Over the last few days my office has received a number of emails concerning the City of Victoria’s proposed closure of Richardson Street at its junction with Foul Bay Road. The stated goal for this closure is to install bike lanes and limit the traffic along Richardson Street to fewer than 500 cars per day. Unfortunately, the City of Victoria has chosen not to send their proposal to the District of Oak Bay for comment. In my view, this is unacceptable since Victoria is surrounded by neighbouring communities and any traffic flow changes have significant concomitant regional consequences.  It’s particularly troubling as Foul Bay Road represents the boundary between Oak Bay and Victoria.

Below I reproduce a letter I sent today to Victoria Council expressing my concerns regarding their lack of consultation.

Text of Letter

Dear Mayor and Council of the City of Victoria,

I am writing to you to express my profound concern regarding your proposed forthcoming developments for Richardson Street at the Foul Bay junction.  As you will know, the junction where Richardson Street meets Foul Bay resides squarely in the riding of Oak Bay Gordon Head which I represent.

I understand that Council has unilaterally decided that it wishes to restrict traffic to only 500 cars per day along Richardson Road without consulting with the District of Oak Bay.  To meet this arbitrary target, council decided to close off Richardson Street at Foul Bay and hence only allow bike traffic through the intersection.

Richardson Road is one of only two main roads that connect south Oak Bay (where a substantial number of civil servants live) and downtown Victoria.  While I applaud your efforts to create more biking infrastructure for the City of Victoria, I remind you that Victoria is surrounded by neighbouring communities and any traffic flow changes have significant concomitant regional consequences.  In addition, for many people living in south Oak Bay, cycling is not an option.  In my view, it is not appropriate for your council to proceed with this project without formally referring this proposal to the District of Oak Bay for comment.

As you will also know, Oak Bay is planning to expand their active transportation infrastructure.  They are in the midst of ongoing consultation and planning.   It strikes me as both a missed opportunity and inappropriate for you not to consult with them on your plans.  My recommendation to government is that provincial funding requests for the Richardson Corridor project not be considered until such time as said consultation is completed.

I am not sure what, if any, regional traffic flow modelling your council has done on the proposed closure of this intersection.  Nevertheless, as someone who was born and grew up in Victoria, I would suggest that all that this will do is divert traffic from South Oak Bay to Fairfield Road.  This will greatly increase traffic on side streets throughout the area.  As you know, Fairfield Road passes two elementary schools: Margaret Jenkins and Sir James Douglas.  This substantially increased traffic flow on Fairfield Road presents a very real, increased danger to the elementary school students.  In addition, the substantially increased traffic on the side streets also presents a very real, increased danger to children.  Fairfield Road also meanders by Ross Bay Cemetery, Fairfield Plaza and Hollywood Park.  In many places, it is very narrow and very busy.  Richardson Road, on the other hand, could easily handle separated bike lanes.

I recognize that Victoria Council might counter that they expect traffic to come along Oak Bay Avenue instead.  I would suggest that this is certainly not a given as Oak Bay Council is presently exploring traffic options in the Oak Bay Village to make it more pedestrian friendly.  In essence, this is precisely why consultation with neighbouring communities is imperative.

Thank you in advance for considering this request that you enter into consultation with the District of Oak Bay in advance of proceeding with the closure of Richardson Road at Foul Bay.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Weaver

MLA Oak Bay-Gordon Head

Cc  BC Minister of Transportation  (minister.transportation@gov.bc.ca)
BC Minister of Environment  (env.minister@gov.bc.ca)
BC Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing  (mah.minister@gov.bc.ca)
Oak Bay Mayor and Council (mayor@oakbay.ca, obcouncil@oakbay.ca)

Today in the legislature I rose during question period to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources how he reconciles his government’s claim that it is committed to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples while at the same time introducing measures that will restrict their opportunities for clean energy economic development. I also asked him whether he was willing to instruct B.C. Hydro to declare force majeure on the existing Site C construction contracts, as opposed to the IPP contracts, to save billions upon billions of ratepayer dollars, and instead instruct B.C. Hydro to issue calls for power at market rate for any future power needs.

Below I reproduce the text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Many Indigenous communities in British Columbia anticipated being able to sell surplus electricity to B.C. Hydro. Despite this government’s professed commitment to reconciliation, the decision by B.C. Hydro to cancel its standing offer program has placed these communities in a very difficult position.

