Today in Vancouver I met with a group of business leaders in Vancouver to discuss legislation I plan to table next week that would enable us in British Columbia to lead the country in supporting businesses that want to be a bigger part of developing innovative solutions to the challenges of the 21st century.

Over the last few months my legislative staff and I have been working with these and other stakeholders to craft legislation that would enable a new classification of companies in British Columbia — The Benefit Company.

A benefit company is profit driven but gives consideration to the impact it is having on the environment, its workers, the community, suppliers and customers, and can direct profits to the public benefit versus solely to shareholders. This legislation would provide a legal framework for companies that choose to pursue social and environmental goals and operate in a responsible and sustainable manner. By making B.C. the first jurisdiction in Canada to allow businesses to incorporate as benefit companies, we are sending a strong signal about the kind of economy we want for our province. Already, more than 30 states in the US have Benefit Company enabling legislation.

Below I reproduce the press release that we released after the roundtable discussion. I also append my initial speech at the media availability.

Media Release

Andrew Weaver to introduce legislation to support companies that pursue social and environmental goals
For Immediate Release
May 2, 2018

VANCOUVER, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, announced today that he will introduce legislation that would enable B.C. companies to incorporate as benefit companies. The bill, which Weaver announced following a roundtable with business leaders in Vancouver, would amend the Business Corporations Act to allow companies that choose to incorporate as benefit companies to pursue social and environmental goals, rather than just profit.

“This legislation is an opportunity for B.C. to lead the country in supporting businesses that want to be a bigger part of developing innovative solutions to the challenges of the 21st century,” said Weaver.

“The world is experiencing tectonic shifts – from climate change to automation, we need to think differently in order to turn these challenges into opportunities. Government and individuals cannot solve these problems alone. Businesses play a huge role in our society and they are part of the solution. Companies that pursue a triple bottom line are on the cutting edge of rethinking the role of business in the 21st century. They 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.

“This legislation would provide a legal framework for companies that choose to pursue social and environmental goals and operate in a responsible and sustainable manner. By making B.C. the first jurisdiction in Canada to allow businesses to incorporate as benefit companies, we are sending a strong signal about the kind of economy we want for our province.”

Weaver’s bill is his caucus’ first bill to be put through the official legislative drafting process, making it possible that this could be the first Private Member’s Bill in B.C.’s history to be passed into law.

Quotes:

“With so many diverse and innovative companies doing great work, B.C. is a fantastic place to invest. Companies that incorporate environmental and social considerations into their business models demonstrate that they have a long-term vision for their role in the province. Enacting Benefit Company legislation sends a signal to the business community that government supports companies that want to use their business as a force for good.”

• Joel Solomon, Chair & Co-Founder, Renewal Funds

“The values of social and environmental responsibility inform everything we do at Keela. Building a company on these values sends a clear signal to our clients about what we stand for and demonstrates that our company is built to last. This legislation will encourage more BC companies to incorporate these values into their own business, empowering them to promote social and environmental change in our province.”

• Nejeed Kassam, CEO, Keela

“The proposed legislation will surely be welcomed by the growing community of impact investors in British Columbia. Benefit corporation status will give these investors additional confidence that social and environmental outcomes will be an integral and protected part of business decision-making.”

• Norm Tasevski, Co-founder, Purpose Capital

-30-

Media contact

Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca

Backgrounder

• A benefit company is profit driven but is committed to environmental sustainability and social responsibility in addition to profit
• Corporations are able to incorporate as a benefit company in over 30 US states
  • According to the non-profit B Lab, more than 5,000 companies have chosen to become benefit companies where legislation exists, and they’ve raised nearly $2 billion in capital
  • Notable benefit companies include Patagonia, Method Home Products, Plum Organics, Kickstarter, and Laureate Education
• The choice to become a benefit company is voluntary and there are no tax benefits or impacts on other companies
• The proposed amendment to the Business Corporations Act will create a new part that enables companies to become benefit companies under the Act. These companies will have to meet certain requirements, including:
  • Committing to operate in a socially responsible and environmentally sustainable manner, and to promote specific public benefits
  • Reporting publicly against a 3rd party standard
• If this legislation passes, BC would be the first jurisdiction in Canada to allow companies to incorporate as benefit companies

Jillian Oliver | Press Secretary
Room 028 Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BC V8V 1X4
Phone: (250) 882-6187 | Fax: (250) 387-833

Initial Statement to the Media

Introduction

Thank you all for coming. And thank you Bernie for the introduction.

I’ve just had a roundtable with a group of inspiring business leaders. These people have chosen to use their business as a force for good.

