Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:41 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Mining and Critical Minerals
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals.

On Vote 40: ministry operations, $61,012,000 (continued).

Hon. Jagrup Brar: I just want to briefly make comments. I want to say thanks to the member opposite, for Kootenay-Rockies, for the constructive dialogue last week on Thursday. I welcome the questions again from the member and other members to continue the dialogue on the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals.

Ian Paton: As many of us know in this building, jade is a provincial gemstone of British Columbia. We are global leaders in the world for our production of jade as a very, very valuable and decorative gemstone.

In the year 2024, the Environment and Land Use Act discontinued the production of any new jade operations on April 1 of 2030, upcoming. Now there’s talk of environmental concerns from First Nations, the Tāłtān Nation, up in that area.

I’m wondering if the minister could explain to us what further harm and disturbance there is to the environment by shutting down jade mining in the northern Dease Lake part of B.C.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

The cumulative impact of jade mining in northwest British Columbia has caused harmful effects on the sensitive alpine environment and created regulatory challenges for permitting compliance and enforcement.

In response, the province established an order in council under section 7 of the Environment and Land Use Act, prohibiting jade mining on new tenure in northwest B.C. while allowing existing tenure holders to continue jade mining for five years, which is called the jade transition period, under enhanced reclamation requirements.

The OIC does not impact other mining operations in the northwest region, and does not affect jade mining in other areas of B.C. Ministry staff have worked collaboratively with jade operators and First Nations in developing guidance on the enhanced reclamation requirements. Existing operations within the OIC boundary can continue to submit notice-of-work applications pertaining to jade throughout the jade transition period.

So regional operations are currently processing four notice-of-work applications pertaining to jade for the 2025 field season.

Ian Paton: Tony Ritter, who owns Cassiar Jade, has been in the business for 35 years, and he’s currently had to sue his own government for compensation. He would like to know why he’s been expropriated without compensation. That would be question one.

Question two. Stating that there’s environmental damage that’s been done by the jade business in northern B.C., which is an economic driver in that part of our province…. Could you explain what further harm and disturbance the jade operations have caused to the environment?

[2:50 p.m. - 2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question. There were two parts to the question. The first one was about the case. I cannot comment on any specific case with judicial proceedings.

At the same time, I just want to say to the member that we continue to take applications when it comes to jade operations in 2025, moving forward.

As far as the environment is concerned, jade operations are sensitive to the ecosystem, and it takes a long time to reclaim the area. That’s why we are actually working on the transition period and working with both the industry and First Nations to make sure, moving forward, that we can do it safely and to the satisfaction of everyone.

Pete Davis: Last week, this minister claimed that the decline in B.C. exploration spend was caused by global trends and inflation. Well, you’re correct in that investment has declined generally for exploration, but the truth is B.C. is falling much faster than Ontario and Quebec. It appears, actually, that Saskatchewan is projected to overtake B.C. for third place this year.

In fact, in this ministry’s own report, released in February 2025, it states: “Policy considerations are also contributing to B.C.’s declining exploration spend.”

When is this minister going to fix the policy issues created by this government and get back on track? Why does this government continue to push forward on modernization of the Mineral Tenure Act, which is adding further uncertainties to our policy environment?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question. The mining and mineral exploration sector is a foundational part of British Columbia’s economy. We are absolutely clear that there will be no mine without the exceptional work of prospectors, and there will be no stability in the mining sector without true reconciliation. That’s why we support a sustainable, responsible and globally competitive mining sector.

I just want to inform the member that the province’s fiscal incentives, rich mineral deposits, world-class infrastructure and clean and affordable energy continue to make B.C. an attractive jurisdiction for investors, with approximately $15.3 billion investment in B.C. companies and assets in 2024.

In addition to that, investment dollars in mineral resources development are up 50 percent over the ten-year average and are the second highest in ten years. Also, the total employment in the mining sector has gone up 10 percent since we took over in 2017, from 36,000 working people to 40,000 working people. Also, the total mineral export value has increased by 41 percent from around $20 billion in 2017, when we took over, to around $17 billion in 2023. So we continue to make progress.

The Premier has given me a task, of course, to bring permitting timelines, and I’m very pleased to continue working on that piece. We have already reduced the major mine application review timelines by 35 percent, and we have also reduced the regional permitting backlog by 52 percent. We will continue to work on that path to provide fixed timelines to the industries, where we can bring more stability, more certainty.

[3:05 p.m.]

That can bring more investment and make the mining sector even stronger, to create good jobs for the people of British Columbia and to grow the economy — particularly, with critical minerals, to grow the clean economy in the province of British Columbia.

Pete Davis: In my question to the minister, I talked about Ontario and Quebec, and now we’re in fourth to Saskatchewan.

My question to the minister: can this minister please give me some information as to what the minister’s government plan is to make sure that we’re not in fourth? Obviously, we’re going down. We’re getting behind in this industry.

B.C. is one of the richest natural resource provinces in this country, but yet we’re lagging behind. So what I’d like to know from this minister: what is your government planning to do to try and make our province more attractive for investment?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

For the first part, B.C. offers a very competitive incentive for mineral exploration and development, including the mining flow-through share tax credit and mining exploration tax credit — the most favourable in Canada — as well as extensions to the new mine allowance and PST exemptions for critical equipment.

The province is committed to ensuring that its fiscal framework supports a highly competitive mining sector and continues to position B.C. as a sought-after jurisdiction for investment.

The ministry is developing an investor outreach strategy right now. The initiative is being led by the critical minerals office, working in cooperation with industry, First Nations, unions and others. The CMO is pursuing targeted capital markets engaging to promote B.C.’s strategic advantage and ESG credentials, and to highlight critical minerals opportunity for investors.

On top of that, I just want to say to the member that the key to being competitive right now in Canada and also in the global community is, actually, the permitting timelines. The Premier has given me a clear mandate to come up with fixed timelines. I’m working with the industry, and I’m working with, of course, the First Nations and other stakeholders, to basically find the fixed timelines moving forward.

I can say to the member that because the mining and mineral exploration sector is a foundational part of British Columbia’s economy, we are taking actions to speed up the permitting process, in a way that supports sustainable economic development and environmental protection. I just want to say to the member: I agree with the industry that permitting timelines, including under the previous administration, have been a challenge, particularly to make mining globally competitive. The difference is that the previous administration did not take any actions, and we are taking actions.

We already reduced the major mine application process by 35 percent, as I said earlier, and the regional backlogs by 52 percent. We will continue to work with the industry, as well as First Nations, to find the fixed timelines. Fixed timelines are the key when it comes to keeping the mining sector competitive and moving forward, because they’re going to bring stability and certainty to the sector. With that, we can bring more investment into the province.

This is a very attractive province for mining. We have, I think, 18 of the 32 critical minerals in the country. We produce almost 60 percent of the copper from the country. We are the only province producing molybdenum. We have very attractive critical minerals in the province. We have also an exceptional ESG score and a very diverse workforce in the province. We have exceptional port infrastructure to transport the minerals, whether it’s to Asia or anywhere else.

This is a very attractive place for mining and critical minerals. Moving forward, we will do everything we possibly can to make it even more competitive and more attractive to the global community.

Pete Davis: I appreciate everything the minister said, but the numbers speak for themselves. According to the most recent British Columbia Mineral and Coal Exploration Survey, mineral exploration spending across the province declined by 14 percent in 2024, despite the fact that copper and gold, our two primary exploration targets, are trading at near-historic highs right now. In fact, exploration expenditures for copper fell 28 percent and for gold by 24 percent.

[3:15 p.m.]

This seems to suggest, to me, that the fundamental disconnect between market conditions and investor confidence is our jurisdiction here. Would the minister agree that this discrepancy reflects not a lack of resource potential — because we have it — but rather, growing apprehension about policy stability, regulatory timelines and general uncertainty in the investment climate here in British Columbia?

Hon. Jagrup Brar: I just want to add to what I said earlier when we talked about exploration spending. What happens, Member, in the mining sector, is that for some of the projects, particularly major projects, when they move out from exploration and move to the development stage, the expenses in the exploration go significantly down.

We have three projects which were actually doing heavy exploration and heavy spending in that stage. Those were Blackwater gold, Eskay Creek, and Cariboo Gold.

[3:20 p.m.]

Because they were spending tons of money there, doing the hard drilling and exploration at that stage, they were spending, of course, way more money there. Now they have moved from that stage to the development stage. They’re spending money at the development stage, not at the exploration stage anymore. That’s one key reason that we may see spending in the exploration stage a little bit down.

Let me tell the member that we are fast-tracking projects. We are expediting projects right now, 18 projects in the province, and four of them are mining projects. That includes Highland Valley Copper, Eskay Creek, Red Chris, and Mount Milligan.

At the same time, Member, I just want to say to you that we have actually made huge progress from when we took over, six or seven years ago, from the previous administration, which had been known as kind of a business-friendly administration. I want to highlight this thing one more time: investment dollars in mineral resource development are up 50 percent over the ten-year average and are the second-highest in ten years.

Total employment increased in the mining sector by 4,000 people, which is 10 percent, since 2017. Total mineral export value has increased by 41 percent, from around $12 billion in 2017 to around $17 billion in 2023. So the mining sector is doing exceptionally well.

