Yesterday during question period yesterday I rose to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources questions about the ever increasing liability British Columbians are taking on as the number of orphan gas wells grows out of control. I remain deeply concerned about the Minister’s grasp of the file and profoundly troubled by the lack of substance in her answers to our questions.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Yesterday my colleague from Cowichan Valley asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources how many gas wells in British Columbia are leaking, and she didn’t know. Well, here’s some information for her: out of the 134 wells in the province with confirmed gas migration — that’s leaking problems, as documented by the Oil and Gas Commission — almost half are owned by one company, the Shanghai Energy Corporation.

This company, which has strong links to the Communist Party of China, is buying up wells in our province at an alarming rate. They now own 1,128 wells, with 863 active, 184 inactive and 13 that are being decommissioned.

My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources: does she think that the Communist Party of China buying up stranded assets in B.C. is concerning, and does she think that the Shanghai Energy Corporation will be a good corporate citizen and clean up their activity and all their leaky wells when the time comes?

Answer

Hon. M. Mungall: We have an open marketplace for tenures and for gas wells. That means that companies from around the world are able to purchase these tenures as well as the wells and so on. They then have the duty to be good corporate citizens, no matter who they are, no matter where they come from. We have the Oil and Gas Commission, as well as this government, who is taking its role as a regulator very seriously to ensure that, again, no matter who they are, no matter where they’re from, that any corporation who’s doing business in British Columbia and business in our oil and gas sector is following the rules.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: I’m not sure I understood what the answer to the question was there, but nevertheless, let me try again.

Ranch Energy was one of three companies that became insolvent last year, leaving a forecasted $12.3 million deficit in the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission’s orphan reclamation fund. Currently — I know these facts are troubling to the minister — there are 310 sites designated as orphan sites, requiring further restoration. But there are 300 to 500 Ranch Energy wells that could be added to this, creating a further potential liability of $40 to $90 million.

Yesterday the minister told the chamber that things have gotten a lot better since her government was sworn in. Yet over the last two years, B.C.’s orphan well sites have increased by — get this — 48 percent. Bankrupt companies have left the province with massive cleanup bills.

Last month we heard from the Auditor General. There are more than 10,000 active wells, with a $3 billion price tag for decommissioning them. All the while, her ministry is giving massive handouts, corporate handouts. It’s not an open market. It’s a subsidized market by this government because the market would not exist in a free and open market, because it does not compete on the international scene.

What is the minister’s plan? Please, please, I beg you — no more non-answer, no more rhetoric, no more 16 years nonsense. Answer the question for a change.

What is the minister’s plan to ensure British Columbians are not on the hook for the cleanup costs of this industry? There is no excuse for not hearing an answer here.

Answer

Hon. M. Mungall: The member might recall that just over a year ago we passed legislation — it was Bill 15 at the time — to address the issue of orphaned wells. We have done a considerable amount of work. Part of that bill was to address how we are funding the orphaned well reclamation fund.

The previous government had it funded through a taxation on production. We have moved from that because that was not an effective way to fund this fund. We’ve moved away from that, and we have a liability levy so we’re actually able to get the financial resources so that we can start reclaiming the orphaned well sites.

We have a multi-year plan to reclaim all of these sites. It involves Treaty 8 First Nations, who are doing a wide array of work to do this reclamation, including having nurseries with the appropriate vegetation of native plants so that we can truly reclaim these sites and the land to the state that they need to be in for future generations

Yesterday in the legislature we debated Bill 28: Zero-emission vehicles act at second reading. This bill was introduced on April 10, 2019.  This bill sets into law the zero-emission vehicle mandate that was announced in the fall as part of the CleanBC economic agenda. It further outlines a credit/debit system, similar to what exists in California, that will allow new vehicle car dealers to meet the provincial compliance targets. In particular, the bill legislates that:

“(a) in 2025 and in each subsequent year, at least 10% of all new light-duty motor vehicles sold or leased in British Columbia must be zero-emission vehicles;

(b) in 2030 and in each subsequent year, at least 30% of all new light-duty motor vehicles sold or leased in British Columbia must be zero-emission vehicles;

(c) in 2040 and in each subsequent year, 100% of all new light-duty motor vehicles sold or leased in British Columbia must be zero-emission vehicles.”

Below I reproduce the text and video of my second reading speech

Video of Speech

Forthcoming

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in support of Bill 28, the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act. Obviously, I’ll be speaking in strong support of it.

Before I begin, please let me summarize the irony of what I heard during question period today. Question period — when we had a discussion, a discussion emanating from members of the opposition, questioning about the price of gas in British Columbia. We had suggestions from members opposite that one of the ways that we should deal with the price of gas is to bring in a price cap. That was a direct quote from the Leader of the Official Opposition.

You know, what we should have been talking about here is actually the opportunity that’s afforded us now, given the gouging that’s going on. We know that the price of gas in British Columbia, the 40 cent increase, is largely because of refinery margin, which in British Columbia is more than twice what it is in other jurisdictions in Canada. That’s what the real question is. And so, I could actually answer the question very simply that the members opposite asked in question period.

Deputy Speaker: Member, let’s talk about the bill.

A. Weaver: We’ll keep to the bill, but it’s really important to recognize that the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act…. Why it’s relevant to this bill is that we’re talking about bringing in legislation to move towards 100 percent zero-emission vehicles by the year 2040. Right now we’re also in question period, talking about gas prices. What is remarkable is the disconnect between these two.

What we know — and what should have been said and what I was wishing government would have said — is that we do have a role for the B.C. Utilities Commission. Perhaps the B.C. Utilities Commission might start to look at this refinery margin that exists in British Columbia. That is something government could do, and perhaps they will do it in the fall, but now is not the time to be discussing that in detail, because of course, we’re discussing the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act.

In this act…. It’s emerging from CleanBC, which is part of the government and, in collaboration with us, a commitment to reducing emissions, but it’s not really a commitment just to reduce emissions. It’s an economic agenda. This is a flagship proposal in a larger economic vision to position British Columbia as leaders in the new economy.

What happens in this bill, of course, is it builds upon the structure of the pathway towards getting zero-emission vehicles by bringing in place new requirements for car sales in the province of British Columbia. What’s important in doing the car sales is creation of an additional wrapping-around credit-debit system — ZEV units, so to speak — and a whole accounting system, mirrored after what’s being done in California, is being done to ensure compliance and enforcement and allow uptrading and penalties for companies that are having some difficulty meeting the ZEV standard. They can work with other companies that perhaps have less difficulty.

