens? And then the services that are providing aren't even that good. Like, it's not like I'm paying a lot of taxes

and getting an amazing healthcare system. And a legal system that works perfectly without delays, like, I'm not even impressed with what I'm paying for. And I don't get a vote in whether or not I should be paying all of these taxes. And governments very rarely want to have a conversation about where citizens would like to see tax cuts take place. How do you think about taxes? Yeah. I love that idea of the citizens' negotiation on taxes, you know, because it feels like, you know, we cast our ballot. every couple years. You know, we all have, you know,

our different core issues that we're voting for. But we need to open things up and have greater democratic engagement through election cycles. And you just, you don't see that kind of citizen-led conversation. Like, yeah, I think something like a Citizens' Assembly on tax reform would be really interesting to sort of bring this to the surface.

And yeah, it's, and as I mentioned previously, you know, we, we have seen this, this widening gap in our, in our society, partly because of how our tax system is, is structured. And I'm very concerned that, you know, when you compare sort of the proportion of taxes, that working people are paying far more than, than BC's richest. And that feels, you know, that should be flipped on its head in my view. And I think when we look at the taxation of income versus wealth, I think that's a conversation that needs to be brought to BC as well, because we know that working people, you know, we work for our income. We're working every hour of our day. We are selling our lives for that income. And, you know, we work for our, Yeah, the working class has far fewer, you know, sources of passive income, which is what you seem more commonly, yeah, across BC's wealthiest individuals who aren't selling their time. They, they, you know, it's through the stock market, it's through real estate or other investment

homes. And that kind of income accumulates as, as, yeah, greater sources of wealth over time. that's not taxable. And so that's why I'm so interested in bringing in a wealth tax, because I just see that as sort of like siphoned offshoreed wealth almost, that yeah, is by proportion means that working British Columbians are paying way more in taxes than BC's wealthiest. And when I say wealthiest, I mean, I'm mostly talking about, about the 650 centa millionaires and billionaires in BC who make, who have a net worth of over $100 million. One of your examples, I think, is Jim Patterson.

And I'd just be like, how do you digest a person like that? Because they've, he's absolutely created value. Like, save on foods exist across Western Canada. It is the primary grocery store. There's more save on foods than superstores or Walmarts. there's more car dealerships owned by them, signs put up, marketing other businesses. He has created and contributed to Canada's economy, but he would fall under your regime of needing to pay more. What is your thoughts on him and why should he pay more?

Yeah, absolutely. So to zoom out a bit, you know, Jim Patterson, I believe, has a net worth of between 12 and 13 billion dollars. His net worth doubled in the first year of COVID. And that is primarily through price gouging British Columbians and, you know, people in Western Canada at his grocery stores. And this is not to say that Jim Patterson hasn't contributed, mostly in the terms of jobs, you know, being a private employer for British Columbians. But, you know, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not seeing him pay his grocery store workers a living wage or, you know, distribute that wealth to in a significant way. And I think, you know, people talk about Jim Patterson as being a philanthropist. But when you look at, you know, the scale of his wealth compared to his contribution, you know,

his contribution if he were to pay his fair share in taxes, you know, more similar to what working British Columbians pay in their taxes, we could be funding things like, you know, massive scaling of social housing across BC. We could be paying for fast and free transit. We could build all of these community health care centers. And so I have costed some of this plan, actually. And I, so I'm proposing a one-time 10% wealth tax on all BC cent to millionaires and billionaires. And this is modeled after a referendum that's backed by unions in California that's taking place right now. And this would generate about $13 billion for BC, roughly the size of our deficit, might I add. And so I think that that revenue could go towards, yeah, several

important things that would help stimulate our economy and deliver better high-quality services for British Columbians. You know, there's, there's, yeah, all sorts of examples, but, you know, we could pay for universal child care with, with that funds. You know, the BCNDP cut out $10 a day daycare completely from the last budget. They're moving away from it. But that's something that would help working families so immensely and would ensure that, yeah, folks can, you know, rest easy at their jobs and, you know, have a far better work-life balance and, yeah, stimulate the economy in other ways. And so, yeah, I think when we look at BC's billionaires, it's just so patently obvious to me that they need to step up and pay their fair share. And, yeah, I think it's