They are running successful companies, creating jobs and contributing to our strong economy. But what sets these businesses apart is their commitment to not only seeking profits, not only creating financial value for their shareholders, but also their commitment to pursuing social and environmental benefits as part of their work.

I think that government should do more to support and empower companies like these ones that pursue a triple bottom line of people, planet, and profit.

Announcing legislation

That’s why I am happy to announce today that I will be introducing legislation this session to support sustainable and responsible businesses. This bill would amend the Business Corporations Act.

It would add a new Part to the Act, giving companies an option to incorporate as “benefit companies”.

It would allow companies that choose to become benefit companies to pursue social and environmental goals, rather than just profit.

The bill will include some requirements that benefit companies would need to adhere to. These include putting their public benefit commitments in their articles, and meeting standards of transparency and reporting by reporting progress against an independent third party standard.

This bill will also protect companies that choose to prioritize social and environmental purpose as part of their mandate. It will provide clarity and certainty for companies and their shareholders about the company’s goals and mandate. And companies will need a shareholder majority to become or stop being a benefit company.

Why this legislation

This legislation is an opportunity for BC to lead the country in supporting businesses that want to be a bigger part of developing innovative solutions to the challenges of the 21st century.

This legislation is common elsewhere. In the US, over 30 states have this type of legislation. And successful companies of all sizes have signed on.

I believe that becoming the first jurisdiction in Canada to champion benefit corporations is a huge opportunity to position the province as a leader.

We are struggling to adjust and respond to massive technological, social, and environmental shifts. From climate change to automation, we need to think differently in order to turn these challenges into opportunities. Government and the non-profit sector cannot respond to these changes alone.

Nor should we have to.

Businesses play a huge role in our society and they are part of the solution. Companies that pursue a triple bottom line are on the cutting edge of rethinking the role of business in the 21st century. They 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.

Conclusion/opportunity

In drafting this bill, we have taken government up on their decision to make legislative drafters available to all private members. We have been working with a legislative drafter to ensure that this legislation is legally correct, and that it works with other pieces of legislation in BC.

I’m committed to seeing this bill will be called for debate in the house.

Ultimately, I believe it’s a bill that both the BC NDP and the BC Liberals can support.

Our hope is that, if government passes this bill, that we can encourage more BC companies to incorporate social and environmental values into their own business, empowering them to promote social and environmental change in our province.

Thank you.

Over the last two days we have been debating two government bills designed to rescue ICBC from the financial troubles they encountered due to the fiscal mismanagement of the BC Liberals over the last number of years.

The first bill that was introduced and debated was Bill 22: Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act, 2018. The major change this bill proposed was to expand the scope of the Civil Resolution Tribunal to allow for the adjudication of disputes over certain motor vehicle injury claims. Presently, the Civil Resolution Tribunal hears strata property disputes and small claims disputes $5,000 and under.

The second bill that was introduced and debated was Bill 20: Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2018. This bill provides for regulation on a few major aspects of ICBC product reform, including limiting payouts for pain and suffering for minor injuries, and allowing for increased medical benefits, to be established in regulation. In essence it takes the focus off litigation and instead focuses it on patient recovery.

Below I reproduced my second reading speeches (in video and text) for both of these Bills.

Videos of Speeches

Text: 2^nd Reading of Bill 20

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in the debates at second reading for Bill 20, the Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act. I thank the member for Richmond-Steveston for his comments and the minister for introducing this bill.

Bill 20 is one of two bills, hon. Speaker, as you know. We’ve been debating Bill 22, the Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act. Collectively, these bills are designed to get a handle on price increases that are going forward in ICBC. You know, British Columbia is the last jurisdiction in Canada for which victims can sue for any type of injury for any amount. This is known as the full tort system. These measures are attempts to get a handle on costs.

After quite a number of years, in the words of the Attorney General — in a press scrum, he noted that ICBC finances became a dumpster fire. I think, actually, that’s a quite appropriate comment in light of the rather dramatic rate increases and budget overruns that are seen in ICBC due to financial negligence of its oversight through too many years of a government that seemed to view it as a bank account from which to withdraw money rather than as an insurance agency and public good designed specifically to actually ensure value for British Columbians and safety for British Columbians on the road.

This bill provides for regulation on a few major aspects of ICBC — product reform including limiting payouts for pain and suffering and for minor injuries — and allowing for increased medical benefits to be established in regulation. These announcements that are put forward in this bill were actually pre-announced in February.

For me, the important aspect of this bill is that it takes the onus off the legal system and puts the onus on getting a person healthy by increasing the availability of resources for them, whether they be expanded service…. The treatment, the whole focus now, is on the person. That, to me, is important.