The bill talks about provincial targets being at least 10 percent of all new light-duty vehicles sold in British Columbia must be zero-emission by 2025. By 2030, that rises to 30 percent, and by 2040, that rises to 100 percent.

That’s the essence of the bill. The details, the important details and where the meat of the bill actually lies, is with respect to the ZEV units which are being created — ZEV, meaning zero-emission vehicle — to allow for the compliance of new car dealers in the province of British Columbia.

This is a very aggressive pathway to ZEV adoption. It’s one that we’re very supportive of. It’s one that is much stronger, in my view, than some of the other jurisdictions that have ZEV standards out there. It’s one that’s mirroring what’s happening elsewhere around the world, whether it be Netherlands or the U.K. or India or China, which are moving towards the rapid adoption of non-emitting vehicles and the elimination of gas as a fuel for such vehicles.

Therein lies the irony, which is why, again, coming back to the debate earlier today, it’s important to relate the two. Because here we see, around the world, car companies as well as consumers are moving away from emitting vehicles. They’re not there now, but they’re moving away towards it. Here we have, in British Columbia, an ironic debate, as we’re moving away, as we’re seeing oil companies gouge us with the refinery margin in B.C. that is more than twice the refinery margin of other jurisdictions in Canada.

There is a role for the BCUC to look into this, and perhaps we will look into this. But frankly, for us, in this place, to be debating the lowest-common-denominator politics — the lowest common denominator — talking about introducing price caps…. It’s the wrong conversation. The public…. Both sides of this House should be saying enough is enough to these oil companies.

Now, I recognize that they’ve just been given one of the greatest handouts of corporate welfare in Canadian history, through the LNG generational sellout that this government, supported by opposition, has moved forward. Now, I realize that they’re licking their lips at that corporate welfare, but enough is enough.

While this bill is important in taking us to the pathway towards zero-emitting vehicles, what’s equally important is that the public recognize that now is the time for us not to respond to this oil company gouging. Rather than playing on their terms, let us take this opportunity. Let us take this opportunity to British Columbia to join the rest of the world and show leadership by saying we are not going to play that game. We’re not going to play that game of price gouging.

Maybe we’re going to carpool less. Maybe we can’t afford a zero-emission vehicle. They’ll be coming down because of this bill in price, I can tell you that, because of the requirement to bring here, and there’ll be lots of capacity. The secondhand market is already flowing in British Columbia. Maybe they can’t go with that because they can’t afford it.

But what people can afford is, perhaps, carpooling. They can afford, perhaps, transit. They can afford, perhaps, riding a bike. In the market of supply and demand, if we reduce demand and there is the same supply, that’ll put less pressure on price.

Opposition’s response is to somehow have a massive market intervention by government — to somehow not deal with supply, not deal with demand, but put in a price cap, which is one of the greatest incentives you could give to an oil company to increase prices because the government is on the hook for any price increase. Outrageous. But that’s what we’ve come to expect.

In British Columbia right now, we are leaders in terms of zero-emission vehicle adoption, particularly in the metro Victoria region. One of the most common cars you will see on the road in Victoria is, in fact, the Nissan LEAF, a car that I own, a car that my friend from Saanich North and the Islands owns — he actually two of them, a new one and a secondhand one — and one that many, many people are owning.

In fact, I now own to EVs. We just bought a Hyundai Kona, the new Hyundai Kona which is a 415-kilometre-range non-emitting vehicle. It hasn’t arrived yet because there’s so much demand. We will have no more gas cars in my house.

Yes, we drive all over B.C., and we drive all over the place. We do so without range anxiety. The reason why is that no one should have range anxiety.

Let me say this to you, hon. Speaker. If you’re driving in the interior of B.C., where infrastructure charging is not as good but is growing, and you run out of gas, you’re in trouble. You’ve got to walk perhaps miles or get towed to a gas station.

If you’re driving a zero-emission vehicle and you see that you’re getting low on electricity, you don’t have to worry about a gas leak. That’s not going to happen in a zero-emission vehicle. Electrons don’t leak out of the battery per se.

But if you’re getting short and it’s desperate, just go to a farmhouse and say: “Hey, can I give you five bucks or ten bucks for a bit of electricity? I’m going to run out.”

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Or you can do jerry cans, sure. But you have to hope that the farmhouse has gas in the back. They might. They might, but they might have marked fuel, and that would be a problem if it was marked fuel. Marked fuel you can’t put in a car.

We also know that…. What I’m dealing with, to the member for Peace River South, is the issue of range anxiety. Range anxiety is really artificial. It’s being created by people who are afraid that they need to have a big thing to charge up. You actually don’t.

You can charge up at home on a 120 volt. It takes a little longer, but you often don’t need to charge up for12 hours. If you’re getting close, you plan your destination. It’s no different from planning where the gas stations are. You’re going to drive on a big highway, you notice “last gas station for 300 kilometres,” you check your gas gauge and say: “Nah, I better not go” or “I better fill up now.” It’s no different with an EV.

What has been happening in British Columbia and what is important to do and what I’m pleased to see is being done is that if you’re going to bring in a ZEV mandate — like we have here, an aggressive one — you must match it with a growing and increasing infrastructure. I’m very pleased to see that happening.

Particularly, I’ve experienced that on Vancouver Island with my Nissan LEAF’s 170-kilometre range. On the highway, you don’t quite get that. If you drive a little over 90 — on the highway on Vancouver Island, you can go 110 up by the Parksville area — it’s not as efficient.

However, we now have charging stations in Buckley Bay — fast chargers, multiple fast chargers, there. We have them in Courtenay, Comox. We have them in the Ucluelet and Tofino area. We have them up and down the Island.

So the infrastructure is coming in, and it’s being done in a very methodical pace that’s keeping up with demand. In cities like Victoria or Vancouver, there are so many charging stations that access to electricity is not a problem.

The problem that government is going to need to deal with in a shorter time frame than perhaps it’s thinking about is the fact that there are still far too many charging stations giving the electricity away for free. The reason why that might sound like a good idea is it’s an incentive. You get electric vehicles. That’s one thing. The problem with giving away electricity for free is that there are more and more EV adopters. As more and more EV adopters get into the market, many of them haven’t got the experience of recognizing the culture, the etiquette, the social norms that have been developed by longtime EV units.

That is, you don’t park in an EV parking space and use the electricity just because it’s a convenient parking space. You park in a parking space and use the electricity because you need it, because if you don’t have it, you won’t go anywhere.

This is a problem. We see it all across…. Whether you go to parkades in Victoria or in Nanaimo or anywhere on Vancouver Island or in Vancouver, you see EV charging stations full with people. I call them freeloaders. They’re there charging up electricity not because they need it but because it’s free.

