Today during Members’ statements I rose to speak about the good work that can be done in the legislature when MLAs work together. I offer a special tribute to Shirley Bond who I have very much enjoyed working with on many files over the last few years.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my statement along with the accompanying news release.

Video of Statement

Text of Statement

As we reach the end of the session, I’d like to take a moment to reflect upon this past spring and the work that we’ve collectively accomplished. This session has offered a unique opportunity for members from each political party to come together around shared values to work tirelessly for the betterment of all British Columbians across our vibrant and diverse province.

Collaboration and communication are always key. Collaboration isn’t just limited to one side of this chamber; it involves all members from all parties. I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge the work of each and every member in this chamber and to highlight just a few of the many examples where government of any stripe has improved the lives of British Columbians.

In Saanich, immersion students are reconnecting with their language and culture through a commitment to increased investment in Indigenous language programs. We’re already witnessing positive impacts on the ground.

The MLA from Saanich North and the Islands and the MLA from North Vancouver–Lonsdale both rose during members’ statements to share their testimonies as to the importance of language and preserving culture.

The MLA for Cowichan Valley noted the example of a single mother fleeing domestic violence who was able, with the support of the provincial domestic violence plan, to find shelter, stable housing and post-secondary enrolment.

A few weeks ago the MLA for Peace River South discussed ministry work on seismic upgrades while he was Minister of Education. He expressed enthusiasm for continued funding to support the upgrading of additional schools.

When floods swept the Interior earlier this month, all parties came together to tour and support the affected areas.

I’d like to offer my own personal thanks to the member for Prince George–Valemount — whether it be regulations to ban employers from requiring employees to wear high heels, working to bring an engineering program to the University of Northern British Columbia or the world-class glacier destination ski resort to Valemount, advocating for realtors struggling with imminent yet still-changing rules governing their profession or the Borealis geothermal energy project near Valemount — you have been gracious and generous in your willingness to work together.

This is the message that I’d like to share today. We do our best when we collaborate with one another and other British Columbians, when we are creative, innovative and forward-looking. Despite our differences, this session has provided numerous examples of how we can better the lives of British Columbians when we are working together.

I’m encouraged by our session and look forward to further collaboration. Thank you to each and every MLA in this chamber for your dedication to your communities — and to the member for Prince George–Valemount, we still need to get that physiotherapy program at the University of British Columbia.

Media Release

Spring session shows value of collaboration: Weaver
For immediate release
May 31, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party caucus, says the Spring session of the B.C. Legislature shows the value of working collaboratively across party lines.

“We do our best when we collaborate with one another and other British Columbians, when we are creative, innovative and forward-looking,” said Weaver in a morning statement to all members of the house.

“Despite our differences, this session has provided numerous examples of how we can better the lives of British Columbians when we are working together. I am proud of the many instances of collaboration this session. The B.C. Green caucus will continue to advance evidence-based good public policy regardless of its origin, and to push for legislative reforms and modernized parliamentary practices so that British Columbians can see more of this kind of work from their elected officials.”

Weaver highlighted previous statements made in the House by MLAs from all three parties on the importance of Indigenous language immersion, the provincial domestic violence plan and continued funding to support seismic upgrades in schools. Weaver extended a special appreciation to the member for Prince George-Valemount for her efforts to work collaboratively to ban employers from requiring employees to wear high heels, an initiative he brought forth under the previous B.C. Liberal government. Weaver said these examples demonstrate how governments of all stripes have worked across the party lines to improve the lives of British Columbians.

The Spring legislative session has seen a number of unique instances of collaboration, including:

• The release of an all-party committee report on ride-hailing, which included a number of recommendations for a legislative and regulatory framework that had all-party consensus. The report is a result of the topic of Weaver’s Private Member’s Bill on ride-hailing being referred to committee, which held a number of public hearings on the issue in order to develop the report. Weaver is optimistic the report will advance B.C. finally passing ride-hailing enabling legislation.
• Weaver’s Corporations Amendment Act, 2018 passing second reading. Weaver’s Bill is the first instance of an opposition Member’s Private Member’s Bill passing Second Reading in the history of the B.C. Legislature. This was made possible by the government making legislative drafters available to opposition parties for the first time in B.C.
• An emergency debate on proportional representation, after Third Party House Leader Sonia Furstenau agreed to the debate proposed by Official Opposition House Leader Mary Polak.

-30-

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

Today in the BC Legislature we debated, at second reading, the Private Members’ Bill, that I introduced earlier this week, designed to enable BC companies to become benefit companies.

Below I reproduce the speeches I gave when moving second reading and closing the second reading debate. The BC NDP spoke in favour of the legislation. The BC Liberals didn’t bother to put up a single speaker.

Committee stage for the bill is likely to be in the fall to give us time to canvas stakeholder reactions over the coming months.

Videos of Speeches

Text of 2nd Reading Speech

A. Weaver: It gives me enormous pleasure to rise and speak to Bill M216, Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2018. I’m particularly excited about this bill and the fact that we’re debating it at second reading as it is a bill that my office and I worked on quite extensively to bring to fruition over the past several….

Deputy Speaker: Pardon me, Member. Just kindly move second reading.

A. Weaver: I do apologize, hon. Speaker. I move second reading of Bill M216, Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2018.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much. Please continue.

A. Weaver: Let me start again. It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to Bill M216, Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2018. As I said, I’m particularly excited to be debating this bill, as it’s a bill that my office and I have worked on to bring to fruition for the past number of months.

We took the Attorney General up on his offer of legislative drafting services that all opposition members have been granted. We did this a few months ago. We are very grateful to the Attorney General for bringing in this new approach to politics here in the province of British Columbia. It’s very refreshing, and it allows us to ensure, when we bring legislation or amendments forward, that it’s done in a matter that ensures that it’s legally enforceable and works within existing B.C. laws.

As you will see in going through this legislation, it’s a very, very complex piece that has many, many required changes in other sections in order for it to be enacted here in British Columbia. We could not have done that without the services of the legislative drafter. Again, we are very grateful to government for doing that. I think it bodes very well for this government as we move forward in the years ahead.

I’m glad to see it receiving second reading, and I’m hopeful that all members of this House can debate this bill in an earnest way as they consider the merits of supporting or not supporting it. What this bill does…. This is what I’d like address to begin with. I want to spend a few minutes canvassing this. This bill adds a new part to the Business Corporations Act enabling companies to register as benefit companies.

This legislation is intended to encourage the adoption of business forms that have an expanded social and environmental mission, to provide a legal framework that supports and protects businesses that choose to take on this broadened mandate and to ensure that there is adequate transparency and accountability that benefit companies must adhere to.

This framework would provide greater certainty for companies and their investors as to the mandate of their directors and nature of the company. This bill is intended to be complementary to the existing community contribution company legislation passed by the previous government. The C3 — as it’s called — framework is a model for social enterprise and is particularly useful for non-profits and charities who need a way to raise revenue.

However, we’ve heard loud and clear that it is too limiting for most for-profit companies to consider, so it’s been limited in its adoption here in the province of British Columbia. I’ll speak to the differences between these pieces of the legislation at greater detail in a few minutes.

In the present legislation, there are two key components to it. No. 1: there are requirements that companies must adhere to if they want to become benefit companies. No. 2: protections are in place that we include for these companies. I’ll canvass both of those briefly here.

First, benefit companies must commit to conducting their business in an environmentally, socially responsible and sustainable manner, which takes into account the well-being of persons affected by their conduct and endeavours to use a fair and proportionate share of available environmental, social and economic resources and capacities. They must also pursue one or more specific public benefits. They must set out their purposes in their articles, including specifying the public benefits the company is promoting.

Second, benefit companies must report their performance against a 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 made publicly accessible. This is important to ensure transparency for suppliers, purchasers and customers that the company is indeed living up to its stated goals.

Companies incorporating for the first time as benefit companies must have the words “benefit company” or “B.Co.” as part of their name. Companies that alter their articles to become benefit companies do not need to change their name.

This bill also provides continuity and greater certainty for companies established with a broader mission. A company can only become or cease to be a benefit company if shareholders authorize it by a special resolution that requires at least a two-thirds shareholder majority.

The choice to become a benefit corporation is completely voluntary and has no impact on other existing corporations, corporate forms, taxes or government regulation. There are no financial benefits, and benefit companies are taxed at the regular corporate tax rate.

This legislation also includes important requirements and legal protections for directors and officers of benefit companies. It requires that directors and officers of a benefit company act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the persons materially affected by the company’s conduct. This bill requires that directors balance this broader requirement with the existing duty, already enshrined in corporate law, which specifies they act in good faith with a view to the best interests of the company.

It also includes key legal protections for directors. It clarifies that only shareholders can bring a challenge against a director. Their broader duties to public benefits do not open them up to broader liabilities, which is very important. It also specifies that shareholders may only seek injunctive relief against a director under this part, not monetary damages.