We are well-placed, we have critical minerals, we have ports, and we have a very diverse workforce. We have policies in place, and we are going to put in place what we call fixed timelines, so that we have more stability, more certainty, to move the mining sector even further, make it bigger.

We also, Member, have the ESG high score. British Columbia’s mining projects are very well-respected globally, because we look after the environment, we make sure we have the right policies, and we make sure we have the right social inputs into the system. So the mining sector, at this point in time, is doing exceptionally well.

We will do it even better. I’m working with the industry, working with the First Nations, to make sure we move forward to find fixed timelines to create certainty and stability in the sector.

Pete Davis: Well, if we’re going from third to fourth, there’s something wrong — I just want to point that out — because we’re going down; we’re not going up.

The survey that I was talking about, as well, also reports notable research in metallurgical coal exploration, something, of course, that’s very special to me and important to me. It’s in my riding of Kootenay-Rockies, where coal has long been a cornerstone for local economies.

At the same time, there has been a well-publicized push towards the development of critical minerals to support the so-called energy transition. How does this minister’s ministry plan to strike the appropriate balance between embracing the new frontier of critical mineral development, while still maintaining a stable, competitive environment for metallurgical coal, a commodity that remains indispensable for global steel-making and, therefore, the very infrastructure that the transition depends upon? Will this minister fight to make metallurgical coal an essential mineral in B.C.?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member. I just want, very quickly, to touch upon the previous question, Member.

When we talk about the expenses, about the exploration, we need to understand this. In the mining sector, we have very small companies that we call free miners.

Even exploration has different stages. The member will probably know about that. When the exploration becomes serious, the company starts investing millions of dollars. Sometimes, it goes to hundreds of millions of dollars. Then it becomes heavy drilling, and all activities take place there. At the initial stage, the expenses are very, very small. But then the company goes through that major exploration exercise, for which, I would say, 90 percent of the expense is there.

[3:30 p.m.]

Then when that company finally finds the deposit and then moves on to build the mine to the development stage, that’s where the major expenses take place. Three exploration activities from that stage have now moved to the next stage, which is the mining development. That’s why you see the expenses have dropped. Overall, if we see, we have 17 projects waiting; we have four projects in priority, and we have everything else going up. So the mining sector is doing, from that perspective, very well. But we need to, of course, do more to make it even better.

Now, the metallurgical coal. First of all, I want to say to you that I’ve had the opportunity to visit Highland Valley — but that was copper. What you call the coal valley, the coal mines in that valley…. Those are huge operations, as you know. So British Columbia has recognized the significant economic contribution of southeast steelmaking metallurgical coal operations.

Steelmaking coal mining in the southeast sustains more than 12,000 family-supporting jobs in B.C., with 3,600 direct jobs and 7,200 indirect jobs. In July 2024, in B.C., our government established a special office, because it’s a high priority for us to support the metallurgical coal mining sector.

In July 2024, B.C. established what we call the southeast initiatives secretariat, a new office, a multi-agency team led by a dedicated assistant deputy minister, Laurel Nash. My ADM is here. That department is run by her. That department supports strong cross-ministry governance, establishes clear accountabilities and is tasked with developing specific actions to resolve challenging issues.

We are very dedicated when it comes to the metallurgical coal because metallurgical coal in the mining sector plays a huge, important role. So we take it very seriously to support the sector moving forward, because I know in the rural areas, particularly, coal mines are sometimes the major job creator.

For example, I can say in Elkview, a Sparwood company, there are 1,107 employees. Fording River, which I think I visited, there are 1,346 jobs. Line Creek, Elkford, has 684 jobs. Greenhills, Sparwood, 711 jobs. Willow Creek, which is Chetwynd, 275 jobs.

This way, these mines create huge jobs in the rural areas, and we will continue to support them.

Pete Davis: Thank you to the minister for the answer. While we’re talking about exploration…. You mentioned some stuff about exploration and costs. Early-state exploration companies, often small and usually family-run, are already struggling to stay afloat. These companies take the biggest risks and often lead to the biggest discoveries. But this government’s changes will make it even harder for them to operate. More delays, more costs, more confusion.

How are they supposed to survive, let alone succeed? Can the Minister explain how your government expects these small companies to keep working under these conditions, or are you just willing to just let them fall?

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member. I would like to ask the member to clarify the question. Like, what conditions, I want to know, is the member talking about?

[3:35 p.m.]

Pete Davis: I’m talking about the changes in the consultation process. I’m talking about the changes in the Mineral Tenure Act. I’m talking about the stuff that’s been added that’s making things harder and more expensive for people to do business in British Columbia.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the clarification.

First, I would like to talk about the new mineral claims consultation framework that the member talked about. I want to say this to the member, that the mining and mineral exploration sector, as we have said many times before, is a foundational part of British Columbia’s economy.

I’m absolutely clear. I just want to say to the member, assure the member that there would be no mines without the exceptional work done by the free miners or prospectors. But at the same time, Member, there will be no stability in the mining sector, which is very important to grow the mining sector, without true reconciliation at the same time.

That’s why we are supporting a mining sector that is sustainable, responsible and globally competitive — to bring more investment to the people of British Columbia, create good jobs for the people of British Columbia and grow our economy.

The new mineral claims consultation framework has been developed, as the member knows, in response to a B.C. Supreme Court ruling. That’s how it came into existence. We did consult and develop this new framework in consultation with the First Nations and with the industry, particularly the leadership of the Association for Mineral Exploration, AME.

I’m very pleased to say to the member that we were able to incorporate several of the recommendations made by the Association for Mineral Exploration. But we will not stop there. We will continue to review the new framework as we move forward, make changes, make improvements in consultation with the First Nations, as well as with the industry, to make sure the new framework is working.

In the end, I want to say that this is…. Ontario has lost the case. Quebec has lost the case. I don’t know where they’re going to go. But we are the first province to put these rules in place so that we can bring more stability and more certainty into the system.

As far as the MTA is concerned, the Premier has given, in my mandate letter: to reform the MTA. The intent of the MTA is not in any way to impact the mining sector in a negative way. The intent of the MTA is to create the conditions, create stability, create certainty, working with the First Nations, working with the industry, so that we can actually have fixed timelines. We can have, actually, reduced timelines moving forward, when it comes to mining and make mining a sector way more attractive than it is today.

That’s the intent of the MTA reform. I know when we try to change something, there are always concerns. But that’s the intent of the new system, and that’s what the goal is. That’s the goal we keep in mind when we talk about reforming the MTA. That’s how it’s going to work.

It will be done with full consultation with the industry, with full consultation with the First Nations. The final intent is that we create certainty out of this, stability out of this, and not anything else.

Pete Davis: I’d like to pass it on to my co-worker here from Penticton-Summerland.

Amelia Boultbee: As this ministry may recall, in 2024 a permit was issued for a gravel pit in Summerland, B.C. This was done over the objections of the district of Summerland, the chambers of commerce, the Penticton Indian Band, all relevant stakeholders, due to concerns around road safety, environmental concerns, impact on local Indigenous groups.

[3:40 p.m.]

Particularly, tens of millions of dollars of ecotourism is being put at risk by the permit for this gravel pit. In addition, my understanding is that in the latest disclosure of freedom of information given to the district of Summerland, there’s an opinion from one of the ministry’s environmental biologists that says that for environmental reasons the project shouldn’t go through.

My question is…. From the correspondence with the district of Summerland, my understanding is that they have been told they have two options. One, if the mining permit goes through and the mine becomes operational, only the chief inspector under the act has the authority to close the mine or cancel the permit, specifically and narrowly, only if there’s non-compliance with permit conditions. So that’s one. Then the only way, potentially, two, that they could actually stop the permit is through judicial review.

If the minister could please clarify whether I have that correct, I would appreciate it.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Once again, thanks to the member for Penticton-Summerland for the question. Garnet Valley sand and gravel pit. On July 9, 2024, the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals approved a permit application for the proposed Garnet Valley sand and gravel pit. Located on private land in Summerland, British Columbia, this decision raised concern, as you said, among nearby residents in the Garnet Valley area, the local government and the Penticton Indian Band, all of whom had written letters opposing the project during the public consultation period.

The ministry addressed these concerns in the reason for decision document that was shared with interested parties. They had it. But on January 31, 2025, a petition under the Judicial Review Procedure Act was filed to the Supreme Court of B.C. by the Garnet Valley Agri-Tourism Association to challenge the permit decision. The matter is now before the court, so I cannot comment on that case.

The other question the member raised was about the chief inspector. The chief inspector has the authority to halt mining activities anywhere — not only for this one, but anywhere — if it harms the environment and if it is putting people’s lives at risk. So the chief inspector can halt the mining activity.

Amelia Boultbee: I just want to clarify what I’m actually asking. I appreciate the answer from the minister, but it doesn’t actually answer my question. What I’m trying to get at is whether or not there is an alternative legal mechanism outside of either the chief inspector, as we talked about, or judicial review. Specifically, the reason I’m asking is because, according to my research, the government has powers under the Environment and Land Use Act to restrict or freeze mining rights even if a permit was previously granted.

Notwithstanding that a judicial review is underway, I’m trying to determine whether it was theoretically possible for the government to do the right thing and cancel that permit before our constituents had to go and start this expensive and costly legal action.

