To bring closure to my 7 1/2 years as an MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and 5 years as leader of the BC Green Party I felt it was important to add this video to my archived MLA website. Moving forward, I plan to continue my work on climate solutions on the local, provincial, national and international level.

This YouTube video was produced by Robert Alstead, the same person who created the documentary “Running on Climate”. That documentary provided an inside look into the 2013 election campaign set within a greater climate change narrative.

This YouTube video might be of  interest to some as it gives insight as to why I got into and out of politics. The book that I refer to in this video has the working title: “A Climate for Hope” and not “A Vehicle for Change”.

Today in the Legislature I rose during Members’ Statements to speak for two minutes about the scientific literature clearly demonstrating the efficacy of using face masks to stop the spread of COVID-19.

Following that I asked the Minister of Health if his government has any intention to implement a law or public health order making masks mandatory in all indoor and crowded spaces, outside of people’s homes, and if not, why not? I further asked the Minister if government does so choose to take this public mandate to require masks, how do they plan to implement and enforce said rules in the province of British Columbia?

Below I reproduce the video and text of both my Members’ Statement and Question Period exchange.

To demonstrate how easy it is to make a mask that has the potential to stop >95% of aerosol born virus transmission, I shot a quick video with how-to instructions below.

Video of Statement

Video of Question Period Exchange

Text of Statement

A. Weaver: I rise today to speak about some of the evidence concerning the efficacy of face masks as a mechanism to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous studies have been conducted on the subject, and from this research, considerable evidence has emerged that mandating the use of masks in all indoor and crowded spaces outside people’s homes is a low-cost, high-reward measure that policy-makers could and should be pursuing.

To begin with, even though it is difficult to prove causation, we know that almost every nation that has seen widespread usage of face masks has fared better at limiting the spread of COVID-19 than those that haven’t. In many ways, this shouldn’t be surprising. Research conducted well before the current pandemic began — published in 2009 by Ben Cowling and others in the Annals of Internal Medicine — found that the combination of masks and hand hygiene significantly helped reduced the spread of influenza within households.

More recently a March 2020 study, published in the Journal of Medical Virology, showed that homemade masks made of simple four-layer kitchen paper and one layer of cloth can stop the transmission of more than 95 percent of the virus contained within aerosols.

Research directed by Cristopher Leffler from Virginia Commonwealth University — which is, admittedly, still undergoing peer review — has found that “social norms and government policies supporting the wearing of masks by the public as well as international travel controls are independently associated with lower per capita mortality from COVID-19.”

A comprehensive modelling study led by researchers at the University of Cambridge, in the U.K., published in the prestigious Proceedings of the Royal Society A, in June, concluded masks help to dramatically slow the transmission of the virus.

When taken together, mounting evidence is accumulating that the universal use of face masks is one of the most effective tools we have at our disposal to prevent the spread of novel coronavirus. While we await the holy grail of COVID-19 vaccine, it appears that making masks mandatory in all indoor and crowded spaces outside people’s homes can only aid British Columbia’s ongoing pandemic response.

To quote from the summary of the Proceedings of the Royal Society article: “My mask protects you. Your mask protects me.”

Question

A. Weaver: Well, thank you, hon. Speaker. I must say I’ve been here seven years, almost eight years, and this has set a new record. We’ve just finished three questions, and there are only four minutes left in question period. I’m not so sure this is the way this place is suppose to function, and I’m a little disappointed in my colleagues for taking that up and shoving me to the last couple of minutes of question period here. It’s unfortunate. The answers were not targeted, and the questions were rambling, in my view.

Anyway, as more and more evidence about the role that masks can play in reducing the spread of COVID-19 has emerged, growing numbers of jurisdictions have adopted laws making face masks mandatory in all scenarios where it will be difficult for people to remain physically distant. Just last week France introduced measures mandating masks in all enclosed public spaces. Across the pond, the U.K. began implementing a law that makes masks mandatory in grocery stores, shopping malls, post offices, banks and other busy establishments. Here in Canada, Quebec has made masks mandatory in indoor public spaces, while Toronto has established similar rules. And masks will be mandatory in indoor spaces in Nova Scotia, starting this Friday.

A recent poll from Angus Reid has found that there is broad provincial support for rules that would make masks mandatory in public spaces, with over 70 percent of British Columbians in favour of the changes. And although not all members of the public would be able to adhere to these rules, due to underlying physical or mental health conditions, the vast majority of the public would be able to follow them with relatively few personal costs.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Given the evidence in favour of universal wearing of masks and the broad public support for such a measure, will this government implement a law or public health order that makes masks mandatory in all indoor and crowded spaces, outside of people’s homes, and if not, why not?