Why do we need this legislation in B.C.? First of all, I think it’s important, at this stage, to recognize the initiative of the previous government, and particularly the member for Surrey–White Rock at the time, Gordie Hogg, who brought forward and championed the community contribution company legislation in 2012. However, I view benefit company legislation and the C3 legislation as being complementary ways for government to support social enterprise and mission-driven companies.

The C3 structure provides a useful tool for non-profits and charities that need a way to raise revenue, but we’ve heard that it is far too limiting for most for-profit companies to consider. To become a C3, companies would have to fundamentally change their corporate structure and reduce their ability to attract investment. For example, the so called asset lock for C3s limits the dividends a C3 can be pay to shareholders, and this cap is 40 percent of annual profits. Moreover, in cases of C3 dissolution, the majority of assets remaining after debts are settled must flow to a qualified entity, such as a charity or a cooperative.

I would fully support efforts of this government to build upon the work started by the previous administration to support C3s, including promoting the C3 brand, enhancing public knowledge of these types of companies and providing tax incentives and benefits for investments in C3s. But the restrictions on C3s mean that the majority of mainstream businesses, even those that have a social and environmental mission at their core, wouldn’t consider this structure.

We should provide another option for sustainable and responsible businesses in B.C. We’ve heard from many in the social impact space, including a number of businesses that chose to prioritize social and environmental benefits in addition to profit, about the important role that a benefit company legislation would play in growing this movement and supporting the work already underway across B.C.

It’s true that directors of companies in Canada already have more discretion to pursue a broader mandate beyond maximizing shareholder profits than they do in the United States. However, a number of issues arise for companies that try to embed this broader mandate in practice, since we lack a legal framework that explicitly supports these types of businesses.

For example, this legislation would provide clarity for directors and for shareholders about the mandate of the company. It would help directors avoid the risk of a shareholder challenge regarding the director’s duties to the company. And it would take the uncertainty out of the process of embedding a broader mandate within your articles.

It would provide certainty for impact investors looking to invest in mission-aligned companies of the nature and the mandate of the company. It would enable companies to attract capital while enabling them to stay true to their mission and protect the vision of the company’s founders as their company grows.

One concern we’ve heard over and over again is that as companies grow and new investors come on board or as founders consider secession planning, they are worried about losing their company’s initial mission. This legislation would provide greater protections for the original mission of a business. Moreover, this legislation would provide a simple framework for companies to adhere to that is legally and commercially recognized.

If B.C. had this legislation on the books, if companies were able to incorporate as benefit companies with an explicit social or environmental benefit baked right into their articles, it would send a strong signal that government supports this approach to business. We would encourage more companies to pursue a socially responsible and environmentally sustainable approach, creating beneficial outcomes for society as a whole. We can better leverage the power of the private sector to help us tackle the significant social and environmental challenges we face.

To conclude, this legislation is an opportunity for British Columbia to lead the nation in supporting businesses that want to be a bigger part of developing innovative solutions to the challenges facing the 21st century.

This legislation is common elsewhere in the world. In the United States, for example, over 30 states have passed this type of legislation. Countries in Europe and South America already have it on the books or are actively considering it. Successful companies of all sizes have signed on, both here voluntarily and elsewhere through the legal approach that’s been provided to them.

I believe that becoming the first jurisdiction in Canada to champion benefit companies is an enormous opportunity to position the province as a leader in the new economy. B.C. is home to many socially responsible companies. It’s part of our stellar brand as one of the greenest and greatest places in the world to live.

But we are struggling to adjust and respond to massive technological, social and environmental shifts that the world is facing, from climate change to automation. We need to think differently in order to turn these challenges into opportunities that we lead in the development of solutions for.

Government and the non-profit sector cannot respond to these changes alone, nor should they have to. For-profit businesses have a huge role to play in our society. They are part of the solution and will continue to be so moving forward.

The companies that pursue a triple-bottom-line approach are on the cutting edge of rethinking the role of businesses 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 not only this generation but also the next and the subsequent generations thereafter.

Our hope is that if other members in this House support this bill, we can play our part in supporting this growing movement internationally. We can encourage more B.C. companies to incorporate social and environmental values into their own business articles, empowering them to promote change in our province and helping us, collectively, solve the challenge that we all face.

Text of Closing Speech

A. Weaver: I rise to close debate on Bill M216, Business Corporations Amendment Act, which is being debated at second reading. First off, I’d like to thank — the comments from the previous speakers — in particular, the minister who spoke extensively about the values encapsulated within B corporations and how those values actually resonate with the values of the present government and, clearly, the values that we have in the Third Party as well.

For those that may not know what B Corps are…. Some might think that they’re not big companies and only small companies. There are small companies who are B Corps, but there are also multinationals like Unilever, which is a transnational consumer goods company dealing with foods, beverages, cleaning agents and personal care.

Unilever is a B corp, and they’re proud of their branding. A European bank, called Triodos Bank brands themselves as the world’s most sustainable bank. They are a B corporation, and they’re a very successful one. Many people in this Legislature will know about the Natura products — the Brazilian company that builds beauty products, household care, personal care, skin creams. They are another example, a Brazilian B corporation.

In B.C., one of our more celebrated ones is Hootsuite. It’s a local start-up, B.C. grown, that grew dramatically to become a big player in the tech sector. Many have probably actually participated in Kickstarter campaigns. Well, indeed, Kickstarter is a B corporation.

They’re proud of their branding, and they’re protected because of the fact that they’re certified and incorporated as B corporations. They’re protected to allow that their mandate extend beyond the traditional of only for-profit and to actually have broader societal goals as well.

Ben and Jerry’s. We all love their Ben and Jerry’s ice cream. Ben and Jerry’s is a B corporation — again, a company that’s proud.

Why this is particularly important — you heard this from the discussion from the minister — is that we know that there’s a new generation of young people, the so-called millennials, who are emerging into our society and have a different set of values than we may have had when we came out. We came out at a different time, my grey-haired generation.

The millennials of today — I’m pointing to my colleague here, too — are looking for more than just a job. They’re looking for the quality of life associated with that job. They’re one of the reasons why in British Columbia, for example, we’re struggling to meet with health care practitioners — doctors, for example. We’re graduating a lot, but for doctors, when they come out, this millennial generation, it’s not only about the profession. It’s about the quality of life associated with that profession.

B corporations are critical because they recognize that in today’s new economy — with triple-bottom-line reporting, providing a workplace where you actually create an environment that is conducive to attracting and retaining employees in a very progressive manner — these are the types of companies that are attracting the millennial generation.

I’m absolutely delighted that here in British Columbia we’re moving this forward. I’m actually very pleased that this legislation will shortly be voted on at second reading. Over the course of the summer, I’m hoping that we will hear more from companies — we’ve been approached by a number — and that more and more companies will actually approach us and ask for further information. So as we move into the fall session, we can actually have a good public discussion about the benefits or any potential unforeseen consequences associated with B corporations.

I will say that since bringing in this legislation, a very, very big, multinational B.C.-based company has approached us and asked for details about how they might move on this process. I know there are companies out there that are looking for this. We know that. We met with stakeholders in Vancouver, with business leaders there, a couple of weeks ago. There’s actually a very integrated group of senior professionals in Vancouver. Many of these are engineering firms or consultant firms, but there are bigger firms — construction firms, a number of firms — that are moving toward a B corporation because they want to be good corporate citizens.

We recognize — and it’s good to see that government does; it’s a shame we have no speakers from the official opposition — that it’s actually critical. As we move forward in the 21st-century economy, it’s critical that we ensure that we work with business to provide solutions and move us forward to dealing with some of the challenges of our times.

With that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M 216, Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2018, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Media Release

Weaver’s bill to support businesses with environmental and social missions takes next step towards being passed into law
For immediate release
May 17, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – A private member’s bill introduced by Andrew Weaver passed second reading, taking the next step towards becoming the first opposition Party bill to become law in B.C. The bill would amend the Business Corporations Act to allow companies to incorporate as benefit companies. Benefit companies would choose to pursue social and environmental goals, rather than just profit.

“I am delighted that this legislation to support businesses with a social and environmental mission passed second reading,” said Weaver.

“A minority government is an opportunity to do things differently by putting partisan politics aside and focusing on issues and ideas that will move our province forward. 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.”

If passed into law, this legislation would make B.C. the first jurisdiction in Canada to extend legal recognition to benefit companies. Weaver says the bill will encourage businesses to take on an expanded social and environmental mission, provide a legal framework that supports and protects businesses that choose to take on this broadened mandate, and ensure that there is adequate transparency and accountability.