You know, you hear a lot of fear mongering as well. Like when we start talking about wealth taxes like that, you know, I think wealth flight is largely sort of a mythical narrative perpetuated by the billionaires who don't want to chip in with their fair share. But I think crucially, with this one-time wealth tax model, that sort of retroactive date, you know, they can't move their money elsewhere if we tax. them on their 2025 wealth, for instance. And yeah, we are facing the worst levels of income inequality. And I think it's just, it's completely damning that a successful doctor is taxed at the same rate as a billionaire like Chip Wilson, who makes so much of his wealth on the backs of others and from completely passive real estate sources. So, So, yeah, I think it's also important to remember that British Columbians or, you know, these billionaires, they don't live here because it's a tax haven. You know, it's because BC is a hub of innovation, trade, and business. And in my opinion, it's the most beautiful province in our country. You know, they're living here because they have roots, businesses, and employees here. They're not just going to pick up and leave. As you might know, one of the values of the show is trying to steal man the other position.

So I'm going to put myself in Jim Patterson's shoes and try and lay out the counter argument to what you just said. The first piece, you talked about grocery prices and price gouging. I think his argument would be something along the lines of, we charge what the market will bear, we're constantly monitoring what people are willing to pay. We look at the prices at Safeway and Superstore and we see competition. If people don't like our prices, they're welcome to go to those places, Kins Market, small groceries and other places if they're interested. As Jim Patterson, I contribute a lot to the economy.

I've created thousands of jobs. Imagine I shut it all down. You say, you're going to tax me. I shut it all down. And I say, okay, I'm leaving. I'm taking thousands of jobs where all of those individuals also pay taxes and contribute to the economy and what people are spending. And then the third piece is, what does it mean to have a fair share?

What does that look like? Because you're saying, if I pay more, that's fair. But then somebody to the even more left of you may say, billionaire shouldn't exist and I should have to forfeit all of my money. And people to the right say that I should be able to keep my money because I've created successful businesses and that's my reward for doing so. What's your response? I'm sure I've butchered that steel man to a true conservative.

But what are your thoughts on that? Yeah, no, that's a good steelman landscape. Yeah, I think there's a lot to unpack there, but I do find it curious that people like Jim Patterson, they, you know, they will make a big splash about, you know, donating to local hospitals. They put their name on these hospital buildings. And I think that's a way for them of buying social license. and, you know, as a way of sort of escaping paying their fair share in taxes. And I think it's incredibly important to look at where this path of wealth and equality has brought us. I think it has brought us rising fascism in the United States and globally, frankly.

And I just, I think when we zoom out, We can't continue down this path of, you know, a small handful of individuals around the world, siphoning and hoarding, hoarding wealth. We know that from an economic perspective, that is not an efficient way for our economy. You know, it is, it is, yeah, we've, we've, that is, that is the path that so-called Reagan's trickle-down economics has, has led us. You know, They promised that it would trickle down, but it in fact has just, it's just gotten caught up there. It's not trickling down. And that is the role, in my view, of government, that we need to intervene and address that kind of extreme wealth inequality. Or else I believe that we are, you know, set to be on a similar path to the United States where, you know, they are. you know, in a real state of instability and, and fascism. And I see, you know, similar, similar movements in, in BC, you know, as our wealth, as our affordability and cost of living

crisis worsens. We, we see similar sort of like right-wing backlash. But I think that's, it's an incredibly dangerous path. And we see conservatives. continuing to pit working people against each other, scapegoating migrants. And I think it's a, these culture wars are a massive distraction when what we should be doing as working people is, you know,

not pointing fingers at each other, but looking up, looking up at the people that are, that are hoarding this wealth in our, our economy. And it, and for me, it's, it's, you know,

this isn't about solving an abstract math equation. It's about asking the wealthiest British Columbiaans to chip in, to fund basic services like universal child care, affordable social housing, and fast and free transit to ensure that their employees can live a dignified life. You know, I think that that used to be more common sense, even 50 or more years. ago, right? Like, corporations used to have this, and the rich actually used to pay far more in taxes. I think it was, yeah, it was, it was in the Borden years, a conservative who brought in a higher income tax on Canada's wealthy. You know, they used to pay far more and willingly did so,