We all know of litigative examples that one could describe as somewhat dodgy. There seems to have been an increased, growing number of these, whereby people go to courts and sue for every this, that and the other. Now, with this being put in place, it’s actually saying: “You know what? We’re joining the rest of Canada.” We no longer are going to be considered the Wild West here in terms of insurance premiums. We’re going to follow the lead of every other jurisdiction in Canada and move away from the full tort system to one that actually recognizes that costs in ICBC are going up. A substantial amount of those are associated with soft tissue injuries, and we will actually take steps to limit that.

There are a number of key changes in this bill. The most important one, as I outlined, is the focus on people and on getting better, rather than litigation. That, to me, is a critical reason why I support this. Before I go on to the changes in the bill, I’d like to summarize, again, some quick facts from ICBC and to underscore just how serious the situation is in ICBC, which is ultimately reflected in the ever-increasing premiums — despite having no accidents —that we are paying in this province.

Government had to do something. ICBC claims totalled $2.7 billion in 2016, which was an 80 percent increase in seven years. Seven years where the B.C. Liberals, historically, just watched and let this get out of hand.

The average claim paid out for minor injuries rose from $8,200 in the year 2000 to $30,038 in 2016 — a 265 percent increase in average claim payout for minor injuries. Again, under the watch of the B.C. Liberals, who let this get out of hand and viewed ICBC as a bank account from which to withdrawal money as dividends that should not have been withdrawn, because that money didn’t exist.

Over this time, if I go back to the average pain and suffering award paid out for minor injuries…. In 2000, it was $5,004. In 2016, it was $16,499. Vehicle damage costs have increased 30 percent in just two years to a total of $1.5 billion in 2016 alone.

Now, you know, I don’t want correlation to imply causation, but of course, one has to wonder what the effects of eliminating those ICBC inspection stations and adjustors from actually assessing claims…. What has been the net cost to the ICBC ratepayer, again, as a direct cause of measures that were taken by the previous government a number of years back?

To the specific aspects of this bill. Some of the key changes are that provisions are now being introduced through regulation to allow the claimant to recover damages for pain and suffering from minor injuries. There’s now a legal definition of minor injury, which is included in this.

Of course, I have some sympathy for the comments from the member for Richmond-Steveston and the member for Vancouver-Langara in other debates that he’s done here — that a lot of this is left to regulation.

Again, there is some definition. There’s some language with respect to minor injury and listing abrasions, contusions, lacerations, sprain and strains, pain syndrome, psychological and psychiatric conditions, or the old “injury as prescribed” in a prescribed class of injury, where that means whatever a regulation says, even if it’s chronic.

I also have some sympathy for the counter-argument raised by the Attorney General, who has suggested that in jurisdictions that have introduced legislation with respect to minor injuries, there are some very sharp lawyers out there who find exemptions to that. So rather than set it all in stone, the enabling legislation enables, through order-in-council, the government to fix any loopholes that may arise in terms of people trying to claim something’s not a minor injury when, in fact, the intent of this legislation would be that it were to be included. Again, I have some sympathy there.

One of the things that’s important is the allowance for an extended list of health care providers to allow ICBC to use for accident claims, which is actually important. You know, despite what the member for Richmond-Steveston said, there are a lot of people who aren’t covered, and it’s not easy to actually get coverage at all times with ICBC. There are limits.

The focus now is not on recovery. The focus now is on trying to avoid the courts, and that’s a problem. That’s a problem, when ICBC is more concerned about avoidance of courts and settling and litigation. In certain cases, they are more concerned about the settlement than actually getting someone better.

I do have sympathy for the Attorney General in bringing this forward, this legislation, and support his efforts in this regard.

There are a number of questions. I mean, of course, there are some mechanisms that are in this bill that allow ICBC to no longer reimburse other insurance companies, with the exception, of course, of WorkSafe B.C. and the MSP, for payments to their customers.

Of course, we know that today’s customers can receive benefits from other insurance companies, not just and not only ICBC, if they happen to have secondary coverage through work or others. They can get that after a crash. They may receive wage-loss benefits, for example, or extended health care benefits from their employer.

We know right now that most insurance companies indeed have agreements in place where the customer has to pay back these benefits if ICBC also pays for these expenses. Now, with the changes in the legislation, ICBC will not pay the other insurance company for the same benefit they have already provided. And that seems to me fair if you’ve got the additional coverage. We’re saying if you’ve got the coverage, ICBC isn’t going to pay the insurance company. They’re going to let the insurance company pay that additional amount. They’ll still, of course, cover you if you’re not covered.

Of course, there are, too, some overarching issues here. A lot of it is left to regulation. But overall, the public response, with the notable exception of trial lawyers, is quite positive. I’ll start with the negative, of course.