For more information about how a Bill becomes law in the BC Legislature:https://www.leg.bc.ca/content-peo/Learning-Resources/How-a-Bill-Becomes-Law-English-print.pdf

-30-

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

Today in the legislature we debated Bill 34, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Amendment Act, 2018 at second reading. This bill repeals the previously legislated greenhouse gas reduction target of 33% relative to 2007 levels by 2020 and adds two new targets: a 40% reduction of greenhouse gases by 2030 and a 60% reduction by 2040 relative to 2007 levels. The 80% reduction target for 2050 relative to 2007 levels remains the same.

The bill also enables the Minister of Environment to set sectoral targets. It further requires biannual reporting on the risks facing British Columbia as a consequence of climate change as well as the government’s response to these risks. This reporting requirement is a direct response to a recommendation of the report: Perspectives on Climate Change Action in Canada—A Collaborative Report from Auditors General—March 2018.

I spoke for the better part of an hour in support of this bill. I began by outlining the history of climate change policy in British Columbia and how, starting in 2012, our province moved from being a leader to a laggard. I further focused on the incredible opportunity for innovation that these new targets provide. And I laid out why it is not possible to reduce emissions to meet these bold new targets while at the same time substantially expanding the fossil fuel sector and in particular LNG in our province.

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

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I rise to speak in favour and support of Bill 34, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Amendment Act, 2018. This act is putting forward a number of amendments to the original Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act, which was assented on November 29, 2007. That act has three parts to it: one with respect to future greenhouse gas emission targets, one with respect to carbon-neutral public sector and one that had some general provisions.

It is on the first part that the amendments are being put forward today. Under three main areas, the first, of course, is that new targets are being added for 2030 and for 2040. The government is proposing a 40 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, relative to 2000 levels, and a 60 percent reduction, relative to 2000 levels, by 2040.

In addition, we know that there are sections being added here to give the minister executive power through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council to provide sectoral reduction targets as we move forward.

In addition, and in direct response to the federal Auditor General’s report, the government is proposing to have — starting in 2020 and reporting every two years after that — a report that will be introduced that will discuss the termination of the risks that could be expected from changing climate, the progress that has been made toward addressing those risks, the actions that have been taken to achieve that progress and the plans to continue that progress.

I’d like to go back to the original act in 2007 that’s being amended. To me, that was a very important time in my life, because 2007 was the year in which the IPCC — that’s the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — released its Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change. In that year, they also received the Nobel Peace Prize.

I remember that year very, very well. I remember that year because of the fact that the B.C. government at the time, under the leader, Gordon Campbell, decided that this was an opportunity that B.C. could not afford to miss out on. Gordon Campbell, the Premier at the time, recognized, as did his Environment Minister, Barry Penner, that having a climate change greenhouse gas reduction strategy is essential to, say, having a vision. It’s, essentially, exactly the same as having a vision for a renewable, clean 21st century economy that brings prosperity, not only for the present generation but also for future generations thereafter.

He recognized that the very first piece of legislation that needs to be introduced prior to bringing in steps to actually mitigate greenhouse gases was setting a goal. That goal in 2007 in the act that received royal assent on November 27 was greenhouse gas reduction targets.

I sat in the audience proudly watching that day when the bill was read here, as I see young children from a school here. I sat where they sat that day and listened to the minister at the time, Barry Penner, bring in this legislation. I felt proud to be a British Columbian. I told my colleagues around the world to look at the jurisdiction we had. I’ll come to that in a second.

It was not just about the goal, the target that was put in. It was the subsequent legislation that was brought through in a diversity of arrays.

But in 2007, something happened. Mr. Campbell, the Premier, recognized that what we need to do is we need to send a signal to the market in British Columbia that we are going to be leaders in the new economy. We see the emergence of a clean tech sector. We see the emergence of the renewable energy sector, and we see the emergence on investments by companies in reducing greenhouse gases. A lot of that was done by the subsequent measures that were brought in place.

Also, I talked about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act. That was a goal that subsequently was buttressed by a number of measures brought in through, for example, the Carbon Tax Act, which was assented to on May 29, 2008; the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, which was assented to on May 29, 2008; the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Emissions Standards) Statutes Amendment Act, which was assented to on May 29, 2008; the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act that was assented to on May 1, 2008; the Utilities Commission Amendment Act that was assented to on May 1, 2008; the Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, which received royal assent on May 29.

We have the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Emissions Standards) Statutes Amendment Act, which I already mentioned. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle Emissions Standards) Act — another act assented to on May 29. And then we have the Utilities Commission Amendment Act. Finally, we had the Clean Energy Act, brought in on June 3, 2010.

During that time, as British Columbia was leading up to the Winter Olympics, a very strong signal was being sent to the market. I remember, as part of the Climate Action Team, the very first climate action team, the multitude of meetings that we had as we made recommendations to government about the types of policy measures they might consider. We were tasked primarily with coming up with interim targets for 2012 and 2016.

We came up with targets that…. In 2012, we were putting forward that we believed that government should seek to reduce emissions by 6 percent, relative to 2007, by 2012. And by 2016, the second target that we were tasked with providing recommendations for…. We came up with 18 percent by 2016.

Government was on track. In fact, it made its 2012 target, based on the policy measures that were put in place. We knew, and government knew at that time, through wedge analysis, that we were not going to make the 2020 target of 33 percent reductions by 2020 with the policy measures and those bills and the statutes on the table, and more needed to be done.

Despite what the member for Kamloops–North Thompson suggests, there was no plan for 2040. The fake numbers brought up about somehow this was part of the government’s plan…. I recognize that he wasn’t there, and he’d probably throw his hands up to say: “What do I know? I wasn’t there.”

However, the reality is that I was there. I was there, working on the Climate Action Team. I was meeting with the Premier at the time — Gordon Campbell — and the Minister of Environment numerous times during that time in an advisory capacity.

As I say again, I was proud to be a British Columbian, because Mr. Campbell recognized the economic opportunity associated with dealing with greenhouse gases, associated with being clean instead of polluting.

All of this came to an end with a switch in leadership. The first crack in the wall or hole in the dike started in June, July of 2012 when LNG was excluded in the Clean Energy Act. So that energy would have to be renewable unless it was being used in the compression of liquefied natural gas. That was the first act.

But it became far more aggressive towards dismantling the policies, and that culminated in 2014, in the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, wherein we in this Legislature repealed the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act that was assented to on May 29, 2008. We repealed that act, an act that business had actually sought.

Even today, in speaking with heavy point source emitters, they wish that we had that legislation in place. Why, of course, is that we try to meet our targets. We have to recognize that in our society there’s a diversity of emitters. There are large point source emitters, like cement manufacturers, like Rio Tinto Alcan, like pulp mills or paper mills. These large point source emitters are subject to the carbon tax, but the original intention back in the day, back in 2007 and 2008, was that a regulatory framework was put in place. That enabling framework was there, through the cap-and-trade legislation that would allow for the inclusion of large point source heavy emitters, while exempting them from the carbon tax.

So they’re still covered by emissions pricing, but it’s internal emission pricing within heavy industry that allows the most efficient investment of money to reduce emissions.

This is the approach California has done with large heavy emitters. This is the approach Quebec has done. This is not the approach of some other provinces or certain states, but many jurisdictions around the world have cap-and-trade legislation or enabling legislation — some more aggressively so than others.

So with the repeal of that legislation, large point source emitters were left wondering what to do. They were left troubled by the fact that they’re now going to be incorporated into an emissions pricing, a straight-up pricing, and that really what we care about is internally reducing our emissions in British Columbia by spending money on the most efficient and effective ways of doing that.

The Rio Tintos of this world that have spent billions of dollars on upgrading their facility to reduce emissions by 50 percent at the same time would potentially be in trouble if it’s suddenly only a carbon tax approach, as opposed to a cap-and-trade approach, which would have given them recognition for early adoption of measures that were subsequently brought in. That would be allowed and possible within the cap-and-trade system.

So I still hope government, one day, will be bringing in that legislation. You don’t have to go far to find out where it is, because it’s right there in the legislation that we repealed in 2014 in the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. As a little sidebar, you’ll recall that I proposed an amendment, which didn’t pass, to rename it the Greenhouse Gas Increase Industrial Reporting and Control Act back in the day.

Coming back to the issue of emissions. We now know, in British Columbia, that we have two new targets set in this bill — 40 percent by 2030 relative to 2007 and 60 percent at 2040 relative to 2007 — and an old target of 80 percent by 2050.

Now why that 80 percent number is critical is that, while some might cynically say, “Okay, it means we don’t have to do anything, and other governments are responsible,” that number sends a signal to market, a very strong signal to market that government should listen to. And that signal is this: we can no longer spend any more money investing in fossil fuel intensive infrastructure in the province of British Columbia today, because we know that we’re not going to tear it down tomorrow.