Specifically, the example that I looked at that seems parallel to me, four cabinet orders were granted on March 7, 2024, over a prohibited placer and mining claim staking on Banks Island and part of Vancouver Island and restricted exploration activities. Effectively, it cancelled existing mining permits, so it seems possible to me that it can happen. The mining deferral area…. It’s Lax K’naga Sts’ool. That is one of them. The other is Ehattesaht Hay-Na.

Could the minister please clarify whether it is possible under the Environment and Land Use Act to cancel an existing mining permit?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

To the member, we have a very rigorous assessment process to ensure the public is safe, to ensure the environment is protected. It is done by the ministry.

The decision is made by the independent permitting officer. After collecting all the information, after going through that process, the decision is made by the permitting officer. During that process, of course, the permitting officer looks into all the concerns submitted to the ministry from the local residents and the local government and everybody.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

After going through that very rigorous review process, the permitting officer makes the decision. After that, there’s only one step, and that’s appeal. That’s what we call it, the judicial review.

[3:55 p.m.]

That’s where this case is. It’s basically at that stage. Now the judicial review will decide whether to proceed or not.

I want to say to the member also at the same time that we need these gravel pits to build schools, highways, hospitals. For a lot of stuff we provide to the community, they play a very important role. And, of course, they create jobs. We go through that process, and then the decision is made by the permitting officer. This is at what you call the judicial review stage.

Amelia Boultbee: I appreciate the comments by the minister, but with all due respect, my question has not been answered. My question was: is it legally possible for the government to have used the Environment and Land Use Act to restrict, cancel or otherwise revoke the permit that was already issued, as they did on March 7, 2024, in the precedent case that I just referred to?

[George Anderson in the chair.]

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

I will try one more time. When it comes to the permitting process, Member, as I said earlier, we have a very rigorous process to ensure public safety, to ensure environment is protected. And we go through that process.

Subsequently, people are consulted. If there are any concerns by anybody, that is also handed over to the permitting officer, who is independent, Member. The permitting officer makes the determination. If people are still not happy, they can appeal that, which is basically a judicial review. That’s part of the process, to provide fairness and certainty to the whole process. That’s what this is, and that’s how it happens.

Other than that, I can’t say anything, because it is under the judicial review right now. I can’t say anything else.

The Chair: Just a reminder to all members that if you have your cell phone or any other device, you place it on mute or silent.

Amelia Boultbee: With the greatest of respect to the minister, I do not accept that answer. That is not an answer.

I’m asking a very simple question. I’ve given you a piece of provincial legislation that currently exists. I have cited a case and given you an exact date and description of exactly what it is. I’m saying that that happened, that this act was used to cancel, revoke and restrict existing permits. And I’m asking: is it the government’s position, somehow, since then, that it has become legally impermissible to use the Environmental Land Use Act in that way?

I appreciate that the minister has just described to me alternate routes, but that is not my question. I’m not asking about all the various ways. I’m asking about this particular way.

Can I please get an answer?

[4:05 p.m. - 4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

I just want to be clear on this. I am speaking to the permanent decision taken under the Mines Act. The member is talking about the Environment and Land Use Act. I understand the context is very different, so I will be happy to follow up with my colleague, the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, who is responsible for that act.

Amelia Boultbee: I appreciate that. Thank you to the minister.

I would put a request on the record that we receive a written explanation outlining how that case, which for ease of reference I’ll call the March 7, 2024, cabinet orders, is or is not applicable to the Garnet Valley gravel pit.

Pete Davis: The minister and the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship are tasked with advancing land use planning in northern B.C. “Where opportunities exist to reach large-scale agreements on land use and critical metal and mineral development with First Nations in a manner that expedites permits, protects the environment, offers investor security...lead that work on priority basis.”

My question is: where’s the minister’s ministry at with respect to this work? What First Nations are involved, and has the minister held meetings with those First Nations as of yet? And one more: what are the plans to engage with the public and industry and local communities on this?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member once again. Good question.

B.C. is experiencing a generational opportunity to strengthen the critical minerals sector, access global markets and score new jobs. One outcome of land use planning is clarity on where development can happen and where conservation is needed. Through land use planning, opportunities are available to reach large-scale — not small, large-scale — agreement on land use and critical mineral development with First Nations in a manner that protects the environment and important cultural areas while providing predictability to the sector.

So that’s the purpose of this. I want to show the member that when we do this, we are going to, of course…. First Nations are part of this. We are going to consult very closely with the industry partners to make sure that all stakeholders are part of this discussion, which is a very important discussion moving forward.

Pete Davis: Just to be clear, then, you have not held any meetings with First Nations?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: The discussions about the need for land use planning have been going on with the First Nations and also with the industry for some time, in recognition that land use planning will support certainty on the land.

I met a number of First Nations, and land use planning discussion comes whenever you meet with them. That’s part of the discussion. And similarly, I have, in general, met with industry and some of the industry members, also, for this issue, and I have discussions with land use planning on that side too.

[4:25 p.m.]

But I want to say this. Land use planning is a complex issue but an important one in my view. But if we do that, and once we do that, it will create a lot of stability, a lot of certainty for the mining sector. At the same time, it will protect the environment. It will protect other social and cultural areas of First Nations. But it will provide, when it comes to the industry, a lot of certainty. And probably, my understanding is that it will also reduce the application review process significantly, as well, once the land use planning is completed.

Pete Davis: Thank you for the answer.

I’m speaking about northwest B.C., that area. I’m just asking what First Nations are involved.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: The nations that actually fall in the northwest area are Tahltan, Taku River Tlingit, Kaska, Gitanyow and Nisg̱a’a. But I think for a specific question relating to the land use planning process, I would encourage the member to ask the question to my colleague, the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, because that minister leads the land use planning process.

Pete Davis: So we’ve named the bands now. My question is: have you met with them? Have you had a meeting with them?

Has the minister had a meeting with these bands?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member.

The Chair: Hold on a second.

Members, there are still questions going on. We are in estimates, so I just ask that people keep their voices down.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thank you, hon. Chair. Thanks to the member for the question.

I have met with Tāłtān, Taku River Tlingit, Gitanyow and Nisga’a. I haven’t met with Kaska. I met these nations when I took over the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals. I met some of them during introductory meetings with First Nations.

The majority of those meetings were online. I also met with them when I went to Prince George to attend the Natural Resources Forum. Some of them I met with there. I also met with them during the First Nations Leadership Council summit during that time, but not for a specific discussion on land use planning. It was an overall discussion, which may include questions about land use planning.

Pete Davis: This will be my last question as I’m out of time. It’s been a great time. This is actually a question from a person in my riding.

Minister, mining provides good jobs and strong economic activity, especially in rural and resource-based communities, but by making it harder to explore, harder to get permits and harder to invest, this government is putting all of this at risk.

Is this government prepared to tell people in those communities that fewer jobs and less economic growth is just the cost of these new rules? Right now, it looks like your government is more focused on paperwork than people.

[4:35 p.m.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Welcome to the Chair. You came at the right time.

The Chair: Absolutely.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Just to conclude, I want to say that I’m very excited to be the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals. I want to say thanks to the Premier for giving me this opportunity. I want to say that I’ve tried my best, during the last five months, to reach out to the mining industry, the First Nations and all the other stakeholders, to understand the industry.

This industry, when we talk about mining and mineral exploration, is a founding part of the British Columbia economy. It took me quite a bit of time to understand the whole mining cycle. Now I have a clear understanding from the first step of the cycle, from the free miners doing mining and mineral exploration, to moving forward. Finally, the mine is built, and then, subsequently, we have production, and the product going to international markets.

It’s quite a long cycle moving forward, but I want to say to the member that I am fully committed to work with the First Nations and to work with the industry, to make sure that we provide them with fixed timelines, when it comes to the application process, and that those timelines are very competitive internationally with other equal jurisdictions. That’s my goal.

I also want to make sure that we ensure competitiveness — mining is very competitive globally — to make sure that their industry is very competitive, on whether to sell the product or bring in investment from other jurisdictions. It also provides stability and certainty moving forward. That’s the focus.

I am very happy to conclude the estimates debate. I want to say thanks to the member for his thoughtful and respectful, I would say, dialogue. I will be happy to continue working with the member moving forward, and I will be happy to listen to any concerns the member has, whether it’s any constituents or any issue, and I will be happy to work with the member on those.

With that, I would like to thank the Chair, to conclude estimates here. I want to say thanks to my staff members, who have been guiding me on what to say and what not to say during these two days. Thank you very much, and to the members on this side, listening very patiently.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 40: ministry operations, $61,012,000 — approved.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee recessed from 4:40 p.m. to 5:07 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 7 — Economic Stabilization
(Tariff Response) Act

The Chair: Good afternoon, almost evening, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 7, Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act to order.

On clause 1.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to start by giving my gratitude and thanks to the team that’s joining me here today and will be helping me through the committee stage of this bill.

We have Natalie Barnes, executive director, policy and legislative division, justice services branch; Isobel McIntyre, senior policy analyst, justice services branch; Jasmine Dadachanji, senior policy analyst, justice services branch; and Hana Blazkova, senior policy analyst, justice services branch.

Thank you all for being here.

Steve Kooner: I want to start by saying that I have heard a lot of concerns about this bill, concerns throughout this bill. I’ve had a lot of questions in the constituency, and just in going around and about in the Lower Mainland, there are significant concerns.