We know that John Rice, from the Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia, has suggested that the changes since February are concerning because they have widened what is considered a minor injury and, therefore, subject to the cap. He says the legislation represents “one of the most significant attacks on the legal rights of British Columbians in our province’s history. The proposed legislation goes much further than what was previously announced by Eby in February in making victims pay for reckless and distracted drivers….” He says: “Instead ICBC and the NDP….”

Deputy Speaker: Member, only referencing by riding name.

A. Weaver: Oh, I do apologize. I was reading a direct quote from the letter. Thank you for noting that. It was announced by the Attorney General, who he referred to by name, which of course, is not appropriate for me to do in this Legislature.

He said: “…by the Attorney General in February, in making victims pay for reckless and distracted drivers…. Instead,” he says, “ICBC and the NDP government want to cap even more injuries than British Columbians suffer because of someone else’s negligence.”

Now, my retort to John Rice, of course, would be that now British Columbia is the only jurisdiction in Canada — the only one left — that is the Wild West of thou shalt sue whoever thou wants whenever there’s an accident, to see how much money you can get. I understand that there are certain trail lawyers who will be upset because they have made a livelihood out of this so-called issue.

I also have some sympathy with respect to government trying to deal with this, because costs are getting out of hand. We know that those costs are coming for settlements on soft tissue, for example. And there are other costs associated with increased motor vehicle claims. But again, to members here, it seems to me that we are the last jurisdiction for allowing this full tort system. It’s not unexpected. Nor is it, really, frankly outrageous. Nor is it, actually, uncommon for one to expect that it’s time for us to get with the program. I commend the Attorney General for actually stepping up and doing this.

There are, of course, many other comments that are on the positive side. I received many emails in this regard. A couple of key ones, of course, are…. Giovanna Boniface, from the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists, says:

“Unbelievably, accident benefits haven’t been increased since 1991. B.C.’s occupational therapists have been helping injured drivers return to activities of daily living for decades and have seen declines in access to vital and necessary treatment for years. By raising the amount covered and expanding the variety of treatments that are eligible, these changes will allow more people to have access to the treatment and adaptive equipment they need, thereby fostering quicker recovery and return to meaningful, daily activities. “

This is important because I know, only too well, the problems that have arisen with people trying to get benefits from ICBC. You’re allowed to make two claims. In the first claim, they’ll pay your expenses, but they won’t pay your other medical expenses until the second one, which is when all is better. The problem is, ICBC is incentivizing you to go to a lawyer.

If you have a difficult time paying those expenses…. I know people very close to me who have had to pay thousands of dollars in expenses. They’re not going to see lawyers, because they want to actually get better. But they have to pay it up front. They can pay it up front, but what about the person that can’t pay it up front? The person who doesn’t have the hundreds and hundreds of dollars to spend on ongoing physiotherapy? So they make their claim after a couple of months and realize that they need many months more of physiotherapy and, say, chiropractor and massage therapy. They have to pay it and hope that perhaps they’ll get reimbursed at the end. But sometimes they can’t, so they go to a lawyer. And the lawyer’s office says: “You know what? Get yourself better. We’ll cover the expenses We’ll open a file.”

As soon as the lawyer opens the file, guess what. We know the settlement is going through the roof. Here, what is so welcome to me in this bill, is that the focus is on the patient and getting the patient better. That is the number one focus. And for many, having the ability to get better is what they want. So again, I applaud government for bringing this forward.

Another commentator is, of course, Jane Dyson, from Disability Alliance B.C. Jane says:

“Disability Alliance B.C. has been advocating for improvements to accident benefits for 12 years.” Funny, that — 12 years. That’s less than 16 years. “The doubling of the overall allowance for medical care and recovery is a significant improvement. We welcome these long-overdue changes that will mean that people who are catastrophically injured in motor vehicle accidents have better supports available to them to help them rebuild their lives. Moving forward, DABC” — that’s the Disability Alliance B.C. — “looks forward to continued dialogue with ICBC and government to help ensure that British Columbians accessing accident benefits receive the treatment and financial support they need.”

Then, of course, there’s Louise Craig, who’s a Vancouver-based physiotherapist, who says this. She is also a spokesperson for the group Rights Over Arbitrary Decisions — ROAD, an interesting acronym — for British Columbians. She said this: “It’s good that government keeps talking about increasing medical benefits for those involved in a crash, but the loose definition of minor injury in Monday’s bill remains concerning. I think they are expanding it so that minor injuries encompass the vast majority of injuries that occur and make the exception, say, a fractured bone or spinal cord injury.”