Instead, we should be transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewables and the low-carbon economy. We don’t build a coal-fired electricity plant to tear it down tomorrow. We don’t build an LNG facility — a two-train, a four-train LNG facility — in Kitimat to tear it down tomorrow. We build them to last 40, 50 years. We build them to last until 2050. Therein lies the conundrum that government has if it’s trying to talk on the one hand about LNG and on the other about meeting climate targets.

The previous government lost all credibility on that file, as they were talking 23 permits and five big plants. I mean, it was just outrageous, the rhetoric that was coming from the opposition, then-government, about wealth and prosperity for one and all from LNG that clearly didn’t transpire.

I recognize that the present government has taken the giveaway one step further with reduced electricity rates, exemption of increase in carbon tax. It has also talked about repealing the LNG income tax, which I hope my colleagues opposite will not support the repeal of, as we will not support here on the B.C. Greens. But coming back to that….

In 2007 —that is the reference point upon which all future reductions are measured against — we in British Columbia emitted 64.7 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Now, the carbon dioxide equivalent means that we know that methane, on a 100-year timescale, is much more powerful, as is nitrous oxide or certain CFCs or HCFCs. They’re more powerful on a molecule-per-molecule basis in terms of their absorptive ability on greenhouse gases. So we convert them, all those other greenhouse gas emissions, to the carbon dioxide equivalent.

We had 64.7 megatonnes. In 2008, we had 64.7 megatonnes of emissions again. In 2009, not because of any grandiose immediate policy — although, we recognize that there was a very strong signal at the time sent to the market that the carbon price was going up, and there was investment at the time — emissions dropped to 61.1 megatonnes. Part of that, too, was because of the economic downturn that didn’t really hurt B.C. but hurt global economies.

In 2010, we were down to 60.6 megatonnes and in 2011, 61.1 megatonnes. In 2012 — here’s where the policy shift started to happen — 61.9 megatonnes. In 2013, 62.9 megatonnes; 2014, 62.3 megatonnes; and 2015, 63.3 megatonnes. Every single year since the change of leadership of the previous government, emissions went up.

Why did they go up? It was because government sent exactly the wrong signal to market that you want to send if you want to head towards decreasing emissions. Government introduced exemptions on the deep-well royalty credit, not only for deep wells but now for shallow well. Heck, for any well, royalty credits now exist.

Did you know that ten years ago we used to get $35 or so for every 1,000 cubic metres of natural gas produced in the province of British Columbia, as a royalty — $35. Now it’s less than $3 as a royalty. It was more than ten times that just a decade ago. It’s going down still. At the same time, the production of natural gas has gone up and up. Why wouldn’t you take it out, if we’re giving it away?

Literally, we give this resource away — this beautiful resource, for applications that we yet have no idea of, in the future. We know that these molecules are very useful in the petrochemical industry. We know they’re very useful in other industries for creating fertilizer and creating methanol. We know that we can use our natural gas resources in a diversity of ways. Burning it is one of the most ridiculous ways, and frankly, generations after us are going to look to our generation and say: “Why did you squander that resource? Why did you burn it when the most powerful source of energy, the sun, is free — as is geothermal energy?”

Let’s come back to the targets, because it’s critical that we do that. I’ve pointed out that in 2015, now we’re at 63.3 megatonnes. That’s the last reporting year. For the next little bit, I’ll assume that we haven’t changed from that — not because that’s correct or wrong, but because that is the last year we have reporting data officially done for Canada in the United Nations framework convention on climate change.

There were 63.3 megatonnes of CO₂ equivalent from B.C.in 2015. Let’s suppose we know that we’re going to add four trains of LNG facilities. Shell Canada talks about a two-train facility right now, but you don’t build two trains not to build four trains. So let’s suppose we talk about a four-train facility and that that’s really the direction we’re heading.

Well, we know, as I’ve mentioned already, that if we start at 64.7 megatonnes — that’s the 2007 reference value that this legislation is referring to — we know that our 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction of that 64.7 megatonnes means we have to go down to 38.8 megatonnes by 2030, to 25.88 megatonnes by 2040, and to 12.9 megatonnes by 2050. So that 64.7 megatonnes in 2007, under the legislation before us, must drop to 38.8 in 2030, 25.9 in 2040, and 12.9 in 2050.

Now, if we’re going to add a four-train LNG facility, we’re going to add 8.6 megatonnes — that’s before some of the recent estimates that I could talk about shortly, about fugitive emissions  — and adding on to that. So our new reference case is actually…. Well, we’re basically adding 8.6 megatonnes to that 2015 value. The 2015 value was 63.3 megatonnes, we’re going to add 8.6, and we’re going to come up to 72.9 megatonnes. That 72.9 is our starting point — because we’re adding 8.6 — for reductions.

Let’s suppose that we know we’re going to put in a four-train LNG facility. We know that Shell won’t build that today to tear it down tomorrow. It’s going to last for several decades. They’re not going to invest billions of dollars just on a whim. It’ll last decades. So what does this mean for greenhouse gas reductions in every other sector?

Here are the numbers. We know that if we have a four-train LNG facility — that’s going to be constant; it’s going to be there; we’re not going to tear it down — then every other sector in our economy, other than that facility, must drop its emissions by 52 percent by 2030, down to 30.2 megatonnes, by 73 percent by 2040 and by a whopping 95 percent by 2050.

Now, reflect upon this. One four-train LNG facility in Kitimat will produce 8.6 megatonnes of emissions, which aren’t going to be around just for tomorrow and then we tear it down. That’ll be around for decades. If we add those four trains and we believe these targets that we’ve actually put forward, then we need every other sector of our economy to reduce its emissions by 95 percent. That means telling Rio Tinto Alcan: “I’m sorry, but you have to shut down.” That means saying nobody can drive fossil-fuel-combusted vehicles anymore, nowhere in B.C. That means telling heavy industry left, right and centre they have to shut down because we’re already at that with things with landfills, which we have to close down as well.

There’s a staggering disconnect, and to be fair to the politicians in this room, it’s not just here; it’s globally. There’s a staggering disconnect between science and policy here in B.C., in Canada and internationally. I’ll come back to that again in a couple of seconds.

Leaders around the world signed, in 2017, something called the Paris accord, which committed…. Canada was one of the signatories of it. Despite the fact that Trump wants to get out of it, he can’t for years to come. It committed to keep global warming to below 2 degrees relative to preindustrial levels. They would actually keep it substantially below 2 degrees. So what can science say? It can say this. We know the world has warmed 1.1 degrees already. We know that 2016 was the hottest year on record, followed by 2015, 2017, 2014, 2010, 2013, 2005 and 2009.

For those people who’ve been following this climate change debate, like I have, for so many years, you should be asking the question: where were all those skeptics who said we’re in a cooling period? What happened to them? Are they finding some other argument now?

Believe it or not, scientific communities understood thermometers quite well for several centuries, and in fact, the world is warming, and we can measure it. Forty percent of Republicans in the U.S. don’t believe there’s solid evidence that the world is warming. Frankly, they don’t believe in the existence of thermometers. That’s the scale of that.

Coming back, we know the world has warmed by 1.1 degrees. We know that if we do no more, if we do nothing but keep existing greenhouse gas levels fixed at the present-day values, we’re going to warm by another 0.6 degrees. That takes us to 1.7 degrees, and we know that the permafrost carbon feedback is going to give us another 0.2 to 0.3. We know that if we do no more than just keep the levels like they are now, we’re going to warm towards 1.8 or 1.9. Yet emissions continue to go up year after year in places like Canada and elsewhere.

The disconnect that I mentioned about here in British Columbia extends globally. It’s particularly in Canada. I’ll come back to this in a second, but in Canada, Mr. Trudeau signs with a smile that we’re now part of the global agreement. On the one hand, he says we’re going to actually bring in place a climate plan in Canada to meet our Paris targets. It’s actually Harper’s plan, but that’s an aside. I’ll come to that in a second. He brings in…. He’s done nothing, argues we need to build pipelines to have a climate plan. It makes no sense because what Paris says, not only to Canada or British Columbia but to the world, is that effective immediately, we must turn the corner and stop investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure that will continue to be around for decades to come.

As I say again, we don’t build a coal-fired plant today to tear it down tomorrow. It’s about making the right choice of investments today that will affect tomorrow. I’ll come back to some of the ramifications and the importance of this bill later.

Coming back to federally in this context of meeting our legislation. Federally, ironically, people like me are beginning to look quite fondly upon the time of Mr. Harper because he did nothing on the climate change file — nothing at all — and Mr. Trudeau has done negative by stumping for pipelines.

It’s remarkable that we have this cognitive dissonance happening politically, federally, at a time when most of the world is actually recognizing the seriousness of this. Norway, for example, a nation that recognized that climate change is not only something to be concerned about; it’s also an opportunity. Did you know that 40 percent of new cars in Norway are electric? They’re electric today. Netherlands, India and other jurisdictions have announced that all new cars will be electric by 2030.