partly because, you know, if they were controlling an industry as Jim Patterson does, they want their workers to be cared for. But what we're increasingly seeing is through the, you know, the development of AI and this increased culture of disposability, you know, these individuals see British Columbians as as replaceable. And I think we need to get back to a system where there is enough redistribution that, you know, these heads of industry, these capitalists, their workers are actually cared for and more able to, you know, spend in their local economy. They're not just spending their entire rent and income or their income on rent and groceries. We know that that is depressing our economy. And so I know from past

statements that Jim Patterson has said that he's against a wealth tax. And I'm sure other billionaires in BC would agree. But that is precisely why we need government intervention. And I, you know, I want to put it to a referendum in BC. I want to see, to ask all British Columbians what they think of a wealth tax on BC's ultra-millionaires. Well, I'll say right at the outset, the, like, I see what Alberta is doing with their referendum. And just like, why is the last time we had a referendum, the HST, like 10 years ago? Like, why aren't we engaging our. populace more on all sorts of issues. Like, that's a key piece of good governance that I think we're missing. But I guess, I guess the area where I feel like you and I disagree at the core is I have a bigger beef with governments than I do with the ultra wealthy. Jim Patterson has never ripped money out of my paycheck. The government has. And the government is promised again and again and again and again that services are going to improve, that we just need a little bit more.

you get taxed on your income, then you get taxed when you go spend your money, and then you get taxed when you use bottles and cans and return it and stuff. Like, we get taxed so many times on our income. It's the government ripping 40% of my income away from me. It is not Jim Patterson. And yes, maybe, so say we're paying 10% more because Jim Patterson's doing these things and grocery stores are doing this. Well, 40% of my paycheck and all the money that I earn goes towards governments, It's governments who constantly tell me that things will get better the more I pay. And I have not seen that over my lifetime. And when we talk about, well, if we take another $13 billion from Jim Patterson or from all the billionaires,

it's like, I have no faith in our government right now to manage that money and actually deliver the social housing that you're describing. Like we look at BC housing and how they've delivered a lot of those projects. They've overpaid. They've mismanaged projects. Like things have not gone perfectly smoothly because, because governments have grown and gotten more of British Columbia. If we wanted to really address the cost of living crisis,

why doesn't government cut 20% of taxes? Why don't they cut the PST for a while? Like, those would be immediate impacts on people's wallet that people could see. Like, when I look at the impact of governments on indigenous people, like I feel like we should be the biggest voices saying they have harmed us through Indian residential schools. They have harmed women through processes to stop them from procreating.

Like we have lots of evidence that governments have crossed lines, the more power and the more money we give them. We don't have as much evidence that individuals like Jim Patterson are the root of all of our problems. I think if we address some of the government spending and how they approach things, we'd address more of those issues. And I'm curious as to your thoughts because I get very animated when I think about how much governments take from British Columbians, from everyday people, from the most impoverished at times. And I think we maybe agree more than you think. You know, I think it's deeply unfair that working British Columbians are paying more than than BC's richest in taxes. And I'm here because I don't have faith in this government. You know, that's why, I mean, I, in the short term, I think the most effective and democratic approach is the BC Greens holding the balance of power.

We only need one more seat to do so. And, you know, in that negotiating position, we could bring in things like, you know, a strong agreement on social housing and set out sort of the key guardrails and provisions for that, those projects to unfold effectively. And so, you know, I think that's part of my counter is I think I would do a better job. And that's why I'm here. But yeah, I think holding the balance of power and then we need a more democratic electoral system. And I'm very curious to hear where you stand on proportional representation. But this has been, you know, a longstanding priority for the Greens that, you know, there's, I think so many people don't vote because they feel like their vote is a throwaway or it doesn't matter or they're voting for the lesser of two evils. But under, you know, a mixed member proportional representation system, it would mean that, you know, when you cast your ballot, you vote for the party, but you also vote for a local representative. And so that means that, you know, you still get your community representation, but you also have, you know, your party of choice represented effectively. So if 20% of British Columbians are voting for the BC Greens, we would have 20 MLAs, you know, holding the balance of power in, you know, in.