I think this is the concern raised by a number in this House over the previous bills we’ve discussed as well. Again, I accept, at this stage, the argument put forward by the Attorney General that, in fact, the definition is meant to be a little loose in that one is hoping to refine it through regulation as time moves on to ensure that minor injuries are actually captured as minor injuries and not to ensure that, in fact, there are loopholes that people can actually get away with and kind of avoid the tribunal process, for example, or the maximum coverage.

Again, long overdue for reform with ICBC. I’m very pleased that government is stepping in to douse this so-called dumpster fire with some water to ensure that ratepayers are protected, because something had to be done. We could have done a couple of things. We could have scrapped ICBC, thrown the baby out with the bathwater, and gone with a full private insurance system as some jurisdictions have done. We could have gone to a complete no-fault insurance system, as other jurisdictions have done. I think what government has done here is stand back and say: “You know what? We don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We want to ensure that we keep this jewel, this jewel called ICBC. But we also want to ensure that we reform it, reform it in a way and a means that actually ensures that ratepayers are getting value for their investment in the ICBC auto insurance plan and to ensure that we clamp down on false claims or those who are, in some sense, using the system for their financial advantage through claiming of injuries that are not actually as serious as would otherwise claim.”

I’m a very strong supporter of this bill, and I thank the minister for bringing it forward — recognizing, of course, that it won’t be without some concern and controversy elsewhere. I thank you for your attention, hon. Speaker.

Text: 2^nd Reading of Bill 22

A. Weaver: I stand and take my place in second reading of Bill 22, Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act, 2018.

As has been mentioned, this bill implements changes that were previously announced by government on February 6. The major change in this bill, of course, is expanding the scope of the civil resolution tribunal to adjudicate disputes over certain motor vehicle injury claims.

Such additions are not without their controversy but profoundly needed in the province of British Columbia. We’ve watched year after year the financial issues within ICBC escalate to the point where, now, ICBC is literally well over $1 billion in debt.

If we look in specific details at some of the facts with respect to ICBC right now, we know that injury claims total $2.7 billion in 2016, which was an 80 percent increase in the last seven years. We know that the average claim paid out for minor injuries has risen from $8,200, in the year 2000, to $30,038 in 2016. That’s an increase of a whopping 265 percent.

At the same time, we also know that the average pain and suffering awards paid out for minor injuries have risen from $5,004, in the year 2000, to more than $16,499 in 2016. Vehicle damage costs have increased 30 percent in just two years, to a total of $1.5 billion in 2016 alone.

So, the use of the civil resolution tribunal for minor injury dispute resolutions means that claimants who don’t use a lawyer will actually be able to keep their entire settlement rather than paying a portion of their fees. It actually doing so means that the province of British Columbia is the last province in Canada to abandon a system which is essentially known as a full tort system. That’s one where anyone can sue anyone with respect to motor vehicle accidents.

I do commend the Attorney General and his office for bringing such legislation forward in a timely fashion to get a handle on the escalating costs within ICBC.

As was mentioned, this is not without its controversy. There will be, of course, trial lawyers who are concerned about what this means in terms of their livelihood. There’s nothing in this legislation that says: “You can’t hire a lawyer.” In fact, section 16, I believe it is, specifically says that lawyers will be allowed to represent parties in vehicle claims — as ICBC will be represented by experienced adjusters. I recognize that there may be some concern within trial lawyers.

Again, I come back to the point that British Columbia is the last province in Canada that still has a full tort system here, where everybody can sue anybody whenever they want.

The civil resolution tribunal’s scope is not only expanded profoundly in the area of motor vehicle injury claims, but also there’s some tightening and expansion and identification of rules and regulations where the civil resolution tribunal can also be used — or Strata Property Act disputes, things like condominiums or bare land stratas — as well as some small adjustments to small claims in here. There are also some adjustments to the area of cooperatives, which are modified slightly in this act.

Overall, I recognize that a lot is left to regulation, but in this particular case, while more generally I get concerned when a lot is left in regulation…. I understand in this case that we’re talking about a rather fundamental shift in the way motor vehicle claims are dealt with in the province of British Columbia.

There’s a danger, that if too much is done in legislation, government could not respond nimbly to changes that might be required — particularly, as has been identified by some pundits, when lawyers are able to find ways around the intent of the legislation, to find other additional means of still engaging claims in Supreme Court, by finding various loopholes in the means and ways claims should be processed.