Here in British Columbia, we have an opportunity for leadership, and the first step in claiming that leadership is setting in place targets. Because it is those targets that allow the civil service, allow the modellers, to do their wedge analyses so that we can actually start to understand what the effects of certain policy measures are in terms of future greenhouse gas reductions. That work is ongoing as I speak. I’m very pleased that it is ongoing as we speak.

Coming back to the LNG relationship with this legislation. I’ve heard it say that LNG Canada is talking about a two-train LNG facility instead of a four-train. I’ve got the numbers for a two-train LNG facility as well, and they’re no different.

If LNG Canada invested a two-train LNG facility in Kitimat, all other aspects of our economy would have to drop their emissions from 63.3 megatonnes in 2015 to 34.5 in 2030, 21.4 in 2040 and 8.6 in 2050. That’s a 46 percent, 66 percent and 86 percent reduction — an 86 percent reduction, everything else other than LNG Canada.

These are big numbers. These are very big numbers, and very big numbers cannot be met without bold plans. That is what we’re looking forward to. We’re looking forward to seeing that plan, because frankly, I got into politics back in 2012, not because I saw this wonderful opportunity for a career in politics. That was not the intention.

It’s that I was involved very intimately with Gordon Campbell’s government and the development of the climate policy and climate strategies and his government — which, hon. Speaker, I note you were part of at that time — as they put British Columbia on the map as a leader internationally in both dealing with the challenge and recognizing the opportunity of what greenhouse gas mitigation does.

We were leaders, and then I saw that start to crack apart in 2012. I could not stand by and say to my students, who would come…. You know, I would talk in these classes about framing the whole issue of climate change as an issue of intergenerational equity, because it is. Today’s generation, our decision-makers, won’t have to live the consequences of our decisions, and those who do, better get participating in our democratic institutions, because they’re going to inherit those consequences.

They don’t. I would ask them: why don’t you vote? Why is it that 30 to 40 percent of youth between 18 and 24, until the last election, voted federally? They would say to me that all politicians are corrupt. All they want to do is line their policy…. I’d say to them, no, no that’s not the case. People go there for a right reason. If you don’t like them, run yourself or find someone to run, but this is the system that we have.

In 2012, I’m giving the same lecture, and I’m looking at myself in the face and saying I’m a hypocrite. I can tell them that if they don’t like what’s happening, they should run themselves, so I ran. I ran with the B.C. Green Party. Let me tell you, it is not the easiest path to this Legislature, as my friend from Saanich North and the Islands and my friend from Cowichan Valley will attest. Running with the B.C. Green Party, a party that had elected nobody before in any province, is not what you do if you’re looking for a political career in power. You do that out of principle. The same goes for my colleague Adam and my colleague Sonia.

And we’re here. We’re here with 17 percent of British Columbians saying we support you. We were very clear in our campaign that this defining issue of our time is one that we’re here to push, to ensure that British Columbia capitalizes on the opportunities. We can be laggards of yesteryear or we can be leaders of tomorrow. I think British Columbians want to be leaders.

We could talk about revenue. Revenue to natural gas was more than $1 billion dollars a little over a decade ago. And now…. Well, a couple of years ago we actually lost money. Now we’re making a mere few tens of millions of dollars. We are not…..

Hon. Speaker, I am the designated speaker. I noticed that the light has come on.

We are not going to continue to bring wealth and prosperity to British Columbia if we continue to chase the economy of the past. We are blessed in British Columbia with resources, renewable resources and raw resources like minerals, like gas, like water, like forests. We are blessed with resources that we have a duty and a responsibility to steward for future generations — not only the resources themselves but also the environmental and the social systems that surround them.

That’s why this bill is critical as giving the first step of those targets that will allow the civil service the wedge analyzes to get there. For example, let’s look at the mining sector. British Columbia is blessed with a mining sector. We are some of the world’s leading miners around the world. Many of them started…. Some of them get bought up.

Look at Teck Cominco. Well, it’s now just “Teck.” Teck — an incredible asset to British Columbia. Teck’s a good company, a good steward of the environment. Teck would love to be able to use electric trucks. But there’s no technology out there.

There’s an opportunity for B.C. innovation. There’s an opportunity for B.C. to actually do what Norway is doing in replacing their ferries with electric ferries — with batteries built in Richmond, no less. Why are we not recognizing this innovative opportunity for heavy industry? Electric trucks. We’ve got lots of electricity. We’ve got a company like Teck — a leader, a global leader — ready to adopt. There’s an opportunity.

Here’s another piece of innovation out there. We talk about gas filling stations all over the place. You want to be a leader of the new economy? You recognize that you can get land really cheap on the highway between here and there, halfway between towns, and you could start to put a gas station there. But the gas you’re doing is actually electricity for electric vehicles. When you fill up in a high-voltage 400-volt charger, it’ll take you 30 minutes. You’re going to sit there. You have a cup of coffee. It’s an opportunity for innovation — to start to create charging stations. But that innovation needs government to get out of the way.

Right now in British Columbia, you cannot give away your electricity and ask someone to pay for it unless you’re a registered utility. I have an electric charging station at my house. I’d love to charge the member for West Vancouver–Capilano 35 cents every time he filled his electric car up. But I can’t.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: There we go. My colleague here would charge me 25 cents, and the free market starts to come to play here. Capitalism, free market economy — here we go. He’s charging 25 cents, and maybe my colleague there from Whiskey Creek will say: “I’m going to charge 20 cents, because the Huu-ay-aht have got a generating station there, and they have excess power. We want to charge that power here. Let’s go.”

This is innovation. We in British Columbia used to be leaders in that regard, and now, sadly, we’ve fallen off that. This legislation is the very first step, the necessary first step, mirroring what was done in 2007 by Gordon Campbell to get us back on the right path.

British Columbia has an electric car company here — Electra Meccanica. Our colleague ran in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, there, against the member from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. This is a company that builds electric vehicles. It’s traded publicly on the NASDAQ. It builds electric vehicles in Victoria. But now, guess what. The factories are going to be in China and India. He’s got hundreds of millions of dollars of sales coming forward, but in B.C., we should be doing that here.

We should be saying say to Terrace that we get that you have some economic issues right now, because the oil and gas sector is hurting. The price has gone through the floor. But you are on a rail line between Chicago and Prince Rupert. You’re on that rail line, and guess what. We can get your goods manufactured there to market in both the biggest east coast and the Asian markets. But what we need is to attract manufacturing there.

By recognizing that there’s a whole generation of manufacturers who want to be clean and good corporate citizens…. B corp., the legislation I just brought in a couple days ago. Benefit corporations. We could give them that clean energy.

We don’t have to double down on the economy yesterday. We could say that Terrace is the place to go. And 100 Mile House — all of these small communities across our province have their own strategic advantages that make them the place to go for innovation and variety of areas.

Forest fire innovation. There is so much potential there, both in terms of the type of suits that people wear through the suppression techniques for innovation in the forest fire sector. We have innovation in the forestry industry, but we buy our innovation from Finland. There was a government there that recognized that in order to compete, we can’t compete by racing to the bottom. We can only compete if we are smarter. Otherwise, we’re going to give our resources away. We’re smarter, and we’re more efficient. Therein lies an opportunity there.

In those opportunities, those wedge opportunities, we meet our targets at the same time as we bring economic prosperity to British Columbia — not only for this generation but for generations to come. Not doing so is a problem.

We bemoan…. It’s a tragedy that we have the flooding events in the Boundary-Similkameen region this year. We had flooding last year. We had forest fires last year. We had forest fires that took out much of Fort McMurray. This is a story that happens year in and year out, not only in B.C. but everywhere.

As I’ve tried to point out time and time again, the issue of global warming, which this is addressing, is fundamentally a question of intergenerational equity. Do we, the present generation, owe anything to future generations in terms of the quality of environment that we leave behind? If the answer is no, who cares about global warming? Really, it doesn’t matter. Because it just goes to hell in a hand basket, and “I don’t care about future generations.” But if we care, yes, we must act now. Because waiting is too late.

The analogy that’s direct is: you put a pot of water on the stove, and you turn it up to 8. That dial there is essentially greenhouse gas emissions or the level of the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. You turn it up. The water is cool. It starts to warm. I don’t worry about global warming. I don’t care. The thing is on 8. It starts to get a bit warm. You go: “Whoa, this is getting hot.”

It starts to get a little bit warm. I’m going to turn 8 down to 7. It gets warmer. Now it starts boiling. Oh, I better turn it off. You turn it down to zero, but guess what? It’s too late.