This is a problem. We see it all across…. Whether you go to parkades in Victoria or in Nanaimo or anywhere on Vancouver Island or Vancouver, you see EV charging stations full with people. And I call them freeloaders. They’re there, charging up electricity, not because they need it but because it’s free. That’s a problem, because it then takes up a perfectly good EV charging station from somebody who needs it. This is very problematic with the high-voltage DC chargers.

So it’s imperative that government bring in, now that we’ve got new BCUC analysis of this issue, a more rapid transition to charging — of all EV stations on Vancouver Island and the rest of B.C. — in order to ensure that they’re used when they’re supposed to be used.

When you’re paying 35 cents a kilowatt hour, which is the price that you pay at, say, a Greenlot station — the original Greenlot stations, a few of them that were installed. One’s at Wal-Mart. There’s one in Duncan, for example. You pay 35 cents a kilowatt hour. It sounds like a lot, but it translates to a little over 2 bucks to go from Victoria to Nanaimo. That’s not that expensive.

People have no problem paying 35 cents per kilowatt hour, which is more than three times the retail rate of electricity in British Columbia, to actually charge their vehicles. Because it’s insignificant. And because of the fact that you have no moving parts. You have no oil and gas filter. You have no radiator. You have no exhaust system. You have no moving parts. You have no maintenance.

My 2015 Nissan LEAF, bought in 2014, has had maintenance precisely zero times. I was required, under warranty for the battery, to take it in and have the battery tested — it’s still at 100 percent, no loss at all, and it’s still looking good — because I had to for warranty. But there has not been a single thing, apart from windshield wiper fluid change — not a single piece of maintenance that has needed to be done. No oil filter, no changing transmission fluid, no worrying about radiator, no worrying about coolant. It’s just windshield wiper fluid.

This is the way of the future, and this legislation is positioning us there. I recognize, too, that the single most frequently purchased vehicle in British Columbia is the Ford F-150. I recognize that. That is something that…. In phase two, as we move forward, we’re also seeing an enormous opportunity there. As battery technology continues to improve, as demand continues to grow, it makes sense to initially target the urban markets, where we’re driving, in Victoria, a maximum of, you know, 50 kilometres a day. That’s a lot in Victoria. In Vancouver, even if you drive from Abbotsford to downtown and back, you don’t need anything other than an EV.

So Metro Vancouver and metro Victoria — both of these areas are set up, ideally, for the widespread rapid adoption of electric vehicles. So this legislation, which is essentially enabling legislation that ensures that, if you want to sell new cars in B.C., a certain percentage of those car sales must be zero-emitting vehicles — 100 percent of which must be that by 2040, 10 percent by 2025, 2030 will be 30 percent. Given that we’re about 4 percent now, anyway — very meetable targets.

In fact, the problem is not meeting the targets. The problem is trying to get a car when you go on the lot, because there’s none on the lot. The Hyundai Kona I just bought. I bought it…. Well, I shouldn’t say I bought it. My wife bought it. It’s her car. The one she just bought, she bought a month ago, but we’re not getting it till June, and that’s lucky. We’re lucky we’re getting in June — a three-month wait. Others, a much longer wait.

I know the member for Vancouver-Langara drives a Volt, another excellent EV. I’m sure he’s very pleased with that, although I haven’t seen it on the precinct as often as I used to see it. I know the Minister of Environment drives, I think, an Ioniq, a Hyundai. I think that’s what he drives. I know that my friend here drives LEAFs.

It used to be I was the only person driving an electric vehicle in this Legislature. Now I can’t get in on that EV charging, which is probably a good thing, because I can charge at home, and I know the member for Vancouver-Langara probably has more important need for the electricity than I do here. So I haven’t been using it. It’s been free quite often for you.

Coming back to the CleanBC initiative that led to this ZEV mandate, as well as the timeline for the actual requirement of new vehicles to be zero-emitting vehicles. It’s being coupled, also, not only with the infrastructure rollout, which is going well. I’m very pleased. It’s very well done. It’s really good to see it.

In the Buckley Bay station, for example, there are two high-voltage level 3 chargers, as well as the level 2 chargers, as well as the Tesla charger. So you’ve got lots of options there.

As it’s rolling out, the government is also, as part of CleanBC and the CEV for B.C. program, putting point-of-sale incentives that are up to $5,000 for new electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles. And we’re seeing a lot of people, especially with the gas prices…. This is coming back again, coming back to what we had earlier, the discussion in question period. We know for a fact that the price of gas is the single biggest driver of adoption of plug-in, hybrid, zero-emission-vehicle cars. The single biggest driver. We’re seeing that.

You just have to talk to any car dealer. Go to the Hyundai dealer in Victoria. They’re flying off the lot, the Konas, as people come and say: “I’m done with these gas prices.” And you know what? Isn’t that a way to actually drive change, if there are more and more people in British Columbia who say: “I’m done with paying these prices. I’m going to switch over to a non-emitting vehicle”? That reduces demand on the existing supply, and that’s a downwards price driver.

We know the price is going to come down in the fall anyway. The reality of the price of gas right now is that it’s become outrageous. But it’s become outrageous because we know we can charge outrageous prices. We don’t have to blame the little guy, the retailer. It’s not them. We know again, coming back to the refinery margin, it’s twice as much in B.C. relative to the rest of the country. The question the BCUC could and perhaps should be asking is: why is that? Perhaps there is a role for the BCUC at some point to say: “You know what? That’s a problem.” But certainly the carbon tax is something that cannot be touched, and it’s something that the overwhelming majority of British Columbians don’t want to be touched. It’s one cent, but it’s one cent increasing by one cent every year, and that price signal is a critical driver of innovative change.

Just yesterday, I heard the mayor of Langford, Stew Young, on the radio, being interviewed, discussing an industrial park, several hundred acres that have already been zoned, looking to attract, based on this legislation and based on seeing the innovative change that happening, electric vehicle manufacturing in Langford. In particular, there’s a company that wants to build trucks in Langford. This is exactly what legislation like this incentivizes. It incentivizes others to want to be part of this direction, this new economy, and it creates opportunity in areas that we historically did not have.

Electra Meccanica in Vancouver, a small…. To declare everything, Jerry Kroll was a former candidate of ours in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant — the CEO of Electra Meccanica, an electric vehicle car company. They’re going to be building elsewhere. They wanted to build in B.C., but government in B.C. must now recognize that as we bring in these innovative programs that are driving change, there is a role for government to work with local government — that is, the provincial government work with local government — to ensure that we capitalize on the opportunities that this legislation brings forward. That is actually what we need to do next — capitalize on the opportunities that this legislation incentivizes.