Overall, this is a piece of legislation we’re proud to support. We look forward to exploring some of the details in committee stage, and also the concomitant legislation which makes a cap on claims, which I believe will be

As promised, the BC Government today submitted a reference question to the B.C. Court of Appeal seeking a decision on whether of not it has the right to regulate heavy oil transportation across our province. In particular, it has asked the B.C. Court of Appeal three questions:

1. Is it within the legislative authority of the Legislature of British Columbia to enact legislation substantially in the form set out in the attached Appendix?
2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, would the attached legislation be applicable to hazardous substances brought into British Columbia by means of interprovincial undertakings?
3. If the answers to questions 1 and 2 are yes, would existing federal legislation render all or part of the attached legislation inoperative?

As part of the submission, the province appended a potential amendment to the Environment Management Act (reproduced in the Appendix below) which it has asked the court to rule on.

The BC Green Caucus supports the government’s efforts in this regard and I append my media statement below.

Media Statement

Weaver statement on Kinder Morgan court reference case
For immediate release
April 26, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, issued the following response to the government’s court reference case.

“I am pleased to see the government is continuing to stand up for British Columbia,” said Weaver.

“Earlier this week, media reports uncovered further evidence that the approval process for this project was deeply flawed. It’s clear that the federal approval of this project was based on political calculation, not on evidence or the best interests of the public.

“There are significant gaps in scientific knowledge regarding the effects of a diluted bitumen spill. British Columbians are rightly concerned that a dilbit spill could significantly harm their health and safety, their local economy and their environment. Our caucus supports the government’s efforts to ensure these concerns are addressed and that our province is protected from hazardous materials that flow within its borders.”

-30-

Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca

Appendix

The following Part is added to the Environmental Management Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 53:

PART 2.1 – HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE PERMITS

Purposes

22.1 The purposes of this Part are

(a) to protect, from the adverse effects of releases of hazardous substances,

(i) British Columbia’s environment, including the terrestrial, freshwater, marine and atmospheric environment,
(ii) human health and well-being in British Columbia, and
(iii) the economic, social and cultural vitality of communities in British Columbia, and

(b) to implement the polluter pays principle.

Interpretation

22.2 The definition of “permit” in section 1 (1) does not apply to this Part.

Requirement for hazardous substance permits

22.3

(1) In the course of operating an industry, trade or business, a person must not, during a calendar year, have possession, charge or control of a substance listed in Column 1 of the Schedule, and defined in Column 2 of the Schedule, in a total amount equal to or greater than the minimum amount set out in Column 3 of the Schedule unless a director has issued a hazardous substance permit to the person to do so.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who has possession, charge or control of a substance on a ship.

Issuance of hazardous substance permits

22.4

(1) Subject to subsection (2), on application by a person, a director may issue to the applicant a hazardous substance permit referred to in section 22.3 (1).

(2) Before issuing the hazardous substance permit, the director may require the applicant to do one or more of the following:

(a) provide information documenting, to the satisfaction of the director,

(i) the risks to human health or the environment that are posed by a release of the substance, and

(ii) the types of impacts that may be caused by a release of the substance and an estimate of the monetary value of those impacts;

(b) demonstrate to the satisfaction of the director that the applicant

(i) has appropriate measures in place to prevent a release of the substance,

(ii) has appropriate measures in place to ensure that any release of the substance can be minimized in gravity and magnitude, through early detection and early response, and

(iii) has sufficient capacity, including dedicated equipment and personnel, to be able to respond effectively to a release of the substance in the manner and within the time specified by the director;

(c) post security to the satisfaction of the director, or demonstrate to the satisfaction of the director that the applicant has access to financial resources including insurance, in order to ensure that the applicant has the capacity

(i) to respond to or mitigate any adverse environmental or health effects resulting from a release of the substance, and

(ii) to provide compensation that may be required by a condition attached to the permit under section 22.5 (b) (ii);

(d) establish a fund for, or make payments to, a local government or a first nation government in order to ensure that the local government or the first nation government has the capacity to respond to a release of the substance;

(e) agree to compensate any person, the government, a local government or a First Nations government for damages resulting from a release of the substance, including damages for any costs incurred in responding to the release, any costs related to ecological recovery and restoration, any economic loss and any loss of non-use value.

Conditions attached to hazardous substance permits

22.5 A director may, at any time, attach one or more of the following conditions to a hazardous substance permit:

(a) conditions respecting the protection of human health or the environment, including conditions requiring the holder of the permit

(i) to implement and maintain appropriate measures to prevent a release of the substance,

(ii) to implement and maintain appropriate measures to ensure that any release of the substance can be minimized in gravity and magnitude, through early detection and early response, and

(iii) to maintain sufficient capacity, including dedicated equipment and personnel, to be able to respond effectively to a release of the substance in the manner and within the time specified by the director;

(b) conditions respecting the impacts of a release of the substance, including conditions requiring the holder of the permit

(i) to respond to a release of a substance in the manner and within the time specified by the director, and

(ii) to compensate, without proof of fault or negligence, any person, the government, a local government or a First Nations government for damages referred to in section 22.4 (2) (e).