The analogy is direct to the world. Seventy one percent of our globe is covered by water. It takes time for the oceans to heat up. Once they do, you can’t cool them right away either. The analogy is direct. And once you get to a stage where you say, “Oh, it’s too warm. We better cool it” — it’s too late, frankly.

Now we worry about the forest fire here and a flood there. And I get that. It’s really important. But it pales in comparison to the plight that’s in store for us. And you can go back and look at what the climate scientists have been saying for decades — it’s been the same thing. Those touting that it’s just somehow some natural cycles — they act like a legal defense team who’ve lost their case. They throw all sorts of public doubt out there, fake news and all, hoping that the public jury will render a not guilty verdict.

But we know that a substantial fraction, something like 60 percent of the world’s species, will be committed to extinction — 60 to 80 percent at the end of this century as a direct consequence of greenhouse gas emissions.

We can’t turn the level of atmospheric dioxide up, on the scale of 100 years, to the levels that haven’t been seen since Jurassic and Triassic and not think there’s not going to be an ecological response. We are literally going back to the Triassic and Jurassic in the scale of a few decades, as we take that captured carbon that was captured in those swamps and the seas and created goal and natural gas that we’re releasing in decades.

Sure, life will go on after an extinction event, and it will come on in a different form. But it certainly will not be life like we know it today. We know that in the big extinction events in earth’s history, when a meteor hit or when we had more intensive volcanic activity, there were 80 percent, 90 percent of marine organisms that went extinct. We know we’re on track to do that now.

We know that the biggest sink of atmospheric carbon is the oceans. We know that the Great Barrier Reef is probably gone, and there’s nothing we can do about it because of the sink of the carbon that exists. We know that many of the ocean’s corals are dead, and they will die forever and there’s not much to do about it. These are just the early stages.

Again, I come to the point of: do we, as a present generation, actually owe anything to future generations because if we do, we must act here now. We must not weigh, for example, one LNG plant against and jobs that may or may not exist five years from now versus the opportunity for success in a new economy that preserves prosperity and the environment that our next generation will actually come to live in.

These are not options. I talk about some of the sad things that I see. One day I see a politician putting sandbags up on a dike, and the next day that same politician is here arguing: “Rah, rah, rah Kinder Morgan and LNG.”

Where’s the disconnect? The disconnect is mind-boggling. Again, we go back to this issue that we’re proposing to deal with here. The greenhouse effect goes back to Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier in the early 1800s, the first to recognize the atmosphere acts like a greenhouse that allows incoming solar radiation through but blocks outgoing long wave radiation, to act like a blanket to keep the surface warm.

We’ve known about the different effects of a variety of greenhouse gases since the 1860s. We’ve known about the specific role of carbon dioxide in the 1890s. We knew and had the first multisensory projections in the 1930s.

In 1979, when I was graduating from high school, Jule Charney, an MIT climate and atmospheric scientist, was tasked with the first national assessment in the U.S. They came up with the best estimate of the single most important metric, summarizing our cumulative understanding of the world’s response to increasing greenhouse gases.

That is climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity, by definition, is how much will the world warm if we double atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from Premier-industrial levels, from 280 to 560 parts per million.

In 1979, the very best estimate was between 1½ and 4½ degrees. That was the range. In 1990, the first IPCC assessment — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — scores of publications examined. Best estimate:1½ to 4½ degrees.

In 1996, second assessment report, best estimate:1½ to 4½ degrees. The single best estimate of the single most important metrics, summarizing our cumulative understanding of how the world responds to a doubling of carbon dioxide, has not changed from 1979 to 1996, where we’re in the second assessment report.

We move to 2001. We’re now at the third assessment report. The best assessment gives 1½ to 4½ degrees, and then we move to 2007. That’s the Nobel Prize year. It moves to 2 to 4½ degrees. Wow. We’ve changed it slightly. And then in 2013…. I was involved in every report from 1996 through 2013, and that 2013 one was fundamentally frustrating. The report had largely concluded in 2012, and I withdrew from the process when the writ was dropped in the 2013 election, but all the rating had been done.

The 2013 estimate from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, summarizing tens of thousands of papers’ knowledge on this issue, the best estimate of climate sensitivity, the single most important metric summarizing our cumulative understanding of what will happen as a consequence of global warming — that is, how much will the world warm if we double carbon dioxide….? The best estimate was 1½ to 4½ degrees again.

We don’t need more science. What we need is political will, and what we don’t need is more grandstanding on these important issues, which is why I’m excited about this bill. Why am I excited about this bill? Because it provides the first step, as was done in 2007 — the very first step that is necessary to actually head us in a direction. And that necessary step…. This should be taken as a signal.

If government is serious about this bill brought forth, it cannot support the addition of a two- or four-train LNG facility. We just can’t do it. You cannot square that round peg. It doesn’t work. The numbers don’t work, and the last thing this government needs to do is try and play the accounting games that happened towards then end of the last administration’s governance.

We start to get things like: “Okay, I’m going to give you money and take a carbon credit, because you’re not going to not cut down those trees that otherwise you would cut down.” This is the kind of carbon accounting nonsense we get into. If you open that Pandora’s box, you’re going to have to start accounting for forest fire losses as well, and we don’t want to do that, let me tell you.

We started to pay Encana…. They had at the time…. We gave them carbon offset as they actually upgraded some natural gas facilities. Okay. That’s fine, but that was not the intent. The intent was to actually get fundamental changes and send a direction to the economy that we want to move elsewhere. And we have to be careful how we continue with the offsetting.

With that, I will suggest that this debate…. Both my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands and my colleague from Cowichan Valley will be looking to speak to this bill further. I do want to touch upon the last two things that I haven’t marked.

I want to support the minister in his ability to be given the powers to set sectoral targets through regulation. I think that’s important, and he has articulated and identified, in his opening remarks, that he will seek guidance for that from his — I forget the name of this reincarnation; we’ll call it, for the purpose of Hansard — climate leadership team 3.0. He will seek advice from them. They represent a variety of sectors, and I think that’s a good strategy, and I think the approach is a fine one.

I also want to give the minister a lot of credit for adopting the recommendation of the Canadian Auditor General with respect to biannual reporting out of the risks as well as how we are moving towards meeting those risks of climate change.

The risks are very real and very serious and will get worse as time goes one. You know, I could talk about…. For example, we knew since 2000, when a student of mine, Dáithí Stone…. He went to Oxford — I lost touch with him in the last few years — and was a lecturer there after that. He wrote a paper where he analyzed precipitation trends in Canada. We know extreme precip is going up.

We know, for example, we can attribute…. We did this in 2004. Nathan Gillett is a former…. He’s now head of the Environment Canada Canadian centre for climate modeling and analysis. We knew, in 2004, that we could detect and attribute the increasing area of forest fires burnt in Canada directly to human activity. We know that.

We know what the cause is. We know what the precursors are. We need to have ignition. Well, we’ve got lots of lightening. We need to have dry timber, and the way you get dry timber through soil moisture and summer warmth. We know we can detect regional changes in increasing temperature.

Again, I’ve said the same thing since the 1990s. As a climate science community, we know it’s going to happen. We know that we’re going to get an increase in extreme weather events, particularly in precipitation. The 100-year event is no longer a 100-year event; it will become a 25-, a ten-year event, and then it’ll become a 5-year event and so forth. We know we’re going to get that.

We know we’re going to increase our precipitation in our latitudes. We know water here is not going to be an availability issue; it’s going to be a storage issue, because we know we’re going to get increased water in the winter and less in the summer, because we have increased likelihood of summer droughts.

We know that in the winter it’s going to be increasingly likely and more and more extreme events. Ironically, we might get amazing snow years, because if the temperature is slightly below zero, it’s snow instead of rain. So yes, we might get a big snowfall, but that’s exactly what we would expect to get, because it’s winter it’s and cold and we expect increasing amounts — of the warming climate to have more moisture in it.

We expect a northward shift of the storm track, so yes and lo and behold, we’re getting more of these stronger storms hitting our latitude. What would you think? That’s exactly what we’ve been saying: these move further northward. The same in the south. We know artic sea ice is going. We know it’s likely going to be gone in the summer in a few decades. We know that 2017 is right on the edge of setting a new record — the record that was first set in 2007 and then broken, quite dramatically, in 2010. We’re on path to beat it again this year.

We know that global sea ice volume was a record low this year. We know that if we don’t do anything, we’re going to commit 60 to 80 percent of the world’s species to extinction towards the end of this century. We know that we’re going to get increasing droughts. We know that we’re going to flood islands.

We know that there are hundreds of millions of people living on the coasts, and we know that if we get warming to about two degrees, we have a very high probability that we’re committed to seven metres to sea level rise, because that point puts Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet past the point of no return.