in the province. And so, yeah, I think that kind of shift, we just, and I totally agree with you, we need deeper democracy. You know, we need greater participation. We need more discourse on taxes. And yeah, I think, you know, when I, when I characterize, yeah, I've talked a lot about why wealth inequality is an issue. And I do want to just, you know, name that, you know, BC billionaires have had an active role in creating that crisis, and government has not intervened. And so, you know, when I, and I'm talking about price gouging during the pandemic. Like that, to me, is a very clear issue. But, and I think they kind of hide behind that, that market argument. You know, Jim Patterson could have chosen to step up and pay his workers, you know, a living.

an emergency wage during during COVID. He, you know, he could have chosen to subsidize prices on the back of his $13 billion net worth. You know, he would have been able to provide that service to British Columbians, recognizing that access to affordable food should be a, is a human right in my view. And so, yeah, I think, I think

it's important to recognize some of Yeah, how our cost of living crisis is, you know, leading to these deteriorating standards and quality of life in BC. Like, I think it's, you know, when we talk about things like capital flight, you know, I think it really makes us, makes me realize just how much these people are holding us hostage. If we're so worried about, you know, a few billionaires leaving, which I don't think they will, for the record. I think research and common sense shows that they are very likely to pay a one-time tax than uproot their entire industry. But, you know, when we were so much more worried about the flight of a few billionaires than actual British Columbians. And it was just last year that 70,000 people had to leave BC. No, this was in 2023. 70,000 left in 2023,

simply because it was too expensive to stay. You know, and I want a BC where people can actually afford to put roots down and thrive. You know, we're seeing more worker flight than capital flight. And I think that's, that is the greater impending risk to our economy. I'm curious what your thoughts are on the impact of inflation having on individuals. Because what I see is also the amount of government spending caused inflation to hit an all-time peak. I think in 2022 or 23, where it hit 8% that year. And inflation happens year over year. It's a cumulative effect. We dream of 2% being the standard. But that means that your amount of money is decreasing by 2%

at least every single year. So the value of your dollar isn't reaching as far every time the government continues to spend more than we have. And there's concerns about deflation and what the risks of that would be. But I just see like in 8%, it was like 2022 or 23. And then if it's been around 3% ever since, that's like 20% over the past five years that inflation has continued to rise and have an impact on everyday people. And I see that as a core issue, at least amongst price gouging. But to me, it's like it's the elephant in the room. And then price gouging may be an aspect. Like, I do think that it's true. And I think Loblaws was caught in this, that they had increased prices ahead of inflation actually hitting until

they were actually profiting beforehand. But they were doing it because they knew inflation was about to hit and cause increase in places. And I just, I view that as one of the cornerstone issues that if as a country, we actually want to help the downtrodden, the people in poverty, this was my big issue with Justin Trudeau, was if we keep spending the way that he was during the pandemic, that that does have a long-term effect on the rising inflation. And then it hit. And when he started spending, he said, you're not going to see any inflation. And then two years later, that inflation started to kick in and we saw it hit 8%. And then I look at how that impacts people on fixed incomes, people in indigenous communities who are relying on what is social assistance

right now, like $1,000 a month for them to live on. Like their $1,000 is not stretching as far. But if we have inflation hitting 8%, 4%, 2%, that's always deteriorating their money. And then, as you point out, billionaires and people who are good with their money often invest their money. So they're getting a 7%, 8% return, so they're at least staving off inflation. And I just, when I think about this system, I'm just, I think it's bizarre that as a country, we've agreed that individuals should expect, no, don't put your money in a savings account. What you need to be doing is gambling your money professionally in a stock market in order to be profiting. And if you're not hitting a 7% return, you may fall beneath the amount of money you need to be earning. Like, what kind of wacko,

like, system did we create where we landed it? That's the only way to keep your dollar keeping value, is to be investing it that way, investing in real estate, having all these strategies. If we got rid of inflation and if we stopped growing the money supply, I think that would solve a lot of the core issues that you're describing as well. Yeah, well, we certainly agree that, yeah, individuals investing so much of their money into passive income into the stock market, you know, it's causing this real. and widening wealth gap. And we do, and that inflation hurts the working class the most.