Suspension or cancellation of hazardous substance permits

22.6

(1) Subject to this section, a director, by notice served on the holder of a hazardous substance permit, may suspend the permit for any period or cancel the permit.

(2) A notice served under subsection (1) must state the time at which the suspension or cancellation takes effect.

(3) A director may exercise the authority under subsection (1) if a holder of a hazardous substance permit fails to comply with the conditions attached to the permit.

Restraining orders

22.7

(1) If a person, by carrying on an activity or operation, contravenes section 22.3 (1), the activity or operation may be restrained in a proceeding brought by the minister in the Supreme Court.

(2) The making of an order by the court under subsection (1) in relation to a matter does not interfere with the imposition of a penalty in respect of an offence in relation to the same contravention.

Offence and penalty

22.8 A person who contravenes section 22.3 (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $400 000 or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both.

Power to amend Schedule

22.9 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, add substances, their definitions and their minimum amounts to the Schedule and delete substances, their definitions and their minimum amounts from the Schedule.

2 The following Schedule is added:

SCHEDULE [section 22.3 (1)]

Substance: Heavy Oil

Definition of Substance:

a) a crude petroleum product that has an American Petroleum Institute gravity of 22 or less, or

b) a crude petroleum product blend containing at least one component that constitutes 30% or more of the volume of the blend and that has either or both of the following:

Minimum Amount of Substance:  

The largest annual amount of the annual amounts of the substance that the person had possession, charge or control of during each of 2013 to 2017.

Right after question period on Thursday of this week, the MLA for Abbotsford West (and the former House Leader when the BC Liberals were in Government) rose, pursuant to Standing Order 35, to seek leave from the Speaker to “make a motion for the adjournment of the House … for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance … “.

In his statement, the MLA for Abbotsford West argued that it was urgent to discuss:

“the necessity, advisability, and consequences of referring to the Court of Appeal the question of British Columbia’s ability to regulate or limit the transportation of energy products on federally approved and regulated pipelines and rail lines“.

During the 40^th Parliament (prior to the May 2017 election) I stood three times pursuant to Standing Order 35 seeking to debate a matter of urgent public importance (all of them occurred in 2015).

The first sought a debate on whether or not in light of a preponderance of recent weather extremes, and in the lead up to an upcoming United Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in Paris,  we, as legislators, were acting with sufficient urgency and demonstrating the appropriate leadership on preparing for and mitigating the escalating impacts of climate change in British Columbia.

The second sought a debate on the recent failure of the contaminated soil site stormwater containment and clarification system at the South Island Aggregates — Cobble Hill Holdings — South Island Resource Management operations near Shawnigan Lake.

The third sought a debate on an economic backup plan for British Columbia given the  collapse of this government’s strategy on LNG and the urgent need to transition to a low-carbon economy.

In all cases the Government House Leader (now the MLA for Abbotsford West) spoke against the need for such debates. As he pointed out,

“It is the urgency of debate, not the urgency of the matter itself”

that is important.

Both the Government House Leader (Mike Farnworth) and I spoke against the need for the present emergency debate. The reason of course is that the issue had been extensively canvassed in Question Period and Budget Estimate debates. Below I reproduce the video and text of my rationale.

Video of my remarks

Text of my remarks

A. Weaver: I rise to speak to the application for Standing Order 35. We were informed of this about a minute ago when this was put on our desk, so we’ve had a quick caucus meeting here.

I will suggest that I do have a lot of sympathy for the arguments brought forward by the Government House Leader.

I will also remind you of precedent. In the previous government, I rose pursuant to Standing Order 35 and I pointed out that it was critical at that juncture for the House here to have a debate on the issue of climate change in the lead-up to the Paris agreement, because government was deliberating on what it was going to do there. And both sides of the House, at that time, suggested that the urgency test had not been met.

I have been talking about the issue of Kinder Morgan for five, six years now. I would argue that the urgency test is not met either, in light of the fact that I listened to estimates, in light of the fact that I’ve been here in this chamber for the last number of weeks and there has been time after time after time where this has been debated. Some of the motions in private members’ time, some of the statements, are on this topic. We’ve had ample opportunity to discuss this.

Again, I come back to the precedent. I come back to the application of Standing Order 35 in the last parliament, when I rose precisely on an issue similar to this and the Speaker at the time ruled that it was not a matter of urgency. I would argue that the parallels are very similar. The argument at the time was that the issue of climate challenge had been debated in question period, it had been debated in estimates, and it had been debated in statements on Monday morning.