The themes of the concerns are essentially coming from the financial side. People are talking about the deficit. The deficit is $10.9 billion, but some people have projected that to be $14 billion, and people are wanting accountability. I’ve received messages that something needs to be done about the affairs of this province. There are a lot of people watching, they’re very concerned about the financial situation of this province, and they’re wanting fiscal accountability.

There are other issues I’ve heard about, particularly from a lot of people from my constituency of Richmond-Queensborough. They’ve heard about the tolls that were mentioned in this bill, they’ve read about it in the paper, and they’ve heard about it in the news stories.

I have the Massey Tunnel, the Knight Street Bridge and the Queensborough Bridge in my riding. I have Highway 99 in my riding, and Highway 91 in my riding, which leads up to the Alex Fraser Bridge. You can just imagine that by having so many crossings, there are a lot of people concerned.

So I wanted to start by addressing those concerns that I’ve been hearing. It’s not just about one aspect of this bill; it’s about the bill in its entirety. That’s why I feel that it’s relevant for me starting by talking about what those concerns are.

[5:10 p.m.]

My first question just goes to the title of this clause. It talks about an economic stabilization and a tariff response act. I would like to hear, when this title was being formulated, what the government was thinking. When they were putting that phrase together, what was the thinking behind it?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just seeking some guidance — are we on clause 1?

The Chair: Yes. Thank you, Minister.

To the member, generally we do the title last, and we start with clause 1, if we may.

Steve Kooner: I just want to set up a general theme and just talk about things generally throughout, and I know that the bill refers to Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act. It would help to answer some of these questions that I’m going to be asking just to get the intent behind the act, to lead into clause 1.

The Chair: Minister, do you choose to briefly respond to this and look at it more fully — at the title component?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Sure.

A few short months ago we received what was, really, an unprecedented threat of what the Premier has identified as economic warfare that was targeted directly at our economy. With the pace and speed of the executive orders that were coming out of the concentration of the power in the President’s office in the States…. What was a result of that was destabilization of our economy.

We as a government have been at many tables, whether it’s the Premier nationally, whether it’s our Minister of Jobs and Economic Development or our Finance Minister. Every table we’re to approach in a Team Canada way, how we respond to this direct economic destabilization that’s hitting our country and our province.

The purpose of this act was, really, accumulation of the work that is happening on all those tables. One of the things that we’ve heard loud and clear is that interprovincial trade barriers are a key way that we can stabilize the economy here in B.C. I think a lot of British Columbians would agree that…. Why aren’t we trading with one of the safest partners we could have, which is across provinces and territories, across Canada? We’ve focused on that, as part of the bill, for economic stabilization.

Procurement is another really powerful way that government can direct its resources towards supporting B.C. businesses and Canadian businesses and directing finances away from American entities that are seeking us harm. This is another way to stabilize the economy, through our own procurement.

Finally, another portion of this bill is to do with what is also a Team Canada approach and in search of the purpose of bringing about stabilization of the economy through lessening the measures that the President is taking against us. And part of that Team Canada approach was retaliatory measures that provinces put on the table that would help to show that we will fight back, that we’ll fight back at the measures that are being directed at us to destabilize our economy.

So this is a set of tools that the government can do to respond to the work that’s happening and the need to drop interprovincial trade barriers and also direct our procurement to stabilize the economy.

The Chair: Recognizing the member from Richmond-Queensborough on clause 1.

Steve Kooner: When the discussion is led on economic stabilization, is the Attorney General talking about the economic well-being of our province?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It is a direct response, this bill, to the destabilization efforts of the President of the United States upon all of Canada to destabilize our economy. We are responding with the tools that we have and, particularly, with interprovincial trade barriers, as I described earlier.

[5:15 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Would it not make sense to mention the foreign jurisdiction that we’re concerned about, the United States? Wouldn’t it make sense to mention the United States in here or to mention that this is to address the tariffs that are brought forward by the President of the United States? Doesn’t that make sense to kind of have that in this bill, if this bill is about a tariff response?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Chair, I seek your guidance here. I think when we go through section-by-section discussion, I’ll be able to reflect to the member about where we included this type of discussion and why different choices were made on language and definition.

Steve Kooner: Why I ask the question is…. It goes to the intent behind, asking every single question to every single clause. It’s important to know, because the act at the beginning talks about economic stabilization tariff response. So we have to know the answer of whether this particular bill specifically addresses a foreign entity.

Does it address the United States? As far as I’m aware, it doesn’t specifically address the United States in this bill.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Once we go through section by section, we’ll be able to get into detailed discussion about each provision. For example, the provisions related to interprovincial trade barriers are by their very nature going to talk about interprovincial trade and the work that we need to do to drop those trade barriers. Procurement, in particular, is going to be talking about Crown agencies and how they direct their procurement. I can take that question in context through clauses, and I think it will become clearer.

Kiel Giddens: I’m rising today as the Labour critic. As well, I’ll be asking questions. A big part of that is the fact that, obviously, the Labour portfolio is really about governing the relationship between employers and employees. That is a big part of this bill and particularly the interprovincial trade barrier provisions in the first parts of this bill. So I will have a number of questions.

I thank the minister for your time today and all the staff who are here as well.

I will be supporting the member for Richmond-Queensborough for the time being here. I am fully in support of the interprovincial trade barrier concept as a whole. This is a very important part of this overall discussion. We need to get it right in this bill, and that’s a big part of why I wanted to take part in this debate here.

Really, as a country we need to make it easier to trade between provinces. This is something that has been talked about for decades in Canada. I just want to reference the C.D. Howe report that came out recently. The minister may have been aware of it. It’s called Eyes on the Prize: A Game Plan to Speed Up Removal of Internal Trade Barriers in Canada. I just want to quote it, again, for the record, because it speaks to how important this actual part 1 of the bill is, starting on clause 1.

To quote the C.D. Howe: “Removing all obstacles to trade between provinces and territories that might be susceptible to policy intervention could increase the Canadian GDP by up to $200 billion annually, a 7.9 percent boost. The impact would be far-reaching, helping on a range of downstream issues that Canadians care about, like housing affordability, health care worker shortages, supply chain resilience, real wage growth, consumer choice, productivity and industrial competitiveness.”

All of that does really matter. As we’re talking about economic uncertainty, we are in a phase where we’ve had the lowest private sector job growth we’ve seen in some time in this province. I think interprovincial trade is at a time when we can actually remove some of those, as the C.D. Howe has referenced. At a time of that economic uncertainty, I think as legislators we have to really get this section right.

I’ll start maybe by asking in relation to clause 1, I think, and speaking to the overall part of part 1 here. I’m just wondering if the government has done an impact study of B.C.’s GDP from the interprovincial trade portions of this bill and how that will be factored in.

[5:20 p.m. - 5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: So just agreeing with the member, and welcome to the debate.

I agree with the member about the interprovincial trade barriers being a significant problem in Canada but also that this is an opportunity to really tackle reducing those barriers to drive the economy.

Interesting discussion over here about what the information is we have so far to date. Right now, I can tell the member that JEDI, the ministry, is working through a B.C.-specific study to understand what it would look like if we reduce trade barriers in B.C. in terms of impacts to the economy. It’ll look at that also in the context of tariffs and what that drive will be. When that report comes out, of course, we’d be happy to provide it to the other side.

I think, generally, the statistics show that, right now, I think it’s $19.4 billion that B.C. trades internally, so we’re able to capture that market. The estimates now say that if you were to drop interprovincial trade barriers in Canada, you would add between 4.4 percent or up to 7, close to 8 percent, to the economy in Canada. Studies also show that it may actually increase costs to Canadians by having interprovincial trade barriers and the goods and services applied to those barriers.

I agree with the member. This is a really good opportunity for us to look at all of the ways that interprovincial trade barriers show up across ministries.

What this bill does is create a tool that balances our ability to drop trade barriers quickly, but also gives ministries the time to do the policy work necessary to figure out what are the ways we can work through the regulatory legislative regimes in order to make that permanent, if necessary, but also show the impacts, like the member was asking.

It would be a way to actually test out, when we drop certain trade barriers through the tools of this bill, what the impact is on the economy and understand how it’s impacting British Columbians.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the minister’s answer.

It would be great to see that report when JEDI has completed it. I think the member from Kelowna-Mission is here as well, as the JEDI critic, and will have actually questions as well, just so you’re aware, as we get through here.

I think there is a big economic opportunity if we can get internal trade right, because it’s really so consequential.

I’m wondering…. In the overall context of the government’s performance or the province’s performance, private sector job growth has not been good since 2019. We’ve seen the rate of public sector job creation to private sector is very challenging, very limited private sector growth.

With this in mind, I’m wondering if the intent, obviously, overall, with internal trade unlocking that, if we can get a little bit more on the job side of it with JEDI’s report too — if that’s something that they’re including in their projections? I think that would be helpful.

I’m wondering if the minister can confirm that would be the case?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just confirming for the member. The study will look at industry impact, GDP and employment.

Gavin Dew: I begin by looking at the very definition of regulatory measure that we start with, which I find very broad, and it takes me to a conversation about the breadth of this bill and the breadth of the intention behind this bill, which I’d like to better understand from the minister and, in particular, which I’d like to understand in light of the government’s failure to use its existing powers to address opportunities to support B.C. business from day one.