You know, British Columbia already has the highest per-capita adoption of zero-emitting vehicles in Canada. There are over 17,000 of them in B.C., on the roads, and about 4 percent, as I mentioned, in 2018 were that. The particular driver of an EV saves…. I mean, the notes I’ve been given here suggest $1,500 a year. I can tell you it’s an awful lot more than that. Say you’re charging a car once a week, and let’s suppose you’re driving a four-cylinder car and you’re paying, say, 60 bucks a week. That’s not an F-150. Say 50 bucks a week. That’s 3,000 bucks a year in gas right there, and you’re paying zero for it because there is no gas.

But not only that. You’ve got to do an oil and filter every six months. You’re looking at 200 bucks there. You’ve got to start doing tune-ups and all that stuff, transmission fluid checks, all that stuff, moving parts. None of that’s there. So, in fact, the argument about electric vehicles saving money and paying off rapidly is often not including the additional savings that come from no maintenance. And there’s a reason why we need such standards. Dealers historically have been very reluctant to sell EVs. Not all, but many. The reason why they’re reluctant to sell EVs…. I mean, you can look at the famous documentary, Who Killed the Electric Car? as an example — a very good documentary.

You don’t want to sell an EV because as you buy your EV…. You pay your money, you buy the EV, you drive off the lot, and you’re never seen again. You’re never seen again until you buy your next car. That’s a little tougher for the kind of standard business model that some new-car makers are operating under today. However, those manufacturers and those dealers that recognize the opportunity that’s afforded us here by this legislation, would be the ones that are going to thrive and move forward as we enter.

And I’m pretty sure that Campus Nissan in Victoria will be one of them. They can’t keep LEAFs on the lot. A lot of people think you have to buy a new EV too. Sure, you have to buy a new EV to get some of the incentives, and sure, this legislation only applies to the sale of new cars in British Columbia. However, the secondary market also gets improved by introducing legislation like this. The reason why is that many of the fleets — some of the rental fleets in California, for example — are starting to see these emerging into electric. Or there are lease vehicles. More and more people are leasing electric vehicles.

As these start to build, the secondary market of lease vehicles and rental vehicles, etc., starts to develop as those get sold on the secondary market. You can get a second-hand Nissan LEAF. The LEAF that I bought for about $10,000 to 15,000…. I admit it’s a lot, but if you think of investing, let’s say, $14,000 — because you can easily get a 2015 LEAF for $14,000 on the secondary market — you save $3,000 a year in gas right there. Boom. So you’ve completely paid that off in 4½ years. However, you’re actually going to have no maintenance as well. And most batteries….

People worry that the batteries decay with time. Again, my 2015 LEAF — been driving since 2014 — still has 100 percent battery. I’ve done 70,000 kilometres on that in five years on that — zero CO₂ emitted and still 100 percent battery — going all over British Columbia. You can do this. And it’s fun. And it’s zippy. And they’re fast. The technology in these cars is amazing. I’m very excited by this legislation moving forward.

That was articulated in the media release that my office put out, where we were quite thrilled when the government introduced the bill on April 10. We put out such a release. In fact, I’m quoted in the release as saying: “I’m thrilled that B.C. is adopting a rigorous zero-emission vehicle mandate.” Again, there were lots of discussions with the Environment Minister as we were developing CleanBC, and I would suggest that the level of bold adoption that you see here is something that we were quite persistent on.

The reason why is that 40 percent of emissions for the average household in British Columbia comes from transportation. The average person has a difficult time reducing emissions without dealing with transportation. This gives them a means and a way to go to zero in transportation, relatively rapidly. We also know that without an aggressive ZEV standard, we won’t get the cars on the lots in B.C. because they’ll appear on the lots in California or Quebec instead, where ZEV standards exist.

With China, India and other jurisdictions moving this direction, essentially we know, I suspect, that these targets will end up being moot. If we’re at 4 percent already, getting to 10 percent in 2025, you put the cars on the lot, and we’re going to be there. No question. I would suggest that we’re probably well above 4 percent now with new-car sales. I don’t have the data, but knowing the price of gas at a buck-70 in Vancouver, why would you buy a new car that is not electric? Why would you not consider it? But they need to be on the lots to allow you to buy it, in the first place.

We know that within a decade, trucks, other cars, vans, will all be zero-emitting. That is the direction we’re heading in. I look forward to exploring the details of this further in the actual committee stage because there are complexities in the unit accounting for compliance. There will be questions that will need to be addressed there.

I congratulate government on this — in particular, CleanBC and the Minister of Environment, whose work in this area has been quite well received. And I look forward to the rollout implementation in the weeks, months and years ahead.

Today in the legislature we debated at second reading Bill M209: Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2019. This is my Private Members’ bill that proposes amendments to the Business Corporations Act and will create a new Part 2.3 in the Act that enables companies to become benefit companies. The bill passed second reading today and moves on to committee stage shortly.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my second reading speech.

Video of Speech

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I move that Bill M209 be now read a second time.

It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak at second reading to Bill M209, Business Corporations Amendment Act. I will outline my speech in four different sections. I’ll start by giving a brief introduction as to the purpose and the intent of the bill — what it does — moving on to the process by which it was created and finishing with a conclusion and the type of the economy it’s trying to encourage and build.

This is a bill that my office has been working on for quite some months since May of last year, and I’m thrilled that we’ve been given the opportunity to debate it today. I’m, frankly, grateful to government for providing us and members of the opposition access to legislative drafters to allow us to bring this bill in the form that we know has gone through the formal legislative drafting process.

I’ve talked a lot about the emerging economy and the fact that the government needs to be prepared and resilient amidst the rapid shifts that are occurring in our society and our economy. These include, but are not limited to, things like climate change, environmental degradation, changes to the nature of work, rapid technological advance, the whole increasing disparity between those who have and those who don’t have income security and so forth. I believe that, frankly, business must play a central role in helping us tackle these enormous challenges and find solutions. It is not only up to government to find the solutions. It is also up to business.

That’s why we created this legislation to create benefit companies in British Columbia. The idea for this legislation was brought to us from the business community, from both small and large companies that are already using their business to do good and wanted a clearer legal framework under which to operate. I think government, frankly, needs to do more to encourage and support these types of businesses that have chosen to go beyond the pursuit of profit to also pursue critical social and environmental values.