As I’m sure the minister is aware, reconciliation is a multifaceted process that involves building genuine, long-lasting economic partnerships with Indigenous communities. Otherwise many such communities will continue to struggle economically. More recently, with the proposed changes to the self-sufficiency clause in the Clean Energy Act, First Nations aspiring to become clean energy producers will be dealt yet another serious blow.

My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. How can this government claim that it is committed to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples while at the same time introducing measures that will restrict their opportunities for economic development?

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: I want to thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for his question. Let’s begin by remembering that the old government signed insider deals for power at five times the market price. That created a $16 billion obligation owed by British Columbians. That’s $16 billion in unnecessary costs.

We are committed to keeping B.C. Hydro rates low and building a low-carbon economy for people. Maintaining affordable electricity is critical to electrifying our economy and meeting our CleanBC goals. The standing offer program was not compatible with this.

Our government understands — and I acknowledge the import of the member’s question — that many Indigenous communities view small-scale private power as economic development opportunities. Indeed, when we suspended the standing offer program in February 2019, we exempted five projects in development that had significant First Nations involvement.

I agree with the member that it’s important to support Indigenous communities in clean energy economic development. Just last month we announced $13 million for four clean energy projects to help remote communities get off diesel.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Over the last decade, numerous First Nations have banked heavily on clean energy projects as an economic development strategy. Many have entered into agreements with independent power producers to do the same. On Vancouver Island, for example, 13 of the 14 Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations are either current or perspective stakeholders in renewable energy products. The Tla-o-qui-aht Nation has poured over $50 million into clean energy projects and has plans to spend an additional $100 million.

Successful endeavours, such as the T’Sou-ke Nation’s solar farm in the Premier’s own riding, have helped get Indigenous nations off diesel, while others that have received financial backing from the government promise to do the same. For many Indigenous communities across British Columbia, the opportunity to sell excess electricity is a vital component of their future economic plans.

My question, once more, is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Will the minister instruct B.C. Hydro to declare force majeure on the existing Site C construction contracts, as opposed to the IPP contracts, to save billions upon billions of ratepayer dollars, and instead instruct B.C. Hydro to issue calls for power at market rate for any future power needs?

To remind the minister, market rate is not 20 cents a kilowatt hour. It’s not 15 cents a kilowatt hour. It is a few cents a kilowatt, as is demonstrated worldwide with the price of solar and wind being lower than the price of coal and natural gas combustion in most jurisdictions.

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: Once again, I’d like to thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for his question. As a government, we are committed to working collaboratively with Indigenous communities on opportunities for economic development. We consulted widely, including engagement with Indigenous nations, on the Comprehensive Review of B.C. Hydro: Phase 2 Interim Report, which includes the proposal on the self-sufficiency requirement.

I think it’s important to note that the changes that we are proposing will not happen overnight. They will allow B.C. Hydro to consider out-of-province energy, as one option — one option among many — to providing clean and affordable energy, as part of their next 20-year plan. These changes support our climate plan, CleanBC, and they allow B.C. Hydro to continue purchasing power from First Nations-owned projects.

My ministry has a wide range of programs that support Indigenous communities to transition to clean energy and improve energy efficiency. For example, we’ve invested $5 million in the B.C. Indigenous clean energy initiative. This initiative supports community clean energy projects. I appreciate the member’s questions on this important topic. Our government will continue to work with Indigenous communities to identify clean energy opportunities.

In May 2019, my private Member’s bill: Bill M209: Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2019 received royal assent but required an Order in Council to become enacted. That happened today. I’m delighted to report that effective immediately, the province is now officially the first jurisdiction in Canada to allow companies to incorporate as benefit companies.

As you will see from the government press release (that I reproduce below) I was pleased to sponsor this bill and to collaborate with government to see it become the first ever opposition private members’ bill passed into law in B.C. Our province is home to incredibly innovative companies that want to play a larger role in addressing the challenges and opportunities we face. This legislation helps position our province to be a leader on the cutting edge of global economic trends. By becoming the first jurisdiction in Canada to create benefit companies, B.C. can position our economy for success as we work to recover from the impacts of COVID-19 and beyond.