As the critic for Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation, I’m particularly concerned about the fact that we as a province have come into this tariff crisis in a very weak position. We’ve come in with the record of a government that has generated 41 percent more public sector employment with virtually zero private sector job growth. We’ve come in with a very frustrated business community, and I think we’ve seen, in terms of the public reaction to this bill not only in its breadth but also in terms of part-by-part analysis, a general sentiment that people do not want overreach to be done in their name, and that pushback has been very substantial.

Although there is a broad conversation about the first draft of the bill and the second, I would take it back to some of the things that have been said publicly about this bill. There has been commentary in the media from Glacier Media group about the rise of triple-A governments — autocratic, authoritarian, absolutist — and the idea that this bill does away with democracy for the next couple of years in the province.

The idea that the Premier has strayed so far from his roots, gone so far to the other side, that if he doesn’t walk back his bill when the Legislature resumes, it will be a telltale sign he has lost the plot. And I will certainly touch on that as it relates to the question of breadth in both the prior and the current version of the bill. We saw from Victoria Times Colonist the characterization of this bill as an unnecessary power grab and the move of an aspiring autocrat.

What I worry about, as we speak even to part one of the bill and ask questions about it, is what the comfort level is of stakeholders who, like many of us, want to see interprovincial trade barriers addressed but have concerns about whether or not the overall balance around breadth and scope has been met in that regard.

We heard from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce that while it is clear Trump’s trade war has spurred an economic emergency, it is not clear to us that the sweeping powers are required or justified. We heard from the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade that the introduction of Bill 7 and the sweeping powers it would have conferred to the cabinet have raised significant questions about responsible democratic governance and created significant uncertainty for the business community.

If in fact our objective in this bill is to achieve economic stabilization, I worry significantly that we have groups reading this bill and responding that would actually destabilize and create greater uncertainty in our economy.

From the Business Council of British Columbia, we heard that Canada’s reputation as a stable and reliable place for investment depends on the stability and accountability embedded in our institutions, including in our system of parliamentary democracy and that now is not the time to weaken them.

What I find worrisome, as I look at even the basic definitions, the breadth of definitions around virtually anything, any other procedure being covered under this, is that there continue to be issues around breadth and reach. And I reflect for a moment on that statement that was made by Glacier Media to the effect that the Premier has strayed so far from his roots.

So I thought I would look back, when it comes to breadth, when it comes to accountable government, at some of the things that the Premier has said in the past. Today he says, “In extraordinary times, we need extraordinary powers,” but I believe that if the Premier were to look at his past record, he would certainly question his current approach.

I think back to his time as head of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association when, during protests around the Olympics, he said: “The movement for accountability in government, the movement for a fair and equal society needs to be one that can withstand criticism, one where we need to be able to stand up and say: ‘You know what? That’s not right, and that does not help us achieve our goals.’”

[5:35 p.m.]

I find it surprising that a Premier who argued true democracy requires government to accept criticism rather than suppress it has now brought forward Bill 7, which, in any form, continues to overreach.

The Chair: Member, if I can have your attention for a minute, please.

At this stage of the debate, the committee is really focused on the consideration of clause 1. While members may want to ask questions about the background of the bill, I am listening very carefully — thank you — and I’m prepared to exercise some latitude. However, it’s also important that the committee debate align with the specific clauses under consideration and not be going back to second reading if we can.

Interjection.

The Chair: If I may continue, please, Member.

Should a member’s question better align with a subsequent clause of the bill, I will not hesitate to advise the member to raise their question once we are in the relevant clause.

As a Chair, I do encourage the members to ensure that we do not repeat second reading debate nor take time to consider clauses which still remain before the committee. There are 30 clauses in this bill, and I would really…. We will proceed on clause 1, please.

Thank you, Member.

Gavin Dew: Thank you, Madam Chair. I look forward to debating each and every clause in depth and to interrogating the philosophical nature behind each and every one of those clauses.

At this stage, I am certainly focused on the very definition of regulatory measures and its breadth, which includes “a directive, requirement, guideline, program, policy, administrative practice and any other procedure.” I go back to trying to understand the motivation and the mindset behind this bill at its inception and in its subsequent iterations.

I think back to the Premier’s words, back in that time, when he said: “Solidarity means more like the Bush administration. You’re either with us, or you’re against us, and any critique you give is just giving confidence to those that oppose our agenda. I don’t buy into that at all.” So as I look at part 1 of the bill and as we examine this and as we struggle with what is and is not in scope right now, I wonder whether the Premier would recognize his old self in the self that he has brought to the table in advancing this bill.

Certainly, I can think back to July of 2013, when the Premier said: “It’s frustrating, as an opposition member, to come into this chamber and have a piece of legislation dropped on us with no previous consultation, no previous discussion and be told it’s a done deal.” I think back to his statement to the effect that it’s a pattern of this government to move ahead without talking to people who are directly affected by the decisions we make.

The Chair: Member, I’m sorry. You’re straying back into second reading territory. This discussion has been held. So if you could bring it back to clause 1, rather than bringing forward repetition of second reading, that would be appreciated. Thank you so much.

Gavin Dew: I will happily get to my point with regard to interprovincial trade barriers. I think back to the Premier’s statement of May 2014, when he said: “This government is once again showing its willingness to override independent bodies and centralize power in the hands of a few ministers who think they know better than the people who live and work on the land.”

I think about his statement in November of 2014 to the effect that what we see is a government that’s prepared to ram through legislation, giving itself unchecked authority to negotiate behind closed doors, all while locking future governments into deals the public has no say over.

I think, in fact, of his words in February of 2015, when he said that the government has a long history of saying one thing and doing another when it comes to openness and transparency, and that this bill is no exception. At the time, he was not referring to Bill 7 but to Bill 5, the Government Information Act.

I think back to March of 2016 when he said: “Why is it that every time this government talks about openness, it feels like a public relations exercise?”

The Chair: Member, if I were to review Hansard, I suspect I would see some of this discussion in second reading. I really do ask you to move beyond the second reading debate and move into your queries around clause 1.

Gavin Dew: Very well. I’ll start with a query.

The Chair: Thank you. I’ll try to be a little more direct next time, perhaps.

Gavin Dew: Very well.

I will focus now on interprovincial trade barriers, bearing in mind that one of the key areas that interprovincial trade barriers really touch on and one of the examples often held up in our discussion of interprovincial trade barriers is that of our wine, beer and spirits industries.

[5:40 p.m.]

I think back to the long shadow of the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, which was passed in 1928.

I’m often fond of reminding people that that same year, 1928, was the year that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that women were not persons for the purposes of serving in the Supreme Court. We are governed and affected by the long shadow of stale and archaic legislation, and certainly we have the opportunity through addressing interprovincial trade barriers to break down some of those archaic approaches, both those that are found in federal legislation, but also those that are found in protectionism by provincial liquor monopolies.

Now, one of the questions I’d like to really get a better understanding around, in light of this conversation around interprovincial trade barriers for liquor is that…. We have seen a conversation where that has been cited as an example. We have talked about the importance of part 1 in addressing interprovincial trade barriers, thus strengthening those industries, but I would really like to understand what the mindset is of the government with regard to the trade-off or the balance between actions taken based on powers enumerated in Bill 7 and those that could be taken today.

It is notable to me that we’ve had extensive conversation about the importance of interprovincial trade barriers. We’ve talked about liquor as an example. The government has taken the political gesture of removing American red-state spirits from B.C. Liquor Stores, and yet no action has been taken in order to actually create opportunity for B.C.–based small businesses like our craft distillers.

So I’m wondering if the Attorney General could touch on the balance of powers needed in this bill versus powers that already exist in order to engage in economic stabilization at this time of a tariff threat.

And if in the course of enumerating the difference between actions that can be taken based on powers enabled by Bill 7 and those powers that already exist, we might perhaps get some level of explanation as to why some month after the government removed American liquor from B.C. Liquor Store shelves, they have not advanced any policy to replace that American liquor on B.C. Liquor Store shelves with products produced in British Columbia, thus creating economic opportunity for B.C.–based small businesses — the very businesses they say they want to support through interprovincial trade barrier strategies to be undertaken under Bill 7.

So if the minister could please just provide a little bit of overall coverage in that regard with a focus on the need for the powers enumerated in part 1 of the bill relative to powers already existing and the logic the government went through in order to arrive at the conclusion that it presumably required Bill 7 to be passed before it could take action in support of B.C.’s small craft producers of goods like spirits.

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s very clear, I think, to everybody — not only in the Legislature but across the country and in fact across the world — that we are not in regular times right now. We are not in a regular time period with respect to trade and the economy. What’s going on right now is a massive destabilization of the world trade order and the economy as we speak. British Columbia is certainly a party to that, unfortunately. So this threat puts us in the position of having to respond very quickly.

[5:45 p.m.]

The member asked a question about how we balance the powers and the tools of this legislation in order to do that — which is, I think, what his point is — along with the long-term regulatory and legislative reform that would be necessary for a lot of industries. I’ll start answering that question with what we have as the definition for regulatory measure, because I think that really exemplifies it. I think it was kind of a question that was asked about what is a regulatory measure that you would want to drop when it comes to an interprovincial trade barrier.