What does the bill do? I want to start by highlighting some of the key elements of the bill. One, it adds a new part to the Business Corporations Act, enabling companies to incorporate as benefit companies. It would provide a legal framework for companies that are committed to pursuing a triple bottom line to embedding social responsibility and environmental sustainability into their companies’ DNA. These companies could take on expanded purpose, accountability and transparency.

The bill would require companies to change their articles to enshrine a commitment to act in a responsible and sustainable manner. This means they must — that’s important, the word “must” — take into account the well-being of persons affected by their conduct and endeavour to use a fair and proportionate share of available environmental, social and economic resources and capacities. They must, again, also pursue one or more specific public benefits of a positive effect on society or the environment.

Another key component of the legislation is that it creates new duties for directors of benefit companies. They must — again I use the word “must” — balance their duty to act in the best interests of the company with the new duties to act with a view to operating their business responsibly and sustainably, as well as to promote specific public benefits. I want to come to highlight this a little bit more because I think this is an important element, a key element, that we need to highlight.

Right now it’s clear. Our case law already makes it very clear that directors may — the very important word “may,” as opposed to “must” — consider broader stakeholders as they consider their duty to act in the best interests of the corporation. The federal government recognized this and is now codifying this into the Canada Business Corporations Act. That’s a very welcome move, frankly, that the federal government is doing in making it clear that all directors have the ability to consider broader stakeholders in their decision-making — that they may consider. That’s based on the case law that arose from the very famous BCE case that enshrined at the Supreme Court level that directors may in fact go broader than just fiduciary responsibility.

We also know that considering broader stakeholders in their decision-making is one thing but also that Canadian directors are not bound by a shareholder primacy rule. This bill does something different. It does something very different: it goes further. It creates a duty for directors of benefit companies to act responsibly and sustainably to promote public benefits. More than this, it requires directors of benefit companies to balance their existing duty to act in the best interests of the company with these new duties to act responsibly and sustainably and promote public benefits. I’m going to come back to this. This was an issue brought to us by small and large business looking for certainty, looking to do a reduced risk as they move forward in these directions.

It’s important to note that nothing in this legislation precludes the directors of an ordinary company from also considering other interests, like employees or the environment, when acting in the best interest of the company. This is not preclude any existing company from doing that. But benefit companies must also report their performance against an independent third-party standard which must be developed by a person or entity that is unrelated to the benefit company.

The reporting must be done annually and must be available to the public. This element is important to ensure transparency for suppliers, purchasers and customers that the company is indeed living up to its stated goals. I hope that this requirement will spur innovation in B.C. and that strong local standards will emerge for benefit companies to use, as put forward and adjudicated by strong, B.C.-based, third-party verifiers.

The legislation creates clear expectations about the nature and mandate of the company and provides protections for directors who choose to prioritize public benefits and not only profit.

This legislation would help mission-driven companies stay true to their mission as they grow and protect the vision of the founders of benefit companies by embedding the environmental and social benefits into the companies’ actual mandate.

It would provide more certainty for impact investors, another critical aspect of this bill. The impact investors are looking to invest in mission-aligned companies of the nature and the mandate of a company, but what’s critical to them is that they not have an asset lock that existed in very fine enabling legislation for the creation of what are called C3s in the province of British Columbia, put forward by the B.C. Liberals in the last session. That doesn’t affect that at all.

But what it does here…. The asset lock associated with those C3s precluded impact investors from actually moving forward, because you invest and you can’t get your investment back out. This would allow impact investors to actually know that the company is triple-bottom-line and is one focused on a much broader mandate than just fiscal benefit for the shareholders.

The act would provide more certainty for impact investors looking to invest in mission-aligned companies, as I said. And moreover, this legislation would provide a simple framework for companies to adhere to that is legally and commercially recognized.

The choice to become a benefit company is completely voluntary. There’s no requirement. There’s no impact on existing corporations and no tax implications at all. Although the government down the road may view some kind of change in the way it incorporates tax to benefit companies versus other companies, if a government moving forward sees that this is something they wish to encourage…. But that is up to government and not something that we’ll be bringing or discussing in a private member’s bill.

I also believe that the benefit company legislation would be complementary to existing structures in place. And I want to recognize again — come back to this — the leadership and initiative put forward by the previous government in creating the so-called C3, or community contribution companies, that I spoke about. I see C3s and benefit companies as different ways, on a spectrum, for government to support socially and environmentally responsible business forums.

Now, I’ve heard, and we’ve consulted extensively, from many businesses that the C3 structure is simply too restrictive for many for-profit businesses, since they would need to fundamentally change their corporate structure and reduce their ability to attract investment. We can and should, frankly, provide another option to support sustainable and responsible businesses in B.C.

The C3 structure works wonderfully if a not-for-profit is looking to create a business arm that is permanently associated with the not-for-profit because the asset lock of the company associated with a not-for-profit is the not-for-profit. So any profits must be flowed back to the not-for-profit. That works well in that case. It does not work well for a for-profit business venture which is seeking to do more than just fiscal bottom line.

I’d fully support any efforts to continue the work started by the previous administration to support C3s. Steps in this direction could include, for example, doing more to promote the C3 brand, enhancing public awareness of C3s and providing tax incentives and benefits for investments in C3s.

So this, again, is not something that we believe competes with C3s. It’s something that we believe is very complementary to C3s. But it gives certain classes of companies, those that are looking to the triple bottom line and not have to worry about the asset lock associated with the C3 to actually incorporate and move forward in that manner….

I’d like to take a few minutes on section 3 here to discuss the process that led to the position we’re in now. As many, obviously, who are aware, I first introduced this bill for debate last May with the purpose of starting a conversation of that legislation.

We had a discussion and a debate and passed second reading, and over the following months, we worked as a caucus very hard to consult stakeholders and experts from across Canada, frankly, and elsewhere to make sure that we got the details right. We met with many, many business leaders, as well as leaders in social enterprise and owners of C3s, about their goals for a sustainable economy and how this legislation would fit in or what we needed to do to ensure that we were able to build support.

We also undertook an extensive consultation with the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association to get insight from them as to the various legal questions that might be arise from this.

Throughout this process, we worked closely with the legislative drafter, the one that we’ve assigned to this project, to craft this amendment in order to ensure that it is legally enforceable and that it works well and is consistent with existing B.C. laws. And, of course, we consulted with government through the confidence and supply agreement secretariat.

In conclusion, I’m very proud of this piece of legislation, and I’m very glad to see that we’re debating it at second reading today. I’m grateful to government for bringing this forward to the order papers to actually allow us to have this debate. I think it bodes well for working across party lines to see private members’ bills discussed in this fashion. I hope we’re able to move forward both with opposition bills as well as other bills from others in this chamber.