Answer

Hon. A. Dix: I want to start by expressing my appreciation to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for his consistent and thoughtful support for public health measures during this pandemic. It is much appreciated, and I thank him for his questions. He will know that Dr. Henry has answered this specific question a number of times in the past few weeks. Let’s see how I do, hon. Speaker.

You’ll know that, in July, we understand right now quite a bit about community transmission of COVID-19. That’s why we’ve taken specific public health measures — for example, public health measures to deal with houseboats, to deal with temporary accommodations, to deal with rental accommodations and resorts, to deal indeed with bars and with nightclubs and even with strip joints, and specific steps to deal with what is a significant issue in the agricultural industry.

Dr. Henry doesn’t believe, and I don’t believe at this time, that community transmission in B.C. justifies a mandatory mask mandate — not at this time. We think that it would not be justified in light of the significant challenges in both putting it into place and the very significant exemptions, which I know the member would understand, that would be required to do so.

He also knows — I know we have a little bit of time, he and I, for these questions, so I’ll just give him a little bit more information — that masks are, well, very important in terms of the hierarchy of measures we can take. It’s less effective than physical distancing and barriers and administrative measures. That said, Dr. Henry recommends, and I recommend, wearing a non-medical mask in circumstances where physical distancing cannot be maintained. I wear a mask in stores. I wear a mask in grocery stores. I wear a mask on public transit. I think, in these times, in particular in these times, wearing a mask is a reflection of good COVID sense but also a reflection of community respect. Many businesses, in fact, which have small spaces, are mandating masks within their businesses, within their COVID-19 plan.

I want to assure the member that this is our view for the moment, that we consistently have adapted based on the evidence, and we will continue to do so. The efforts of Dr. Henry, of public health, of the government and, indeed, of all the people of B.C. will continue to be founded on evidence and on science, and I know he appreciates that fact.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: I do note that the member opposite said my question was one minute and 30 seconds long. I just will say that, indeed, it was, and that we should have been able to have 20 such questions in this period, but we’re not getting to it.

I’d like to thank the minister for his response. I do appreciate government’s reservations about imposing a law that would make masks compulsory, and government should be commended for the job done so far in limiting the spread of COVID-19. But lurking in the background of discussions about masks and COVID-19 are concerns around the potential for government overreach. I understand that there’s a slow pace. However, we’re sitting in a once-in-a-century pandemic. Measures will need to be taken that will temporarily restrict some of our normal freedoms in order to preserve our collective safety.

One study, for example, that I referred to earlier in statements today, shows that even with a 50 percent efficiency, instead of a 95 percent type efficiency of most masks, you still get a lower R-rate number than you would without wearing masks. Since enforcing regulations around mandatory masks is frankly impossible for any government to handle by itself, many jurisdictions have appealed to the private sector to help with these rules, like in Quebec, for example, where periodic inspections happen in place, and in instances where individuals or businesses are caught, authorities have typically been empowered to apply fines.

My question is once more to the Minister of Health. If the government does so choose to take this public mandate to require masks, how do they plan to implement and enforce said rules in the province of British Columbia?

Answer

Hon. A. Dix: As noted, and this is the strong view of public health, with Dr. Henry, and it’s my strong view, at the moment, a mandatory mandate for masks is not required, is not desirable in British Columbia for some of the reasons that we have discussed at length and I’m happy to continue to discuss, because I think it’s an issue of public interest and debate. I applaud people who take the steps, because I think it’s an act of respect to wear non-medical masks, especially in areas where physical distancing can’t be maintained. That is of vital importance, and it is part of our collective response to COVID-19.

What we’re going to continue to do in B.C. is follow the science and follow the evidence in our pandemic. Yes, what happens in Quebec and what happens in France and what happens in Alberta is important, but one of the reasons we have been successful in B.C. is a determination also to follow our own B.C. course to deal with our own B.C. pandemic. That led to our response and our single-site order in long-term care. It led to our action, different from other jurisdictions, in dealing with temporary foreign workers in agriculture. I think these sorts of steps, which demonstrate a commitment to public health and to breaking the chains of transmission have been what have made us successful.

But I want to say this. I appreciate the comments of the hon. member, and I want to take this opportunity to thank all of the members of the House, as people have consistently made positive suggestions, been supportive.

This has been our response, our collective response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and it has been successful so far, I think, with extraordinary challenges and with some considerable losses. But we need to continue to do this together. There are weeks and months and maybe years to come. That will require generosity and positive spirit
Draft Segment 014

response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and it has been successful so far, I think, with extraordinary challenges and with some considerable losses.