In fact, it’s many things, and this is made out in many discussions and many analyses. It could be a directive. It could be a requirement. It could be a labelling requirement. It could be a requirement for a certification on a product. It could be a whole range of things that are making it so a B.C. product can’t make it to a market in another province or vice versa.

So the reason for the definition being broad of regulatory measure exactly is to make it as a tool for the problem that we are trying to solve. And in that solving of the problem, what the bill does is give government the ability to act quickly, to drop trade barriers, and through regulation, protect things that we may think we need to, outside of through an exemption process and a regulatory process, and then allow ministers to do the long-term work of changing the regimes that govern certain products.

Every single good and service is very complicated. The member raised one, which is liquor. Liquor has age requirements, which we would want to make sure stayed. I’m sure most people would think that — about the minimum age you could be to buy alcohol.

There are other things about getting products to other markets across Canada that we’re committed to doing. So what we struck with the balance of the legal tools of this bill was the ability to act quickly, coupled by the ability to have space to do that longer-term regulatory and legislative work that we know needs to happen to permanently drop those trade barriers.

I just want to note that the opposition leader introduced a bill that was similar to what was in Nova Scotia, which was dropping interprovincial trade barriers that way. I think it’s instructive also to talk about why we took a different approach to that bill.

We know that the best thing — and a lot of business leaders are telling us this — is for us to move quickly on dropping trade barriers. The Nova Scotia bill does that in a blanket way, but it also requires reciprocity. So it says that it would only be in effect if another province has reciprocal dropping of barriers.

What we have tooled this legislation to do is to do something different and quicker so we can respond quicker for British Columbian companies through the different tools and not wait for reciprocity. It gives the flexibility to do both — act quickly and do the long-term work that’s necessary.

Gavin Dew: I’m slightly confused by the liquor examples provided by the Attorney General. The premise here seems to be that liquor is complicated because of issues around age and access and because of issues around other markets.

The question I’m trying to understand with regard to the balance of using powers enumerated in Bill 7 versus those already existing to government is that if we’re talking about the distribution of B.C.-produced craft liquor through B.C. Liquor Stores, I can think of no reason why access by age would be an issue, given that we have a robust system of B.C. Liquor Stores that check IDs and that do all of those things.

And we’re not talking about other markets. What we’re talking about is an existing government distribution system. Were there to be concerns about access to liquor through B.C. Liquor Stores on the basis of age, I can imagine that would be setting off alarm bells in this government.

So I’m really not sure that I entirely understand how being able to address putting B.C. small business–produced liquor on B.C. Liquor Store shelves in an existing robust, well-run system is in any way, shape or form affected by the powers enumerated in Bill 7.

Perhaps I’ll just ask the Attorney General to try again on helping me understand the difference between those things that could be done with existing powers and those that require new powers, and to the government’s mindset behind that thinking.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to the member’s question, I think his question had less to do with interprovincial trade barriers, because he’s talking about putting B.C. products on B.C. shelves. So just to say, I don’t think that we would look to the tools, necessarily, of this legislation to do that, unless there’s a labelling requirement or something that’s in the way of that extraprovincially — that we can sit on other liquor stores and other shelves. Then it might come into play here.

But just to report, because the member asked, BCL has committed to adding B.C. and Canadian products to the shelves. I think it’s over 90 B.C.-made wines, beers and spirits that will be added to the shelves by the end of April. The rest of the products that they’re adding to the shelves will be moving as soon as possible.

To the point of other tools, we’re using every tool in our toolkit to respond to the threat, and the interprovincial trade barriers is one of them. This legislation gives us tools to deal with that.

Gavin Dew: By the end of April seems very slow. That’s about, almost two months, six weeks in order to move on that.

Regardless, I want to circle back again, trying to understand the underlying logic behind the bill. The Attorney General touched on the idea that we are not in regular times, and I would fully agree. We are certainly not in regular times, but we have been in regular times. In fact, this government has been in some regular times, some irregular times for the last eight years, during which it has had at its disposal the entire toolkit of government to engage in problem-solving and, indeed, to engage in preparation for a moment such as this — for a crisis.

I think about the extent to which we came into this situation in a very, very weak position. We came in with anemic economic growth. We came in with virtually zero private sector job growth over the life of this government. We came in with massive deficits and an enlarged public sector. We came in with the government having spent the rainy-day fund when it was sunny and then racking up yet more on the people’s credit card.

So I am somewhat confused, and I want to understand the mindset of the government and of the Attorney General behind the drafting of the bill and, indeed, part 1 of the bill. I recall hearing the Premier speak in November about his desire for a reset with the business community after a near-death political experience.

[5:55 p.m.]

I recall seeing this shift toward this not being regular times. If, in fact, we are not in regular times, and if, in fact, we are talking about solving solutions using Bill 7 that were not solved in regular times with tools available in regular times, was it the Attorney General’s belief or the belief of the government going into the drafting of this bill that government had, in fact, failed in regular times with its regular toolkit?

The Chair: Member, I continue to listen very carefully to your debate and would like to remind the member that the committee is considering the first clause of Bill 7. Please ensure your comments are specific to Bill 7 — no, don’t do that — and its first clause.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member.

Gavin Dew: Did you want me to respond?

The Chair: I think, probably, the minister has the question.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m waiting for the question.

The Chair: You’re waiting on the question.

Yes, you may carry on. Just please stick with the clause.

Gavin Dew: Fantastic. In light of part 1 and in light of our definition around regulatory measures — including a directive, requirement, guideline, program, policy, administrative practice and any other procedure to be used in terms of addressing interprovincial trade barriers — did the government believe, in drafting this, that it had failed to make progress around interprovincial trade barriers using its existing toolkit of regular times powers?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That definition that goes back to clause 1 of the bill comes from the Canadian free trade agreement, which was put into effect in 2017.

As a jurisdiction that is at the table, with trade agreements both internally and internationally, B.C. has been a very responsible partner when it comes to trade. I think the opportunity that we find ourselves in is unprecedented cooperation amongst provinces and the federal government with one goal in mind, which is tackling those interprovincial trade barriers that beforehand, though there were efforts through other trade agreements, we made progress on. The opportunity before British Columbians and B.C. businesses and, in fact, the country is to work in a quicker way to drop those interprovincial trade barriers.

I’m really heartened — and I know the ministers that are working on this directly — by the speed and the cooperation that ministers across this country and Premiers across this country are focused on, really, the task at hand, which is to create a stronger economy through dropping these trade barriers.

What you find in the bill are very similar things to what I just said. The definition comes from the Canadian free trade agreement of regulatory measures. As we are working, this bill gives us the tools to implement the things that are happening on other tables with respect to the negotiations of dropping interprovincial trade barriers.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the Attorney General for providing the information…

The Chair: Through the Chair, perhaps.

Kiel Giddens: …through the Chair, of course. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for providing where the definition came from. That’s useful information.

I think that the Attorney also referenced Nova Scotia’s bill and cooperation with other provinces, so I do have some questions that are related to that. Across Canada, they’re having similar discussions, but looking at how we address internal trade barriers, we have to look at what makes sense within Canada.

The Attorney General also referenced Bill M203, what the Leader of the Opposition put forward, the Free Trade and Mobility Within Canada Act. Of course, that was another option for the Legislature. That was modelled off of Nova Scotia’s bill, and that was a detailed bill. It was a relatively straightforward bill. And the Attorney referenced reciprocity, so we could talk a little bit about that.

[6:00 p.m.]

Before we do, I really want to talk about that cooperation with other provinces, that Team Canada approach. B.C. has to be cautious here. I appreciate that moving quickly is very important, but doing things in a way that is logical with the other provinces is also important.

Can the minister explain how the bill aligns with the Team Canada approach that the government has been participating in, presumably along with the federal, provincial and territorial governments?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Thanks for the good question. I’m happy to describe the whole process that’s going on. This bill is a legal tool, but it’s not everything that’s happening, and the member asked about how everything is going to be integrated.

The Minister of JEDI and our government are at the table with a lot of FPTs right now that are hard at work across provinces to really reconcile the regulatory environment, so to figure out what the ways are that these regulations stand in a way across jurisdictions. That includes foreign credentials, financial services, labour and transportation, to name some of them. Those groups will really be very useful because they will do the deep work of understanding it.

To the point of the difference between the Nova Scotia bill, we are not waiting for reciprocity through the tools of this bill, as the Nova Scotia legislation did, because we want to send a signal that B.C. is open for business and that we are not going to wait. Reciprocity can take a long time sometimes. We’ve seen that with some of the…. Through successive governments, B.C. has, I’m told, been a leader at the table of the Canadian free trade agreement and those discussions, and only very recently have some other jurisdictions entered that discussion or come to the table.

The bill is structured in a way to give us the tools to act quickly through the dropping of trade barriers with the protection of having the minister in charge of that policy work be able to implement exceptions through regulation through that dropping of trade barriers in part 1. Then they will be tasked with the longer-term work of changing the regulatory regime because, as this is a bill that sunsets at a certain time, they will have to do the change of that regulatory work and legislative work to make those changes permanent.

It gives the ability to act quickly and implement anything that comes at those other tables, the FPT tables. We don’t have to wait for reciprocity to do that. Just to note that I’m told that the Nova Scotia legislation…. They amended their legislation subsequently because of the concern over some of the regulated professions and differences in jurisdictions and, I think, perceptions of different safety.