And that's, and, and, yeah, that's something that we, we do need to, to take seriously and, you know, at both levels of, of government. And I think for me, you know, as, as I mentioned, I am concerned about, you know, the hidden austerity in this budget, having knock on. effects, you know, creating greater economic downturn on working people. And I think what we need to address first and foremost is revenue. We do need to grow our sources of revenue. And I'm incredibly concerned about the BC&P's plan to do it. It's effective. They're putting all of our eggs, so to speak, into the LNG basket. Liquefied natural gas projects in BC.

even though we know that BC, these projects are set to be the highest cost late market entrance to this global market. You know, right when these projects come online, we're set to have a global supply glut of LNG. So I'm incredibly concerned about the knock-on effects. And it feels like this government is just, you know, boosting these projects in a political cycle to make it seem like, you know, we're a part of the national trend of, investing in major projects and, you know, we're seeing all this, this growth in our, in our resource industry. But I, I think it's, it's a mirage. And we're going to find ourselves in a very challenging economic situation if these projects go, go ahead and are stranded in, you know, five to ten years. Meanwhile, we poured billions of subsidies into these projects, most of which are

owned by American companies or backed by American equity companies in Trump's inner circle. So this to me, it's just, it's not following the spirit of elbows up, to be honest. And I think we need to be investing in, we need to be growing our revenue, you know, yes, through things like a wealth tax, but also through made in BC resource and, you know, local innovation through, yeah, manufacturing and, and alternative industries that are actually, yeah, housed in BC, led and owned by nations. And, you know, because I think my big issue with these, you know, banking to raise revenue through LNG exports, it's just another example of, you know, foreign equity coming in, sucking up our resources and having it fly off and exported

to other nations, you know, to other countries. And it, I think that's, that is sort of the story of our boom and bust resource province that, you know, so much that of our wealth ends up being siphoned and exported overseas. And, you know, I want to remake a BC economy that, you know, raises the revenue that we need in, yeah, a sustainable 21st century direction. A few more quick questions. Thank you so much for your time. What are your thoughts on David E.B.? I, he's a certain, he's a puzzle to me still. I, I do find it kind of fascinating and deeply disheartening that, you know, he started his career, you know, in, in, in, the progressive world. He was people who knew him earlier in his career, knew him to be, you know, really passionate, advocating for bolder, bolder changes. And I think we've seen, yeah, a real,

a real shift from him. And I think the EBE's NDP has, in the last year, been just mindlessly chasing center-right voters while abandoning. their traditional progressive base labor unions. You know, we saw the longest public service strike in BC's history was over two months long on Eby's watch. And, you know, I see a man who's out of ideas and who is deeply tired. And I think it's very concerning to me. And I think the BC and E. he need to take a real look in the mirror. You know, in the 2024 election, he described it as a near-death experience to him and his government. You know, he was almost overtaken by John Rustad, you know, after a rapid amalgamation of parties on the right. And I think they took away the wrong lessons from that. And we're seeing Starmer's government in the UK make almost exactly the same mistakes

where they are, you know, chasing conservatives on culture war issues or on, you know, surface level, surface level issues. And we're, you know, capitulating to the conservative frame. Instead of addressing working conditions, the material conditions that lead people to right-wing movements. And yeah, we're seeing the same thing in the UK. And it's very concerning to me that the NDP isn't just standing, you know, with and using their political capital, using their position to fully tackle our affordability crisis and fight for working people. Because I think that's what's going to, you know, win them, win them ground in next election. It's not by, yeah, falling for conservative distractions.