Now, we also know that when there’s a storm — and we know that there are increasingly strong storms — that we actually get storm surges. We know that with the warming water — again, you could do this experiment at home — when you have a high tide, warming water and storms, you get big storm surges, and you start to see things like Hurricane Sandy flooding New York.

Now what happens when New York, which was flooded once, starts to get flooded like that every ten years. Then you add six metres of sea level rise on that. You start to create a problem for our built infrastructure — a problem when you have hundreds of millions of people within ten metres of the coast. The town of Shanghai, the burgeoning metropolis of Shanghai, is less than ten metres from the coast. You get rid of Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheet — it’s pretty hard for them to adapt if you add ten metres of sea level rise. It’s pretty hard for deltas, for Richmond, to adapt if they have ten metres of sea level rise.

It’s not going to happen overnight. This is why the issue is one of intergenerational equity. That won’t even happen in the next 100 years. It takes hundreds of years for that to happen. But, hon. Speaker, let members in this House know that history will not be kind to those of us who stand by and let this happen. We will be judged. So be it if people don’t care, if they don’t care about intergenerational equity. That’s fine. People who don’t have children might not care.

Some people may have belief systems that this conflicts with. They might believe, for example, that  whatever is going to happen was meant to happen, and it’s God’s will. As climate scientists, we can’t argue science against faith. You can’t dismiss those views, people within our society, because nobody, no science could ever address the question: do we as a society need to actually deal with this issue? That requires all of us.

What we need to do is we need facts and evidence on the table, and we’ve got to stop listening to rhetoric that’s put forward and doublespeak — like we need to build pipelines in order to have a climate plan. Politicians need to be truthful to the people of British Columbia. They need to know what the consequences of inaction are.

If society believes that you don’t need to deal with this problem, so be it. I happen to think we do, and I happen to think most people do believe we need to deal with this issue. As such, this bill is critical. When we apply this is critical, not only to implement this bill but also the subsequent policy measures that will ensure we will meet targets. Targets have been in place in Canada since the 1980s, when Brian Mulroney introduced the first targets, and we have a litany of missed and failed targets.

Europe met their targets. We have not met our targets here in Canada — not one, not close, not even a little bit close to any of our targets.

I look forward to the subsequent legislation announcement to come, and with that I thank you for your attention, and I look forward to further debate.

Video of Speech

Today in the Legislature I introduced Bill M216: Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2018.

The proposed amendment to the Business Corporations Act 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.

Video of Bill Introduction

Text of Bill Introduction

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled the Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2018, of which notice has been given, be introduced and read a first time now.

This bill amends the Business Corporations Act, by adding a new part 2.3 to the act that would give companies the ability to incorporate as benefit companies. Doing so would provide these companies with the legal framework to operate in an environmentally sustainable and socially responsible way and to pursue public benefits, in addition to pursuing profits.

Benefit corporations differ from community contribution companies — known as C3 companies — which are hybrid businesses subject to an asset lock. Benefit companies would be required to meet standards of transparency and accountability by reporting their work against an independent, third-party standard.

By incorporating as benefit companies, businesses would achieve clarity and certainty for their directors and investors about their goals and mandate, thus enabling them to attract capital investment while staying true to their mission as they grow.

Companies that pursue a triple bottom line are on the cutting edge of rethinking the role of business in the 21st century and helping us tackle our most pressing, social and environmental issues. Government needs to support and encourage business to take on this role, and this bill is one way to do just this.

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 after today.

Bill M216, Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2018, 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

Weaver introduces legislation to support companies pursuing environmental and social goals
For immediate release
May 14, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party caucus, introduced legislation to enable B.C. businesses to incorporate as benefit companies. The legislation would establish a legal framework for companies pursuing social and environmental goals, rather than just profit.

“B.C. is home to incredibly innovative companies that want to play a bigger role in addressing the challenges and opportunities our province faces,” said Weaver.

“This legislation recognizes the important work being done by companies that want to have a social and environmental mission driving their business model, in addition to a profit motive. By extending legal recognition to benefit companies, B.C. will encourage more businesses to adopt this innovative business model.

“Moreover, this legislation is part of positioning our province to be a leader in the cutting edge of global economic trends. As the world turns to solutions to address major issues like climate change and technological innovation, we are seeing shifts in consumer patterns and behaviour, particularly among younger demographics. By becoming the first jurisdiction in Canada to legally acknowledge benefit companies, B.C. can best position our economy for success.”

The legislation would amend the Business Corporations Act, creating a new Part in the Act that enables companies to incorporate as benefit companies in BC. Companies would be required to commit to operating in a socially responsible and environmentally sustainable manner, and to promote specific public benefits. They would also need to report their progress against an independent third-party standard.

This legislation would ensure mission-driven companies can stay true to their mission as they grow. It is also important for allowing mission-driven companies 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. According to B Lab, benefit companies, which are legally recognized in over 30 US States, have raised nearly $2 billion in capital.

Weaver’s bill is his caucus’ first bill to be put through the official legislative drafting process. If passed, this legislation could become the first Private Member’s Bill from an opposition party member to be passed directly into law in British Columbia.

-30-

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

Over the last two days I have  been exploring some of the ramifications of Bill 20: Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2018,  In particular, I asked the Attorney General several questions during committee deliberations in order to get a sense of his intention for the proposed changes to legislation.

I have received a number of emails from people expressing concerns with section 29 of this act where “minor injuries” are defined. Some have implied that all psychological and psychiatric conditions are being prescribed as minor. This is incorrect (as my exchange with the Minister unpacks).

Below I reproduce the text and videos of our exchanges. The exchanges are helpful as they correct several misconceptions that are out there.

The bill ended up passing 43-31. What’s remarkable about the vote is that 11 BC Liberal MLAs were not present. It’s likely that they decided to head home early. Had the three BC Green MLAs voted against the bill it still would have passed as the BC Liberal caucus didn’t bother to show up.

Text re: Section 1 Questions

A. Weaver: We’re trying to do some coordination across…. On this actual theme of definition of “health care practitioner,” I have four specific professions. I’m wondering if they’re included within the present definition of health care practitioner and, in particular, the sub definition of a medical practitioner.

The first one is registered psychologists. The second one is psychiatrists. The third one is chiropractors, and the fourth one is physiotherapists. Would those four be considered health care practitioners under the definition of “medical practitioner” here?

Hon. D. Eby: Physiotherapist, psychologist and chiropractor will all be in the regulations, so they would be under (c) in the definition, “a person in a prescribed class of persons….” And then a psychiatrist is a medical practitioner so is captured by section (a) of the definition, “a medical practitioner.”

Text re: Section 8 Questions

A. Weaver: I just have a couple of quick questions for clarification on section 8. Section 8 deals with section 28.1, and in particular, it says several criteria that a health care practitioner referred to in subsection (1) must provide.

My question to you is: does this, by any way, enable ICBC to not accept the results from a single health care practitioner and insist that the patient go and see another health care practitioner or not?

Hon. D. Eby: All insurers have the ability, in relation to personal injury or disability, to compel insureds to attend a certain medical practitioner. The intent of this section is to avoid that where possible, where you are going to your own physician or your own physiotherapist or your own chiropractor, and ICBC can get that information directly from them. That’s what this section enables.

A. Weaver: Thank you for the answer. If said patient were to not like the opinion that was received by one practitioner and went to seek an opinion from another practitioner, would both of those opinions be required to be sent along to ICBC — yes or no?

Hon. D. Eby: If an individual went to multiple practitioners to get a different opinions, in theory, yes, ICBC could ask for those opinions from the different practitioners that an individual saw. Whether the individual is motivated by wanting a second opinion or simply feeling that they weren’t receiving adequate service from one service provider and switched to another service provider, ICBC could get records from both under this provision.

A. Weaver: With respect to the section 28.1(2), and then the number (c) in there, it talks about “the injured person’s condition at the time health care was provided”. This is rather broad. What are the limitations upon such a request? Are there any such limitations?

Are these persons’ conditions relevant to the accident, or is ICBC able to get the entire medical history of a patient as part of this process?

Hon. D. Eby: ICBC is legally restricted to only asking about information that’s relevant to the claim — so the person’s condition at the time health care was provided relevant to the accident, injury.

A. Weaver: My final question is: to what extent is the information that is being sought from the health care practitioner protected by the personal information and privacy act? Is there a requirement for ICBC to work within the context of that act? And is that agency or is the Privacy Commissioner being consulted as part of this process?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, ICBC is bound by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which is, in part, as a complaint mechanism overseen by the Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia.

Text re: Section 18 Question

A. Weaver: I just had a couple of questions on this section to seek clarification. The questions are with respect to fees charged by health care providers or practitioners under three potential scenarios.

My question to the minister is this. Let’s suppose there are three people. One person goes to a health care practitioner, and that health care practitioner agrees to charge a certain amount that’s well within the fees, as prescribed under this act here.