Every time you dive into a legislative or regulatory environment with a specific topic, it becomes very complicated. There are usually very complicated regimes that govern or legislate related to that issue. You need to move fast, which is what we see, in the context of the threats we’re facing. You also need to give the tools necessary to adjust or make changes along the way so that you are maximizing the potential of dropping those interprovincial trade barriers for British Columbia.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the Attorney General for the answer, definitely following my line of questioning. I appreciated the detail with that response.

Just a little bit more on reciprocity though. As we are embarking on this with the other provinces, I can appreciate those FPT tables with the other entities — a lot going on at the moment.

Our ability to stay in step with that…. I wasn’t aware of Nova Scotia’s recent amendment to their bill that they passed just in February.

But just in respect to where they’re at, I know New Brunswick is following Nova Scotia’s lead. I know Ontario is very much on that kind of same line. Respecting these other provinces, I just want to reflect on Nova Scotia’s act. Clause 2 of their act states: “All goods manufactured or produced in a reciprocating province or territory that may have met the requisite standards and approvals of that jurisdiction shall be treated as if those goods were manufactured or produced in the province and shall not be subject to any additional fees or testing by the province due to the goods having been manufactured or produced in another province or territory.”

My question on that is with reciprocity.

[6:10 p.m.]

I understand the government’s overall position as explained by the Attorney General, and speed is sort of the answer. But I’m trying to match where other provinces are currently at, getting things done in a cooperative Team Canada approach.

I’m wondering how, really, this part of the bill works with the other provinces in terms of mutual recognition of goods or services trading between provinces.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Chair, maybe some guidance. Are we done with clause 1, then, since we’re moving on to clause 2?

The Chair: No, no, we’re still working on clause 1.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, through the Chair, if you could, please.

Kiel Giddens: Just to clarify, the reason I ask is, as we get into the definition and regulatory measures, I want to make sure that we’re using similar language and understanding, in relation to other provinces, what our legislation is intending compared to those other jurisdictions.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, we took a different approach than that. I think it’s mostly because we wanted to be a leader when it came to dropping these trade barriers. And I think one could view the requirement of reciprocity as another barrier that has been kind of continuing when we have these discussions of free trade in Canada, which is that unless another province has moved a certain way, we’re not going to do it. So we’re just taking a different approach.

What we’re saying is that we will be at every table, and we’ll be leaders at every table, and we will make sure that if there’s mutual recognition of certain barriers, that we can come to agreement across the provinces. I think that’s great, and this will give us the tools to move quickly on them.

But if we see that there’s an opportunity for a B.C. business or something to protect our economy, we won’t need that reciprocity provision to drop that trade barrier. It still gives the minister responsible the flexibility of a regulatory-making power to design it in a way that maybe acknowledges the areas that we have reciprocal agreements across provinces and areas that we would want to move quicker on.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the Attorney General for the response.

I do think that, again, reciprocity with the other provinces is still crucial to this working properly.

I just want to reflect on the way Nova Scotia has been transparent about their intentions with the act. They state: “The purpose of this act is to remove all barriers to trade in goods, services and investment between the provinces and territories of Canada.” I think that’s a very straightforward, very clean, good purpose of the bill.

One of the issues with the bill before us is that this is convoluted by the fact that we have an internal interprovincial trade barriers part and we’re speaking to the definition of regulatory measures right now. But it’s part of a very confusing and challenging bill for British Columbians to understand.

I think it’s important for us to understand why the government didn’t choose to have dedicated internal trade legislation as other provinces are doing and how B.C. has actually, in fact, done in the past when tackling some of these challenges.

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are a few reasons for the question posed — why we landed where we did. One is that we had broader policy objectives in this legislation than just the interprovincial trade barriers, given the time we’re in.

I think that you’ll note that in the Nova Scotia legislation the part on interprovincial trade barriers is not bigger or shorter than ours. It’s about the same in terms of provisions, but we added the procurement and the tolling because of tooling ourselves up with the legislative tools necessary in ways that we think we may need to respond. We are responding with procurement in the context of the trade war that we’re in right now. So the first answer is broader policy objectives with this bill so that it’s not a standalone, just interprovincial trade piece of legislation.

I’ve said it before, and I’m going to say it again: reciprocity is, in effect, a version of a trade barrier, we would view. So this gives us the flexibility if there is an industry or there is a particular….

What we’ve seen with the executive orders is the direct targeting of certain things. It changes every day. I think there was something recently about smartphones. What we know from the behaviour of this current trade war that we’re in is that there may be tools that are directed at us to target specific industries or target specific issues. Lumber and our forest industry is an example of that.

So if we designed a piece of legislation that made it so our ability to act was limited to if there was reciprocity across provinces, we wouldn’t be able to have the minister drop that trade barrier that was stopping our product from going to another economy and finding another market. We wouldn’t be able to do that.

[6:20 p.m.]

We think it actually unlocks a more powerful tool than what is found in some of the other legislation, although we’re working across the way. I’m told from the team at JEDI that we are always at the Canadian free trade agreement table.

So actually, the tool that we’ve put in here, working together with those discussions that are happening there, might make it more powerful to be at that table, because once we arrive at particular abilities or understand where the exact trade barriers are that need to be dropped to strengthen our economy and stabilize it, we can go in and do it. That’s going to bring more power to free trade and our ability to participate in that in the country.

Rob Botterell: Thank you for the opportunity to begin the discussion around Bill 7. Really, clause 1 defines the terms that flow throughout the entire act as it relates to interprovincial trade barriers.

It seems to me that as we work through the act, a lot is going to be focused not on the wisdom of reducing interprovincial trade barriers — I don’t think there’s anybody who would think that’s a bad idea; it’s more about the how.

It would be helpful to have an example of the regulatory measures in various categories. More specifically, once a particular area is identified as being a candidate for part 1, how will the assessment of these various types of measures be done to determine which are which and how they might be dealt with?

The question, just to be really specific, is: can you illustrate the application of this definition with an example?

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Welcome to the member, to the debate. It was nice to work with him through this piece of legislation.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

I think I’ll start by describing the approach that’s being taken here. I’m told that the way it’s phrased is a “negative list” approach. It sounds like a very trade agreement–style way of saying that it’s just that barriers are dropped. Right now the ministers are tasked, mostly through JEDI speaking with different ministries, with where you might want to put regulatory exceptions in, so as to keep the protections. There may be good examples, like public safety.

Once you look at all the possible trade barriers, you can create the idea of that negative list of what you’re putting through regulation as being protected in the province. That’s the kind of approach that’s being taken right now. I’m told that, like I said, JEDI is meeting with all the ministries to figure that out and do that analysis. There would probably be any number of reasons, like I said: public safety, interests of reducing burdens on business, things like that.

Peter Milobar: A couple of questions for the minister on clause 1 as well.

I’m just wondering, the minister has referenced a lot of times — and I’m certainly well aware of the committee — the national committee of all the trade ministers. It started in 2017, and it’s ongoing until now.

In light of the timelines around when we first started hearing an impetus to seriously try to address interprovincial trade across the country, especially in relation to the tariff situation, when was the drafting on Bill 7 started, and when was it completed?

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just in response to the member’s question, Trump was President at the end of January. I think there was talk already around there about the direct threats to Canada. So the work ramped up pretty quickly after that, and I’m told by JEDI that they started meeting on interprovincial trade barriers as part of their response. The policy work would have started there, which is surprisingly not that long ago, although it might feel to all of us as a long time ago.

To the specific question, the minute a minister or a minister’s office starts receiving legal advice for drafting, it’s under solicitor-client privilege. I can’t reveal the exact date that we started drafting because of that privilege, but what I can say is that because of the nature of the situation we’re in and how quickly it turned, the response and the policy work started shortly after the President was in office. And the Premier and the ministers have been kind of at every table trying to figure out the coordinated response to this.

So what you see in the policy pieces reflected in this bill related to procurement, the retaliatory response that we offered with the tolling and the interprovincial trade barriers are a result of all that work.

Peter Milobar: Thank you, and I appreciate that we’ll get to those sections later and parts. It’s a bit of an interesting bill because there are parts — part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 — and then there are the clauses. Anyway, there’ll be a lot of interplay, I’m sure, with some of the phrasing, not meant to be problematic by any means.

In terms of clause 1, though, and the definition of the regulatory measure, the reason I was asking…. It ties into what some of my colleagues were pointing out as well. The minister herself has referenced that we have a trade group that’s been meeting since 2017, yet no actual urgency provincially or nationally on removing interprovincial trade barriers and regulatory measures until a presidential change. We could have been facing a 23 percent tariff equivalent drag on our economy for years, theoretically.

[6:35 p.m.]

I guess I ask that because…. Again, the minister references that 2017 working group. I would point out that one regulatory measure that that group actually came to an agreement on was back on September 26, 2024. A lot of provinces signed off on it; B.C. didn’t. Now, I recognize we were in the middle of a writ period at that point. I publicly said that in interviews previously. But it’s been a long time since the election ended. So, even before the presidential threats from the United States, we have a trucking agreement out there — B.C. is not a signatory to it — which is supposed to recognize regulatory measures within the trucking industry across Canada. B.C. is one of the only provinces and territories that haven’t.