In closing, I'm just curious, I believe you're 25, correct? Yeah. Yeah. You're starting a movement. I think you are creating a lot of hope among young people that there is a place for them. But with that hope becomes responsibility. And there's there's an opportunity, I think, here with the confusion around where the NDP actually stands. I do, agree with you, they've drifted from a more left-leaning party to a more right-leaning or a middle-grounded party. The conservatives seem to be very focused on pushing right with their purity tests on who is a true blue conservative and what that looks like. I was interested in Christy Clark's comments on that. But I see this, there is an opportunity

here. But the BC Greens have always had a problem of being stuck at 4%. And I think that's because there are certain pieces of your platform that just don't resonate with so many people. There was, I think, an over-dedication to a green movement over the past 10 years that just wasn't working for people and wasn't bringing about the change that people were looking for. There was people call it like woke politics. There was like a focus on that over the past 10 years that wasn't landing. How do you create this hope, build momentum? But also I think like at the end of the day, you're going to have to not

perhaps to David Eby's extent, by your own definition, but how do you create a bigger tent where there is a larger group of people? And some of the policies, I do think initially on reading them, scare people away from that. How are you going to approach that over the next couple of years? Yeah. I think the BC Greens have such a huge opportunity right now to be the real workers party. I think both the BCNDP and the BC conservatives, you know, have really sold out to corporate lobbyists and, you know, through their time in government or through their party backers. And, you know, what we're seeing is a generational shift where, you know, we're bringing along Gen Z, millennials, you know, people that have been sitting elections out.

And that's where we've seen green parties grow power and influence around the world. It's not by fighting over a shrinking slice of committed moderate voters. It's by appealing to the people that are being quashed by the status quo. It's, you know, by building power with with youth, with renters, with workers, with indigenous communities. And, yeah, and many others who feel underrepresented. And so that's what I'm doing right now. I'm touring the province and building building power at the grassroots level. Because what I see the other parties doing is, you know, they're so concerned about, you know, what happens in the halls of the legislature, the internal politics, the quabbling, the quibbling and and appealing to, you know, the political class, the legacy media.

Whereas, you know, that's not where my people are necessarily. You know, I'm not saying that, yeah, you know, it's good to get mainstream coverage, but we're building, you know, a movement on social media at the grassroots level. And we're building teams of people to doork this entire province. And I think that's where real change happens to make people feel hope again, you know, for the Greens to hold the balance of power and to fight for for real solutions to the affordability crisis. And yeah, I, And we've detailed many of our plans through our platform at Emily for BCGreens.ca. And so I think we have about 60 pages of policy there. And, you know, a lot of that will come to life in the next election whenever that may be. But for right now, I think it's, yeah, it's incredibly important that we're working in the legislature to advance priorities for working British Columbia. You know, we, we introduce private member bills. We're active in question period. You know, we brought forward things like vacancy control, which would stop for profit evictions in the province. And we,

yeah, are, you know, working with different movements across British Columbia to, to advance our core priorities. So I just want to say that, like, yes, we're building a movement, but we're also doing the work right here, right now. And, you know, we did advance some of our, our priorities through the first year of our cooperation agreement with the BCNDP, you know, funding for community health care centers, you know, a bus system in the Squamish Sea to Sky region and several others. But yeah, as we as we move forward, I think it's incredibly important that we also look at, you know, we question sort of the body of the political party, I guess, because I I'm just baffled by, you know, how much these parties are spending on ads. It's like the party

campaign industrial complex or something. I'm like, what if we were spending that money on mutual aid in communities across BC? What if our constituency offices and our campaign offices were actual resource centers to communities, you know? Like, what if we were, you know, offering people food and, you know, like real, real care in the community. I think we just, we really need to be thinking about what the hell we're doing here and, you know, start to, yeah, question some of these, yeah, traditional assumptions about what politics is, how it functions, because I think it's driven so many people away. Fascinating. How can people follow your work? Yeah, so I'm active on most social media. On Instagram, it's at Emily Lohen. That's also on

Blue Sky. And you can also email me at emily.loan at bcgreens.c.c.a. And yeah, if you want to sign up to be a member, to volunteer to join the movement, I just go to bcgreens.c.c.a. Emily, thank you so much for being willing to do this. I find it fascinating to try and understand the philosophy that underlies so many of the ideas that political parties end up putting forward. And I appreciate you being willing to share those and walk us through the direction you hope to bring British Columbia. Yeah, thank you so much again, Aaron. It was a real pleasure to talk to. Fantastic.