We will have a rather interesting and novel process in committee stage. I look forward to articulating that as we move towards that. This hasn’t been done before in this Legislature, as far as we can tell, where an opposition member is in committee stage. That will be a unique experience. I think we might point to some revisions in standing orders that we might want to discuss collectively as we move forward, as we move to this committee phase, an odd committee phase that it is, in the B.C. Legislature compared to other jurisdictions.

I believe that, frankly, becoming the first jurisdiction in Canada to champion benefit companies is a huge opportunity. We know that Quebec is right behind us here and likely going to follow through shortly thereafter. But we’re leaders here in B.C. We don’t follow others. I think British Columbians enjoy being leaders, and that’s why I’m excited that government has continued to support this effort moving forward.

B.C. is already, like Quebec…. We’re sort of a mirror of Quebec in that regard. We are home to many, many socially responsible companies. It’s part of our, frankly, stellar brand as one of the greenest places in the world. “Super, natural British Columbia” and “Beautiful British Columbia” are monikers on our licence plates, for years have been focusing on our natural beauty and what brings people to our lovely province.

We’ve been seeing, also, shifts in consumer patterns and behaviour, particularly among younger demographics sensitive to social and environmental impacts. We know, again, from our extensive consultation, that the millennial group — the category, however you want to call them — millennials in this area, are very concerned about social enterprises. They’re very supportive of and look actually to buy from and invest in social enterprises or triple-bottom-line companies. Benefit companies allow those companies, from small to large, to actually demonstrate, distinguish and be publicly transparent about their overall mission in a triple-bottom-line sense.

Frankly, we’re struggling as a society to adjust and respond to massive technological, social and environmental shifts that we’re facing — whether it be, as I said earlier, from climate change to automation. We need, frankly, I think, to think differently in order to turn our challenges into opportunities. This is one of the things this bill does here.

We need the partnership and to engage with the business community to help us deal with these challenges. Not to prescribe solutions to business but to work with business to allow the innovative ideas in business to flow through in an environment that seeds and nurtures this innovation. That’s how we’ll be successful.

Government and the non-profit sector cannot, by themselves, respond to the challenges that we face before us; frankly, nor should they. Businesses play an incredible and a huge role in our society, and they must be part of any solution to any problem that we see emerging. Companies that pursue a triple bottom line, frankly, are on the cutting edge of rethinking the role of business in the 21st century.

Now, some are doing so voluntarily. Others wish to do so, and they wish to be protected. This legislation gives them protection and gives them the ability to follow a suite of rules that are set out to ensure that what they do is enshrined in their articles and protected moving forward.

You know, businesses know that acting in the best interests of people and the planet is the best way to build a thriving economy for the long term. If B.C. had this legislation on the books and if companies were able to incorporate as benefit companies, with an explicit social or environmental benefit baked into that purpose, it would send a very strong signal to the market that the government supports this approach to business, and British Columbia is a home and wants to seek and attract new business in this area.

We look forward and encourage more companies to incorporate social and environmental values into their own business, empowering them to create change in our province and to help us to solve many of the challenges that face us all.

I look forward to listening to the other comments and the deliberations at committee phase.

Today I was afforded the opportunity to address delegates at the 70^th annual convention of the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities held in Powell River. As noted on their website:

“The Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities (AVICC) is the longest established area association under the umbrella of the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM). The area association was established in 1950. It now has a membership of 53 municipalities and regional districts that stretches from the North Coast Regional District down to the tip of Vancouver Island and includes Powell River, the Sunshine Coast, the Central Coast and the North Coast. The Association deals with issues and concerns that affect large urban areas to small rural communities.“

Below I reproduce the text of my speech.

Text of Speech

I have had the distinct honour of standing before this group of leaders on a number of occasions – and each time I am grateful for the opportunity to address you.

By my count, the AVICC represents 53 distinct cities, towns, villages, districts or regional districts, stretching from the southern tip of Vancouver Island, all the way up to the Northern tip of the North Coast Regional District.

Each of you in this room has taken on an incredible responsibility to represent your friends and neighbours, helping chart a path forward for your community. For those of you who have been in office for a number of years, I think you will agree with me that the challenges that face us are getting harder to deal with and more complex, and that more than ever we need a vision that takes those challenges head on.

I will get to talking about the challenges – and even more important the opportunity that I believe we have in front of us. But before I do, I think it’s important to first acknowledge just how much we all have in common.

A couple of weeks ago, reporter Justin McElroy with CBC News published an article chronicling his four month, 12,000 kilometer trip across our beautiful province. By his count, he visited forty different communities, and had this to say about his experience:

“While our cities and towns are unique, the political dilemmas they face are pretty similar.

People need a place to live, whether it’s stable rental buildings or modular homes. They need to get around more easily, whatever form of transportation they take. They need jobs from evolving industries, and generally worry about losing those in traditional sectors. And they need to feel they’re making the world a better place for their children.

…No matter which B.C. communities we went to, that contrast existed. Every place is its own — but the conflicts and solutions to their political issues generally aren’t.”

I think this is a critical starting place. Whether it’s the challenges we face, or the opportunities we want to seize, we have more in common with each other then we have things that set us apart. And, I believe more than ever, we are all in this together.

So let’s talk about the largest challenge we face, especially on the coast – but also about the solutions that are readily available and right in front of us.

Over the last 150 years, Earth has made a transition from the past, when climate affected the evolution of human societies, to the present, in which humans are affecting the evolution of the climate.

Today we are at a pivotal moment in human history; our generation will be responsible for deciding what path the future climate will take.

You and I, as elected officials, will either be complicit in allowing climate change to despoil our world – or we can lead the way and choose a new future.

I don’t need to tell you that communities across BC – including the communities represented by the very people in this room – are on the frontier of climate change.

No level of government feels the impacts greater nor as directly as you do as municipalities.

I could spend every minute I have left one this stage with you enumerating the impacts that climate change is already having on our way of life.

You, as local leaders, see first hand the impacts on your communities. The evacuations. The water restrictions. The rivers that are drying up. The loss of species in our coastal ecosystems like the Orca or the Steelhead. The economic impacts to industries like fishing and tourism – industries every community in this room relies on is as risk.

More than anything, I think we are starting to see the impact that this instability and insecurity is having on the people who live in our communities. The insecurity – the uncertainty of where we are going – can sometimes feel overwhelming. The sense of powerlessness is the face of such a grand challenge can feel paralyzing.