My bill amended the Business Corporations Act to create a new Part 2.3 that enabled companies to become benefit companies. These companies will have to meet certain requirements, including:

• Committing in their articles to operate in a socially responsible and environmentally sustainable manner, and to promote specific public benefits;
• The directors must act honestly and in good faith to pursue public benefits and consider the interests of persons affected by the company’s conduct
• Reporting publicly against an independent third party standard.

The choice to become a benefit corporation status is completely voluntary and has no impact on other existing corporations, other corporate forms, taxes or government regulation

It’s generally recognized that Canadian corporate law does not have a strict “shareholder primacy” rule as the US does, so directors of companies in Canada have more discretion to pursue a broader mandate beyond maximizing shareholder profits. However, this legislation was needed to

• Provide clarity for directors and shareholders about the nature and mandate of the company – avoid the risk of a shareholder challenge regarding the director’s duties;
• Provide certainty for impact investors of the nature and mandate of the company;
• Enable companies to attract capital while being true to their mission as they grow;
• Protect the vision of the founders of benefit companies from shareholder challenges;
• Provide a simple framework for companies to adhere to that is legally and commercially recognized.

This legislation also encourages more companies to pursue a socially responsible and environmentally sustainable approach to business, creating beneficial outcomes for society as a whole and leveraging the power of business to help us to tackle significant social and environmental challenges.

Below I reproduce government’s press release issued today. I am grateful to the Minister of Finance, the Legislative drafters, and Sarah Miller, a researcher in the BC Green Caucus, that I worked closely with in developing this legislation.

Government Press Release

New business option empowers companies to give back
For Immediate Release
2020FIN0038-001197
June 30, 2020
Ministry of Finance

VICTORIA – Through historic and collaborative legislation, British Columbia is the first province in Canada to create the option of benefit companies, a new way to do business that benefits people, communities and future generations.

“As government, we’re proud to support B.C. businesses that not only want to do well for their stakeholders, but also give back to their communities in important ways,” said Carole James, Minister of Finance. “By providing the framework through legislation, benefit companies will help propel B.C.’s economy into the future, grounded by the values and beliefs that define us as British Columbians. This is especially important now, as we work to build back better from the impacts COVID-19. I want to thank independent MLA for Oak-Bay Gordon Head Andrew Weaver and my colleagues in the third party for being champions of this new business structure from day one.”

Changes to the Business Corporations Act give British Columbians a new option when choosing a corporate structure for their business. A benefit company is a for-profit corporation committed to conducting its business in a responsible and sustainable manner, as well as promoting public benefits in addition to serving the interests of its shareholders. For example, the benefits could be artistic, charitable, cultural, economic, educational, environmental, literary, medical, religious, scientific and/or technological.

“I was pleased to sponsor this bill and to collaborate with government to see it become the first ever opposition private members’ bill passed into law in B.C.,” Weaver said. “Our province is home to incredibly innovative companies that want to play a larger role in addressing the challenges and opportunities we face. This legislation helps position our province to be a leader on the cutting edge of global economic trends. By becoming the first jurisdiction in Canada to create benefit companies, B.C. can position our economy for success as we work to recover from the impacts of COVID-19 and beyond.”

A business that becomes a benefit company must:

• specify its public benefit goals in its articles of incorporation, allowing investors to determine if the stated public benefit aligns with their investment and social goals;
• complete and publish an annual benefit report assessing the company’s performance in its promotion of its stated public benefits;
• compare its progress against an independent, third-party standard;
• share the report publicly by making it available at the company’s records office and on the company’s website, if it has one; and
• require the company’s directors to balance the commitments in the benefit provision with their duty to act in the best interests of the company.

“Our work to expand and modernize BC Registries has played a key role in bringing this exciting legislation to life,” said Anne Kang, Minister of Citizens’ Services. “Allowing businesses to register as benefit companies gives them more tools to help improve our communities and the well-being of people. This initiative is another step forward in our work to deliver modern, reliable and easy-to-access services for British Columbians, where and when they need them.”

These amendments ensure that B.C. companies committed to considering the impact of their decisions are able to balance the needs of their shareholders with the values of British Columbians.

The values of collaboration, partnership and public good are foundational to the Confidence and Supply Agreement with the BC Green Party caucus, and it continues to provide the basis for a strong, stable government for British Columbia. By working together, progress continues to be made on shared priorities, like climate change, tackling the housing crisis and building a sustainable economy that works for everyone.