The analogy is direct. So our advice, hon. Speaker, as you make your decision, is that we find it difficult to see how this test of urgency is met.

Today in the legislature I had the opportunity to rise once more in Question Period to question government further about the dubious economic justifications underpinning Alberta and Federal rhetoric supporting the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my exchange with the Minister of the Environment.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Yesterday, I asked the government whether they share the concerns being raised by many experts about the economics of the Trans Mountain pipeline. I’d like to pick up on that here.

Earlier this year and for the very first time, a new class of tanker — a very large crude carrier, or VLCC — left the newly refurbished Louisiana Offshore Oil Port destined for Asia. These tankers can load over two million barrels of oil, and the LOOP facility can fill them at a whopping rate of 100,000 barrels an hour.

The Aframax-class tankers that would leave the terminus at the end of the Trans Mountain pipeline can only take 555,000 barrels of diluted bitumen out of Burrard Inlet. That means that any Asian buyer would need to contract four Aframax tankers from the Trans Mountain terminus versus only one VLCC from the LOOP facility.

Based on this obvious economic reality that any Asian buyers would be serviced by the VLCCs out of the U.S. and not out of the terminus of Trans Mountain, my question is this, to the either the Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance or the Premier, if he’s here: is her government or his government and her ministry or the Premier’s office taking a hard look at the financial case for the Kinder Morgan pipeline?

Answer

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the question. I and other members of the government are certainly aware of the controversy around the economics, the different studies, the changes in conditions and different alternatives. I thank the Leader of the Third Party for reading these into the record.

But with respect to the Leader of the Third Party, it is the job of proponents to determine the economics. It is the job of other governments backing the project to determine the merits of the economics. I think all Canadian taxpayers would want other governments to take a long, hard look at the economics of a project in which they’re considering investing billions of dollars.

But our job, as the government of British Columbia, is to look at the interests of our environment and our economy, and that’s what we’re doing. That’s why we are considering every measure, every inch of our constitutional jurisdiction — to protect against a catastrophe that’s possible, that could have significant and awful economic interests on British Columbia. Tourism alone — 19,000 tourism businesses in British Columbia, employing 133,000 people in every corner of this province, in every constituency represented by members in this chamber.

It’s our duty, it’s our responsibility, to look out for those people. It’s not our responsibility to ignore them because a large project comes along. Our job is to ensure that if there are large projects, they don’t impact and take away the livelihood of those people or the $17 billion in revenue that the tourism industry generates every year in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: I do thank the minister for his answer and his commitment to protecting British Columbia. But I respectfully disagree, because I believe it is the government’s responsibility to inform British Columbians about the economics of this proposal.

Why? Because the previous government claimed that the economic benefits for British Columbia were very large and, in fact, claimed that the government’s fifth condition was apparently met. Now unfortunately, the fifth condition was based on assertions that were put towards the 2012 National Energy Board in the submission. It’s now six years old, and many of the fundamental assumptions of that submission, of that economic case, on which the government claimed its fifth condition was met, are no longer valid.

Keystone XL and line 3 have been approved. That means that we have more than a million barrels a day of export capacity, which was unaccounted for. We’ve got North America now having the ability to ship through VCCs — that was never able. And we know that you can’t get bigger ships in Burrard Inlet. This government, I would argue, has a responsibility to review those numbers, so that British Columbians are given correct, accurate and up-to-date information about the economics of this project.

My question, Hon. Speaker, is to the Minister of Environment — through you and then through the Minister of Finance, who still has laryngitis. The previous provincial government made claims about the economic benefits to B.C. from this pipeline, that have been cast into serious doubt. Why isn’t this government examining the economic case more closely?

Answer

Hon. G. Heyman: Again, I thank the Leader of The Third Party. As he respectfully disagrees with me about the role of our government in this regard, I respectfully assert again to him that this is not a project that this government thinks is good for British Columbia. We’ve made that clear. We think the risk is so great, and far outweighs the reward.

What we are doing is ensuring that within our jurisdiction, within our ability to regulate and place conditions on a project that is federally decided upon — subject to an appeal to the federal court — we ensure that conditions and regulations are in place to protect our economy.

It’s important up and down our coast. We have a fisheries and seafood industry that contributes more than $660 million every year to our gross domestic product, and it employs 14,000 people, paying almost $400 million in wages.

Just yesterday, 450 businesses understood why we were taking this position; 450 B.C. businesses signed a joint letter calling on the government to continue to stand up for our coast and the tens of thousands of jobs that depend on protecting our coastline and our environment from a spill.