To this, I say let’s look to the next generation for the drive and energy we need to overcome this feeling.

A couple of weeks ago our province witnessed tens of thousands of students walking out of class, joining the millions who marched worldwide, demanding climate action. They carried signs that read “We should be preparing for the future, not fighting for it!” and “The climate is changing, why aren’t we?”

The words of Greta Thunberg, whose actions have inspired so many – including the marches that took place – ring particularly loud for me.

“I am doing this because nobody else is doing anything. It is my moral responsibility to do what I can,” she says. “I want the politicians to prioritise the climate question, focus on the climate and treat it like a crisis.”

She is speaking to us. All of us in this room, asking us to rise to this challenge with real actions. We are the ones who can set our province on a path that shows the next generation that we will take responsibility for addressing the problems that they risk inheriting from us.

And here’s the thing – while it will absolutely take courage to see them through, the solutions are right in front of us, and will make our lives better.

So let’s talk about the path forward and how all of us collectively can build a path forward for our communities.

I’ve spoken a number of times about my vision for how BC can position itself as a leader in the 21st century economy. This may look different for every community, but there are certain things we all share in common

I believe BC has three strategic advantages over virtually every other region in the world.

1. The quality of life and natural environment allows us to attract and retain some of the best and brightest minds from around the globe — we are a destination of choice.
2. We have a highly skilled and educated workforce. Our high school students are consistently top ranked internationally. They are smart, well trained and they are ready to go to work.
3. We have access to renewable resources — energy, water, and wood — like no other jurisdiction. We have incredible potential to create a clean, renewable energy sector to sustain our growing economy.

To capitalize on these advantages, we need to start planning beyond the next election cycle. We need to focus on building a new economy that works for all of us — not just the privileged few. Policies must be based on principles and evidence, not political calculation and opportunism.

And governments must put people’s interests first – ahead of entrenched industry – because building healthy, safe, secure communities needs to be prioritized in a changing world.

I have been pushing government to prioritize the health and well-being of British Columbians since I was elected almost six years ago

By tackling climate change, with carefully designed policies, B.C.’s economy can grow in new ways. And as I said before – these solutions will actually improve our lives. That is because the only solutions to the climate challenge are ones that see us tackle inequality and focus on the health and well-being of British Columbians.

I want to give some examples of these solutions.

Earlier this spring the government released “Connecting Coastal Communities,” a report by special advisor Blair Redlin. This report outlined that over the next 9 years, 14 contracts will be needed for new vessels, and this doesn’t include retrofits of existing vessels.

However, right now BC seem fixated on giving these contracts to shipyards in other countries so that we can build vessels that use LNG.

Contrast this with Norway, who recently made headlines increasing reliance on electric ferries. And guess what? The battery technology they are using is made in Burnaby.

There is so much potential for made in BC ferries, using made in BC electrification technology which reduce GHG emissions and create local employment.

While we are accomplishing this, we can and should be rolling BC Ferries back into our provincial transportation network. I believe that ferries are a part of the highway system. They are relied on to get kids to school and for communities to access the healthcare system they pay for, That’s why it is essential that our ferry services don’t exist to maximize profits, but rather to serve the public interest. That’s why they’re there.

In forestry we must focus on the opportunities that arise when we prioritize the protection of out old growth forests.

Vancouver Island and our coastal communities have some of the most majestic forests left on the planet, drawing people from around the world.

The BC Green Caucus believes we need to protect what little old growth is left. These forests provide essential functions for our communities, protecting biodiversity, supporting watershed health and helping keep the very water we drink clean – not to mention the role they play in storing carbon.

By protecting our old growth forests, we can enhance the resilience of our communities – both the environment they rely upon, and our local economies.

There is a huge opportunity to support a retrofit program for our coastal mills to process second growth timber, and focus on developing a value added industry. This can go hand in hand with enhancing local ownership over these resources to ensure communities see the benefits, as well as have the responsibility to steward our public resources.

On another front, we have brought forward benefit company legislation, which would carve out a more deliberate space in our economy for businesses that want to pursue values beyond maximizing profits.   B.C. is already home to a number of incredibly innovative, socially responsible companies that want to play a bigger role in addressing the biggest challenges we face. And I think that it is critical that we harness this power of business to help us find solutions, and to create prosperity in an environmentally sustainable and socially responsible way. This should not be a task for governments alone. This legislation is one step to help us do this.

And, alongside making these changes, we should also be changing how we determine what success means in our economy. We need to move beyond a sole focus on economic growth measured by GDP, where we don’t incorporate the effects of the economic production and consumption on our environment or the health and well-being of British Columbians. Instead, we should be using a genuine progress indicator to measure the success of our economy. An indicator that captures   I’m excited to say that we’re working with our partners in government to develop a GPI for BC.

Making the changes needed in our economy won’t be a straight path. But the challenges in front of us are political – not technical.

Two weeks ago that was on display in the BC Legislature as all 83 members of the BC NDP and BC Liberal caucuses voted to provide new tax credits to a large fossil fuel company which will see the creation of the largest point source of GHG emissions in British Columbia.

This is a disappointing and counterproductive step. Governments can no longer have it both ways. They cannot advance status quo, polluting industries and be committed to tackling climate change and pursuing an economic pathway ground in well-being.

It is wrong to spend so much energy to expand fossil fuel tax credits and the race to the bottom economics of the fossil fuel industry.

So what do we do in the face of these actions that move us backward? We must meet them head on, showing the courage to challenge “business as usual” and the leadership to show a better pathway.

We should be using our time and resources to build the opportunity we have in BC to leverage our strengths and build a sustainable and innovative economy, and the imperative we face in getting our communities ready for climate change. This should be the time when parties are competing to present the boldest plans to British Columbians to position us for success in this new reality.

On this note I want to recognize the leadership the Mayor Lisa Helps and the City of Victoria are showing.

Their motion shows the courage to directly challenge the pursuit of LNG in this province in the face of the climate crisis, and the leadership to provide a path forward. I want to read directly from part of the motion:

“THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that UBCM call on the Provincial government to end all subsidies

to fossil fuel companies and to invest the money instead in climate change mitigation and adaptation activities being undertaken by local governments in a predictable and regularized funding formula…”

This is what is needed. I applaud this courage. This leadership.

The specific ways in which climate change challenges our communities may differ, but we must be united in responding to it.

I would like to end this speech with an open invitation to each of you to work with my colleagues on I to advance this vision.

Taking meaningful action, making real change, requires partnership.

I would welcome your ideas, your concerns, and your stories of success so that together we can create the bold change needed to ensure our communities can thrive as we navigate the 21st century. I look forward to the discussions to come.