We need to continue to do this together. There are weeks and months and maybe years to come, and that will require generosity and positive spirit together to continue to do that. So I encourage people to make suggestions, to engage in public debate on these issues, but mostly to be respectful of one another and for all of us to take our responsibility, as the government is, as we as a Legislature are, in breaking the chains of transmission of COVID-19 in B.C.

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

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

Text of Letter

Dear Mayor and Council of the City of Victoria,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely

Andrew Weaver

MLA Oak Bay-Gordon Head

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

There is a coming paradigm shift around the purpose of investment and businesses.  The last decade has seen growing pressure on corporations to consider the environmental, social, and governance consequences of their investment and management decisions.  This more holistic view of the corporation is a necessary and positive development.  Corporations do not exist in a vacuum; the societies in which they conduct business are indispensable sources of their success and vitality.  Accordingly, corporations have duties to both their shareholders and the societies in which they are embedded.  By incorporating these other considerations into their decision-making corporations will not only provide many societal benefits but will enhance profits at the same time.

Increasing numbers of Canadians are coming to believe that companies should stand for something more than profit.  Over half of Canadians now lean towards purchasing products from businesses that align with their worldview.  Some of this change is likely being driven by the values and interests of millennials and gen-z who make up a growing share of the population.  A recent survey by Deloitte provides interesting and important insights into the priorities of these two generations.  When asked to identify the three issues they believed to be most important, health care and disease prevention, climate change, unemployment, and income inequality all ranked higher than economic growth.

There are signs that the private sector may be shifting towards more holistic governance models.  Many companies are attempting to align their brands with shifting consumer preferences and nascent corporations embrace socially and environmentally conscious business models.  In Europe, over two-thirds of the start-ups at the Slush 2019 conference were classified as purpose driven companies, defined as corporations that include one or more of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals as an integral component of their operations, an increase of about 7% from 2014.

However, actions taken by the state can help to accelerate the shift towards corporations with a defined social purpose.  By creating the right regulatory and policy frameworks, government can incentivize socially responsible investment.  One step in this direction is the BC Government’s recently announced regulations around benefit companies.  Canadian corporate law does not have a formal doctrine recognizing shareholder primacy.  However, the new legislation and corresponding regulations will empower corporations to continue addressing pressing social and environmental issues as they scale their operations and make it easier for investors to choose companies that align with their values.

In the future, another avenue that the province could consider promoting to encourage investment with the potential to generate positive social returns are community investment co-ops (CICs).  CICs are capital pools that provide residents of a specific region or locality with the opportunity to invest some of their money in local businesses.  Individual investors typically elect the fund managers themselves to ensure that the investments made through the vehicle are consistent with their priorities and values. Through CICs, residents can become directly involved in economic development projects within their communities.

Ample capital already exists within the province which could be harnessed by CICs.  Each year, millions of dollars exit British Columbia to be invested in other jurisdictions.  If the province established a structure designed to incentivize investments into CICs, some of this capital could be redirected into local businesses.  At a time in which rural regions in BC are experiencing economic stagnation, CICs could be used to reinvest money generated through regional economic activity into local corporations and start-ups, helping to stimulate rural economies.

Several CICs already exist within BC including the Vancouver Island CIC, the East Kootenay CIC, and the West Kootenay Boundary Investment Co-Op.  Some have already received financial support from the government.  However, there are a number of legislative and regulatory changes open to the government which could be used to make these investment vehicles more attractive to British Columbians.  Some options include creating a tax credit for investors and amending the securities act to make it easier for CICs to generate larger capital pools for investment.

The adoption of a legislative and regulatory framework designed to popularize CICs would not be without precedent.  Other jurisdictions have successfully introduced programs centered around social finance, including other Canadian provinces.  In 1993, Nova Scotia introduced the Equity Tax Credit which allows residents to claim a tax credit on investments made into provincially based businesses.  Six years later, the province created the Community Economic Development Investment Funds (CEDIF) program in an attempt to encourage wider adoption of the tax credit.  The program offers a streamlined application process for those seeking to establish a CEDIF and allows investors to claim an income tax credit on their investments in the vehicle.  By 2013, Nova Scotians had established 47 CEDIFs which had contributed over $56 million in financing to local businesses, some of which were mission-oriented corporations dedicated to social and environmental causes.

When provided with the opportunity to pursue business models that have the potential to generate positive social and environmental outcomes, many individual investors and nascent corporations will choose to do so.  As society begins to redefine its expectations of corporations, the province has the chance to become a world leader in the movement towards socially responsible business.  The recently introduced legislation and regulations around benefit corporations represent a positive step in this direction but the province should not stop there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government Press Release

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

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

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

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

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

A business that becomes a benefit company must:

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

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

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

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

Quick Facts:

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

Learn More:

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