Quick Facts:

• Benefit companies were first introduced in 2010 in the United States and are now possible in 35 U.S. states, as well as Italy and Colombia.
• On May 16, 2019, the Business Corporations Amendment Act (No. 2) received royal assent.
• This is the first private member’s bill from an opposition party to be passed directly into law in B.C.

Learn More:

To learn more about the amendments, visit: www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/bills/billsprevious/4th41st:m209-1/search/CIVIX_DOCUMENT_ROOT_STEM:(Business%20Corporation)%20AND%20(benefit)?1#hit1

Yesterday I published a blog post detailing the apparent regulatory inconsistencies facing the advancement of Pacific Booker’s Morrison Mine project. Today during question period I rose to explore this issue further with the Minister of Environment. Today’s question built upon an initial question I asked the Minister of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources on March 5, 2020.

Below I reproduce the text and video of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: On March 5, I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources a question concerning regulatory inconsistencies in the provincial government’s handling of Pacific Booker’s proposed Morrison mine. I’d like to explore this a little further.

In 2015, after reviewing the project for a second time, the Ministry of Environment issued a section 17 order that the project undergo further assessment. Despite numerous exchanges with the environmental assessment office and the completion of an in-depth study of Morrison Lake, Pacific Booker has been unable to clarify the precise nature of what is actually required in the section 17 order. For Pacific Booker, this order has been tantamount to a rejection of its project without the ministry formally saying no.

Government recently amended the environmental assessment process to provide certainty of process and clarity of regulatory considerations. When presented with an application for an environmental assessment certificate, the minister is given three options under the 2018 Environmental Assessment Act:

(1) grant the certificate,
(2) grant the certificate with conditions attached or
(3) reject the project.

Pacific Booker’s treatment doesn’t align with the new assessment standards. They’ve been given the opposite of regulatory certainty, and their project has been shunted off for a further assessment. My question is to the Minister of Environment. Considering the recent changes to the environmental assessment process, will he amend the 2015 order to clarify the nature of the work required by Pacific Booker Minerals?

Answer

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. I recall the question to my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, in March quite well. As the Minister of Energy and Mines said at the time, he and I can’t speak to the specifics of why the old government made the decision that it made with respect to the proposed Morrison mine.

The member is also correct. We made significant changes to the Environmental Assessment Act through revitalization, and we’re proud of that as our government. We brought new transparency to the act. We’ve included engagement of Indigenous peoples and local communities at the front end, and we have taken steps to ensure that good projects that respect the environment, that respect Indigenous peoples and that respect the public can be approved more quickly with greater certainty.

However, with regard to Pacific Booker, the member is correct. Under the old act, the decision was made to require additional information from the proponent before a final decision on the proposal was made.Under the new legislation or the transition regulation, there is no ability to take a project like Morrison that has proceeded this far down the process and transfer it to the provisions of the new act. But it’s my understanding that the company is currently working through the required regulatory process for further assessment in tandem with the environmental assessment office.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. I think the minister may have missed the point. Pacific Booker doesn’t know what the section 17 order does because what they’re supposed to do has not been conveyed to them with any certainty. So they are left with an uncertain order, of which they don’t know how to respond. So it’s not possible for them to move through the regulatory process when that process has not been defined in which they could go.

They have conducted detailed assessments of Morrison Lake and its internal wildlife, including measuring water quality and lake mixing patterns as well as investigations into fish habitat and spawning patterns. They have pledged to use cutting-edge technology to reduce groundwater seepage from the tailings storage facility. They’ve even completed a request, and they were the only one asked to do so, to comment on the implications of Mount Polley for their tailings management.

Throughout the protracted environmental assessment process, Pacific Booker has stated its preference to use local suppliers and to hire local workers. The project would generate over 1,000 jobs in the region near Smithers, and it would provide millions of dollars in tax revenue. At a time when the provincial economy is reeling due to the efforts of COVID-19, the project would give that region a much-needed economic boost.

My question, again, to the Minister of Environment is this. Given the extensive work undertaken by Pacific Booker Minerals to examine and reduce the environmental impact of the potential Morrison mine project and the potential economic benefit to the province, will this government commit to ensuring that the company receives a timely, unbiased review of the latest proposal, and in particular, is given clear instructions from your office so that it knows what boxes need to be ticked so that they can follow due process, rather than second-guessing certain people who haven’t made that very clear?