On May 14, 2018 I first introduced Bill M216: Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2018. This bill passed second reading on May 17, 2018 but was not called for committee debate during the 3rd session of the 42st parliament. As such, I reintroduced a slightly revised version of the bill today: Bill M209: Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2019.

This bill proposes amendments to the Business Corporations Act and will create a new Part 2.3 in the Act that enables 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 is 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 would also encourage 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 introduce the video and text of the introduction of this bill. I also attach a copy of the media release that we issued today.

Video of Introduction

Text of Introduction

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2019, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

This bill amends the Business Corporations Act, adding a new part to the act that would give companies in British Columbia the ability to incorporate as benefit companies. This legislation would support companies that choose to put the pursuit of social and environmental goals at the heart of their mission. Benefit companies would embed a commitment into their articles to operate in an environmentally sustainable and socially responsible way and to pursue public benefits.

B.C. is home to a number of incredibly innovative and socially responsible companies that want to play a bigger role in addressing the challenges we face collectively. This legislation is one that government can support and encourage business to take on this critically important role in our society.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House.

Bill M209, Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2019, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Media Release

B.C. Greens introduce legislation to support companies pursuing environmental and social goals
For immediate release
April 10, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – The B.C. Green caucus introduced legislation today to provide a legal framework for B.C. businesses committed to pursuing social and environmental goals to incorporate as benefit companies under theBusiness Corporations Act.If passed, the bill would become the first Private Member’s Bill from an opposition party to be passed directly into law in British Columbia.

“B.C. Greens are showing a path forward, both by supporting companies committed to pursuing a triple bottom line who choose to embed social responsibility and environmental sustainability right into their corporate DNA, and also by demonstrating yet another way a small caucus can offer leadership within a stable minority government,” said MLA Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party.

“B.C. is home to incredibly innovative companies that want to play a bigger role in addressing the challenges and opportunities we face – climate change, rapid changes in the nature of work, the gig economy, rapid technological advances, and growing income inequality,” said Weaver. “This legislation is part of positioning our province to be a leader on the cutting edge of global economic trends. We are seeing shifts in consumer patterns and behaviour, particularly among younger demographics sensitive to their social and environmental impact. By becoming the first jurisdiction in Canada to create benefit companies, B.C. can best position our economy for success.”

Government recognizes the impact B.C. businesses make in their communities, and has been supportive of the concept of benefit companies.

“I want to thank our partners in the Green Party Caucus for bringing this idea forward,” said Carole James, Minister of Finance. “Many B.C. businesses are leaders in building sustainable and socially responsible practices into their enterprises. We’ve worked closely with our minority government partners to create this opportunity for B.C. businesses to choose a new corporate structure that includes their social and environmental goals.”

The legislation amends the Business Corporations Act, and would enable companies to incorporate as a new type of company in B.C., a benefit company. Benefit companies would embed into their articles two commitments: operating in a responsible and sustainable manner, and pursuing specific public benefits. Directors of benefit companies would need to balance this broader mandate against their traditional duty to pursue the best interests of the corporation. Companies would also need to report their progress against an independent third-party standard. This legislation would ensure that mission-driven companies can stay true to their mission as they grow, and it would help them to attract capital by providing investors with certainty about the mandate of the company without being overly prescriptive with regards to how companies must spend profits.

“B.C. is already home to number of socially responsible companies,” said Weaver. “But government should do more to support those companies that want to create environmental and social value. More companies want to follow the leadership of the early adopters, so let’s give them the framework that will best support them as they take on this critical work.”

Quotes:

Catherine Warren, CEO, Vancouver Economic Commission-

“As Vancouverites and British Columbians, we are proud to be a hub for bold, mission-driven companies, so it comes as no surprise to us that B.C. could pass the first benefit company legislation in the country. Jobseekers, international businesses, and investors with common values come here to build on common ground. The Vancouver Economic Commission is focused on inclusive, resilient economic development and prosperity for all. We recognize that we can always do more – to help local companies lead for people, planet, and prosperity – and VEC’s sees this legislation as one way to ensure that social and environmental values advance tomorrow’s economy.”

Chris Arkell, co-founder of Sea to Sky Removal-

“As a company focused on waste management in the construction industry, we wanted to hold ourselves to the highest available standard of public accountability. Unlike traditional corporations, companies like ours are committed to considering the impact of their decisions not only on their shareholders, but also on their stakeholders – workers, suppliers, community, consumers, and the environment. This legislation would strengthen our ability to maintain our core values even as future directors, management or ownership changes may happen.“

Michelle Reid, sustainability czar, Mills Office Productivity-

“We have been a B.C.-based family business for 70 years. Multiple generations of our family have continued our founder’s commitment to delivering office products ethically and sustainably. This legislation sends a strong signal to the market that businesses like ours are moving in the right direction. We thank the B.C. Greens for showing the way forward for more companies to join us in doing the right thing for our customers, our community and our planet.”

Quick Facts:

What does this legislation do?

• This legislation provides a simple framework for companies to adhere to that is legally and commercially recognized and creates a higher standard, by requiring that:

○     Directors act with a broader purpose with respect to society and the environment, and balance this commitment against the best interests of the company.

○     Companies promote a specific “public benefit”, or a positive effect.

○     Directors must publish an annual report that describes the company’s activities in relation to their benefit commitments, and they must select an independent third party standard to report their work against.

• This legislation creates clear expectations about the nature and mandate of the company and provides protections for directors who choose to prioritize public benefits, not only profits.
• It will provide certainty for impact investors of the nature and mandate of the company.
• It will enable companies to attract capital while being true to their mission as they grow.
• It will protect the vision of the founders of benefit companies by embedding the environmental and social benefits into the company’s mandate.

How do benefit companies differ from Community Contribution Companies (C3s)?

• Government introduced C3 legislation in 2012 as a hybrid option between for-profit businesses and non-profit enterprises.
• C3s and benefit companies are complementary ways for government to support a spectrum of socially and environmentally responsible business.
• C3s are subject to restrictions related to their allocation of profits and their transfer of assets, while benefit companies would have no such restrictions.

How can a company become a benefit company?

• A company can become a benefit company by altering its notice of articles to include the required benefit statement through a special resolution, which would require two-thirds approval to pass.
• A company would need to include in its articles a commitment to operate in an environmentally sustainable and socially responsible manner, and to promote one or more specific public benefits.

-30-

Media contact
Macon McGinley, Press Secretary
+1 250-882-6187 |macon.mcginley@leg.BC.ca