A second one goes there and is willing to charge a little bit more. But the person actually has a benefit plan of some form that is allowed to step in or works with WCB or works with ICBC in some manner.

And the third goes to a physiotherapist, who decides that they’re going to get the service, but ICBC is only willing to pay a certain amount. They’re going to have to bill and charge the additional amount.

Is this covered in some way so there can be no additional billing, no additional attempts to tap into third-party insurances? What does this section do with respect to those health care practitioners who don’t agree to pay the price as set by this regulation?

Hon. D. Eby: In the first scenario, where the person goes in and the benefit level paid by ICBC either exceeds or is equal to the service charge, then obviously, there’s no issue there.

The second scenario. Where someone’s got a long-term disability arrangement of some kind or insurance of some kind that might top up benefits — so they go into the service provider and then there’s an additional charge — that would be dependent on the person’s insurance terms and whether they covered that kind of thing. It’s certainly possible that that could happen. There is no rule against that happening here.

In the third scenario, where someone goes in and the service provider is charging what could be called a user-fee or an additional charge on top of what ICBC will pay in benefits, we looked at saying, “No. You are not allowed to do that” — just to ban it outright in the act. The risk of doing that is that you may limit people from accessing the health care provider of their choice. We decided to leave it as, okay, ICBC will pay market rates, and then people can choose their provider. If they want to pay extra to go to practitioner X when practitioners Y and Z are charging at the ICBC rate, then they can choose to do that.

There are a couple of ways in which ICBC can encourage providers to charge at the market rate. One is direct pay, where ICBC pays the provider directly. It’s invisible to the individual who comes in for the appointment, and it’s much easier for the provider to administer. ICBC could easily say to someone who’s charging in excess of their rates: “Look, we’re not going to do direct pay with you, because you’re charging beyond what we’re willing to pay.”

The other is that ICBC can provide a list of providers that are offering services at the set rate in the area of the person who is injured in the accident, and in order for the practitioner to be on that list, they need to be at the rate set by ICBC. That’s a fairly significant stream of customers.

So there are a couple of ways for ICBC to motivate that through carrots. We looked at the stick, and we decided not to do it out of a risk that someone may be denied access to the health care practitioner of their choice because the health practitioner says: “No. We don’t do ICBC at all. We refuse to do that.”

A. Weaver: I just wanted to quickly follow up. I do note the hour. I would like to thank the minister for taking this approach of focusing on the patient as opposed to focusing on litigation. I do notice that that is a theme that we’re seeing through here, and we’ll exploring this further at committee stage. The focus is on recovery and the patient now as opposed to litigation and getting funds after the fact, which is historical. There’s no comment here.

I do want to stand and note the hour and suggest that perhaps we would like to adjourn for the day and continue at some other time.

Text re: Section 25 Question

A. Weaver: Just for the record, I’m wondering if the minister might provide some context as to why this section, to limit health care costs, is being included so that an independent person looking at this clarification here would be able to get a sense of what the minister is thinking of in terms of the purpose for introducing the definition of “health care loss” so that that can be limited.

Hon. D. Eby: What it does is it assures British Columbians that they’ll be able to get the health care costs covered, as they need them, going forward. And it restricts expenses associated with time, administration and expert opinions on future cost of care awards, where the judge gets out the crystal ball and tries to determine how much health care is going to cost in the future and tries to figure out how much a person’s going to need and how much it’s going to cost and provides an award based on that projection.

This provides some level of certainty to the individual and to the court about the fact that future cost of care will be covered and that the rates will be reviewed. And there are the safeguards with inflation, which we talked about previously, on a go-forward basis.

Text re: Section 29 Questions

A. Weaver: I have a number of questions here. It will give the members opposite a little break. I think we’re going to be canvassing section 29 for a fair bit. They can compose their thoughts.

I have four quick questions with respect to the issue of injuries here. Section 29 — in 101 here — defines three types of issues. One is “minor injury.” It also defines “permanent serious disfigurement” and “serious impairment.”

My understanding is perhaps consistent with the minister’s, but I do note that there is an awful lot of confusion out there in the general realm with respect to the intentions of the minister with bringing in this legislation. So I’d like to pose a couple of specific examples to determine whether or not they would be covered under “minor injury,” or whether in fact they would be eligible for further litigation down the road.

The one that’s been the most common is the concern that’s expressed with respect to psychological or psychiatric conditions. Now, my understanding of this…. I’m hoping the minister can correct me if I’m wrong. Let us suppose we have two individuals. The first individual is in a car crash. That first individual gets very depressed after the car crash. It’s been declared by the medical practice that that depression has arisen as a direct consequence of that car crash. It was a depression-and-anxiety issue that responded well to medication, and six months later, the person bounced back and actually was able to continue forward. That’s case 1.

Person No. 2 is the same person who enters into a much, much deeper depression, perhaps with PTSD, and a year and half later, they still have not been able to recover. My question to the minister is: how would both of those individuals be treated in light of the definition of “minor injury” and “serious impairment”?

Hon. D. Eby: The second one is easier, in that it is definitely not within the cap. On the first one, there is a definition of “minor injury” that has two parts. First of all, the first part of the definition of “minor injury” is a negative definition. It says that it’s an injury that “does not result in a serious impairment or a permanent serious disfigurement.” So if it results in a serious impairment and it’s a psychiatric injury, then it’s out of the definition of “minor injury.”

 If it doesn’t result in a serious impairment and it’s a psychiatric injury or another type of injury that is within the second part of the definition, then it would fall within the “minor injury” definition. So the other types of injuries are abrasions, contusions, lacerations, sprain or strain and pain syndrome — we talked about psychological or psychiatric conditions — or an injury in a prescribed class of injury captured in the regulations.

Serious impairment — the question of whether or not it’s a serious impairment — is also a defined term. A “serious impairment” is an impairment that “(a) is not resolved within 12 months, or another prescribed period” — by regulation — “if any, after the date of an accident, and (b) meets prescribed criteria” — by regulation. So you’ll see there are two pieces to this, and there is space within regulation for additional definition.

I’ve posted a paper on the Ministry of Attorney General website about our intentions related to the “prescribed criteria” around “minor injury.” It might just assist the member to know that next week, there is a meeting with the Doctors of B.C. — the B.C. Psychological Association has also been invited — to assist us in determining how the regulations could narrow the psychological or psychiatric conditions even further than is already the case for the current minor injury scenario.

A. Weaver: Another two examples that I’d like to give. Let’s suppose that there is somebody who was driving somewhat excessively over the speed limit — and maybe didn’t get caught, but there was some inkling that that person was at fault — and that that person gets into an accident with two cars. In the one car, you have an individual who’s got brain damage and becomes a quadriplegic, and they’re seeking pain and suffering, etc., and also legal process for them, as a result of this.

In the second person, you have a few broken bones that lead to some chronic issues. Perhaps it’s a broken hip, and there are some chronic pain issues that last beyond a year. They don’t just last a few months. They last beyond a year. How would both of those be treated?

Again, I’m seeking clarification for the purpose of communicating the intent of this section to a broader audience. How would both of those individuals be treated under the classification of minor injury? I suspect the brain damage and quadriplegic doesn’t apply, but perhaps the broken bones, where you actually lead to a chronic condition that lasts — say chronic hip arthritis or something — after an accident.

If the minister could expand on that.

Hon. D. Eby: No individuals with brain injuries or individuals with broken bones are subject to the limit on pain and suffering awards or the minor-injury definition.

A. Weaver: Let’s suppose it isn’t broken, but in fact you have a sprain with a cut, and that cut gets infected. You get a flesh-eating disease response that doesn’t leave you permanently disfigured, but it leads to a substantive, long-term injury. That infection gets into your bone. You get chronic arthritis. How would that person be treated in this example?

Hon. D. Eby: If it meets the definition of serious impairment — so it’s beyond 12 months and the prescribed conditions — then there would be no cap. In addition, I guess it depends on the laceration that resulted in the flesh-eating disease or the impact on the individual, because a permanent, serious disfigurement of the claimant would also remove it from the minor-injury definition.

A. Weaver: My final question. Let’s suppose you have a drunk driver who’s driving along and runs into a number of people. Some people get serious injuries that are very extensive, a couple of other people minor injuries, as defined here, and one person has a psychological disorder as a result. How would the issue of these three different classes of people be treated under these definitions when a drunk driver or somebody texting was involved?

Hon. D. Eby: Each individual would be assessed based on their own injuries, whether or not they fell within the definition of minor injury or not.

As for the driver, for anyone that was driving dangerously, there are Criminal Code and Motor Vehicle Act provisions relating to that — insurance consequences, potential jail time and so on — that flow from that, if they were engaging in dangerous conduct while they were driving — drinking and driving and so on.

Videos of Exchanges