Answer

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you again to the member for the supplemental question.

The company, of course, has to provide some very specific additional information that was required under the order. The order was specific. Some examples of the type of additional information required are sockeye salmon use of Morrison Lake, upper and lower Tahlo Creek and the Morrison River, hydrogeological and groundwater data for areas between the mine and Morrison Lake and further engagement with the Lake Babine Nation and other impacted First Nations.

I’m advised that the company made its latest submission to the environmental assessment office in December and that environmental assessment office staff met with the company this past February as additional information was required from the company. It is certainly not the intention of our government to make proponents guess at what is required. I checked with the environmental assessment office, and my understanding is that staff there are working to help answer any questions that the proponent has with respect to the information required.

I’m advised that the company plans to provide an update to the environmental assessment office regarding their next steps, and the environmental assessment office will be very happy to assist them in a timely answering of the questions required by the order. As minister, I assure that when the application is complete and ready for reconsideration, it will be considered in a timely manner.

Today in the legislature I rose to pay tribute to a constituent, John Hillman, who, at the age of 101, recently completed his goal of walking 101 laps around the courtyard of his residence at the Carlton House in Oak Bay to raise funds for Save the Children Canada’s Emergency COVID Relief Fund.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my two minute tribute.

As an update, during the afternoon of July 29 I was able to visit John Hillman at Carlton House and present him with a number of presentation copies of the statement.

Video of Tribute

Text of Tribute

Credit: Molly Jane photography

It gives me great honour to rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable constituent — Mr. John Hillman.

At the age of 101, Mr. Hillman set a goal of raising $101,000 for Save the Children Canada’s Emergency COVID Relief Fund by completing 101 laps around the courtyard of his residence at the Carlton House in Oak Bay.

He was inspired by 100-year-old war veteran Tom Moore who raised over 55 million dollars for the UK’s National Health Service, by walking around his garden 100 times with a walker.

Mr. Hillman not only completed the 101 laps (plus a victory lap), but he easily surpassed his expectations by raising $166,551.

Credit: Molly Jane photography

Mr. Hillman was born in Newport, Wales in 1919. Like all young Welsh men at the time, he was an avid rugby player. In fact, Mr. Hillman’s father Jack represented Wales on their national team. John, on the other hand, went on to compete for Wales in fencing.

At the age 17, and with little prospect for local employment Mr. Hillman left Wales to join the Royal Air Force.

In 1939, he and his squadron were posted to France where Mr. Hillman served as a wireless operator.

As allied forces fled to Dunkirk ahead of the rapidly advancing Wehrmacht, John Hillman, and the other 59 members of his squadron were cut off and left behind.

They were told this:

“you lads stay behind, clean up, and make your way back as best you can”.

Their goal was to head south to board the English troop carrier, the HMT Lancastria.

Blessed with a stroke of good luck, Mr. Hillman arrived in the French port of Saint-Nazaire a day late so missed his opportunity to board the ship.

Tragically on June 17, 1940, just offshore from the port, the Lancastria was bombed and sank in just 20 minutes. Some 4000 men, women and children died in what remains the greatest loss of life in British maritime history.

Mr. Hillman subsequently made his way northwards to Brest, where he was able to escape to England on a Royal Navy destroyer.

It was in England that Mr. Hillman met and married his wife Irene. The couple have been married for 78 years, and when their daughter also married a Canadian, Mr. and Mrs. Hillman started to visit Canada.

Mr. Hillman eventually retired in Ottawa in 1988 from his career as an electrical engineer. After a brief return to the UK, Mr. and Mrs. Hillman moved back to Canada and settled in a house on Beach Drive in Oak Bay.

When asked why he undertook the fundraiser, John Hillman said “I owed Canada something”.

A truly humble man, Mr. Hillman has a wonderful sense of humour and brings joy to all who know him.

Credit: Molly Jane photography

As a lovely tribute to support  Mr. Hillman, his 9-year-old great-grandson did a parallel walk in Kingston, Ontario.

What did Mr. Hillman do when he attained his goal of 101 laps? “I had a cold beer” he commented. Now that was truly well deserved!

Please join me in celebrating the remarkable accomplishments of a Mr. John Hillman. Thank you.