Somehow it’s going to speed up trucking between the Yukon and Alberta when B.C. hasn’t signed on. We’re actually an impediment. We have the ports, but we don’t have a trucking agreement with Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Manitoba, the Yukon — like I say, just about every province. That was signed in September by all these other provinces. B.C. still hasn’t.

How do the definition and the regulatory measure in clause 1 help at all? The minister says we’re going to be leaders at all these tables when, apparently, we’re not a leader at the trucking table — what is it now? — eight, nine months after that agreement’s been signed by all these other provinces.

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: So just to start off, with the member talking about the state of interprovincial trade…. I think just generally in Canada — and I guess I could share some agreement…. I think that probably, collectively as a country, we could have had better opportunities to participate in interprovincial trade. And my understanding in successive governments is that B.C. has been a leader and always at the table with dropping interprovincial trade barriers, but certainly, we’re in a different time of opportunity.

We dug into the question, I think, as a fit into the definition here about the trucking agreement. My understanding is that we are participating in that pilot program. B.C. is at the table when it comes to that. We couldn’t directly…. The term sign on is used, but I’m told there’s nothing to sign. But there’s a trucking pilot project that B.C. is very much at the table at right now, and I think that’s the one that the member is referring to.

And again, the definition in clause 1 is directly from the Canadian free trade agreement.

Peter Milobar: With clause 1, that the removal of “‘regulatory measures’ includes a directive, requirement, guideline, program, policy, administrative practice and any other procedure,” is the intention, then, of the government with this change of the definition that it would be removed completely?

In other words, credentialing would be an immediate recognition, or that credentialing would just be sped up, particularly as it relates to, say, some of the more professional aspects of interprovincial labour markets in terms of professional credentialing that might be different between B.C. or in Alberta or B.C. and in Ontario?

Is the intention with clause 1 to get that to zero days? It’s a direct line? Or is it that instead of a maybe six-month wait for credentialing, it gets dropped down to one month?

[6:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just throwing out again — I wonder if we are done with clause 1, because I find myself going into the other sections to answer this particular question, which I’m very happy to do.

The answer to the question about how the act is designed for credentialing is in section 2(4) and then later on in section 3 and 4. To be read all together, it sets out the regime that would be in place if the bill was passed.

So, just to explain it, it would say there are, basically, two streams.

There’s the stream that is under section 2(4), which is for supply of services. Within that one, there may be a labour mobility issue where there’s a credentialing or certification or something that is embedded in that service, the ability of that person that’s providing the service to provide that service. The way it’s structured, that would just be dropped, so it wouldn’t be a matter of a timeline. It just removes it, subject to any exceptions that were put in place by the minister responsible, related to that particular service or individual, that credentialing.

Then clause 3 is related to how we would go about it if it’s not us that controls that, if it’s a regulatory body or some other agency that controls that credentialing. It sets out a process to direct that agency under certain timelines.

And then the final way that the question may apply is under the Labour Mobility Act. Just to explain that, the way we constructed this bill was to keep the Labour Mobility Act and the regulated professions that are within that separate from this piece of work. That discussion and those agreements that are related to regulated professions do set out timelines, and it’s a matter of the compliance of the regulatory bodies, but they are not under the other sections.

The Chair: Sorry, if we could call a brief recess….

Peter Milobar: Yeah, I just didn’t want to lose the spot, so that’s fine.

The Chair: I appreciate it.

So if we could call a brief recess and have everyone return by seven o’clock, please.

The committee recessed from 6:48 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: Good evening, Members. I call the committee back to order. We are considering Bill 7.

On clause 1 (continued).

Steve Kooner: I just have a few clarification questions from the previous members that were debating the bill with the Attorney General.

The Attorney General referred to a negative list, also referred to possible overlap in legislation and also referred to filling out a framework, whereas the legislation would be provided, and ministers would then fill in the gaps.

I just have a question in relation to that. Would the ministers have all the discretion when they’re making further regulations, unilaterally, or will there still be some legislative oversight on that process?

Hon. Niki Sharma: What is going on right now is a very highly coordinated and integrated process that I was describing earlier, related to multiple stakeholders and multiple tables, including ministers and also our trade and economic security task force.

In that task force, we rely on leaders in the business community, labour, First Nations and the full list of the participants of that task force to help us formulate our response, even down to specific items that are in need of addressing through interprovincial trade barriers.

Just like the course of any regulation, this is a cabinet regulation. So the minister is empowered through this legislation to make that regulation, and it will work in coordination with all of the different tables that that minister is on and the stakeholders that they’re talking with about which measures — in this case, through the regulation for exemptions.

[7:05 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: A follow-up question. Unlike other legislation that is fairly detailed, and then regulations are made after the fact, in this case, the case that we’re dealing with right now, it’s a piece of legislation that really needs the blanks to be filled in. So that is a bit of a concern.

My question to the Attorney General: what legislative oversight will there be on further regulations moving forward? Will there be further legislative oversight? This is not the same situation as other legislation that’s well-debated before and well-crafted in detail. There are a lot of details missing here.

The question, again, is essentially: will there be some legislative oversight to how ministers put forward their regulations?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I expect that the member knows the usual process when it comes to legislation and regulation and what that balance is, so I won’t go over the explanation of what that means in terms of how the legislation oversees the powers that are granted to a minister in the legislative process.

But what I will say is that the Leader of the Opposition introduced a bill that was very similar to the Nova Scotia bill that was, I would say, in our estimation, even vaguer, more vague than the bill and the process that we’re putting in place here, where that legislation drops all trade barriers without any legislative specificity, and then it just waits for reciprocity.

What we have is a deeper process that’s quicker, lets us respond quicker, but also helps us drop those interprovincial trade barriers and enact the things we need to enact quickly.

Steve Kooner: A follow-up question. So there is going to be no further legislative oversight in terms of these further regulations that are drafted. I understand the process of how regulations are made, and they are made through the Lieutenant Governor in Council. I understand that process. But the difference here is that this legislation is not fairly detailed. It doesn’t have the proper framework, and now it’s being put forward, and the ministers are going to get the authority to kind of fill in the blanks.

Again the question: will there be further legislative oversight from the Legislative Assembly in regard to further regulations that will be made in the future, in regard to Bill 7 here?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Three times with that question, but I’ll try it again.

The way that the legislation and the regulatory process works…. I won’t go through that in detail, but what I can add is that if, once we get to the further clauses of the bill…. I’m not sure where we’re situated with the actual clause right now. It sounds like we’re having a general discussion, but once we get further down in the bill, I will be able to articulate where the legislative processes would fit in of the ministers bringing forward the legislative changes that they would want to make, with the permanent changes that they bring forward to the regulatory or legislative regime, which would, of course, have legislative oversight.

I’m happy to move on so we can get into it.

Gavin Dew: Just for my own edification and clarification, in her prior answer, I’m pretty sure the Attorney General implicitly called her own legislation “vague” referring to other legislation as “even vaguer” or “more vague.”

Could the Attorney General just confirm whether she believes her legislation, the government’s legislation, is in fact vague, for clarity in Hansard?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Well, thank you for the question. I was merely responding to the question that the previous member had about what’s contained in legislation and what isn’t by comparing to Nova Scotia. I think we have the appropriate levels of tools to respond quickly to the tariffs.

I wait for the Chair’s guidance on how we’re attaching these questions to the actual clauses that we’re dealing with.

[7:10 p.m.]

The Chair: Is there a question?

Steve Kooner: I would like to add that all these questions actually deal with the regulatory measures that we were talking about. All those from the previous discussion, as the Attorney General was discussing, about the regulatory measures…. It was discussed what authority the ministers would have. So all these questions are coming from there. I just, like, wanted to add that. So they are highly relevant to clause 1.

I’d like to move on further to another question that I have on the same clause. We’ve heard a little bit about some sort of consultation that is going to be happening into the future, but my question is: how much consultation was had with stakeholders in regard

to clause 1 and this bill prior to this bill being introduced?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The number one thing that has come out of every table and every discussion since Trump has been President and started this trade war on us…. You can talk to business leaders. You can talk to labour leaders. You can talk to any leader in, almost, the country. The number one thing that you will hear is: dropping interprovincial trade barriers is a win for our economy and our country.

We are leaders in B.C. at being at the forefront of almost every table. It’s hard to summarize the level of consultation that would have gone into it, but in particular, I would direct the member’s attention to the TEST committee, the trade and economic security table task force. That was enacted by the Premier very early on, when the tariff threat came to our doorstep.

That consists, again, as I think I said previously, of business leaders, labour leaders, First Nations leaders, leaders of economic development, the new economy — really, leaders throughout the province that are helping us at the table navigate our response through the interprovincial trade barriers.

I, myself, went before that committee, the trade economic security task force, to talk about this bill. So this is actually resulting from a lot of conversation about interprovincial trade barriers at many tables.

Steve Kooner: Next question to the Attorney General. What I was more looking at was specific names, in terms of what consultations were had with specific entities, specific parties.

Is there a list? If there are Indigenous groups, what are the lists of which Indigenous groups were consulted with? If there are some trade organizations, which organizations were consulted with?

[7:15 p.m.]

I’m just trying to have a list so the people that are listening at home can understand a lot of consultation went into this, and they have examples, real life examples of entities who actually vetted this bill before it came to the House.

Again, the question is: is there a list that can be provided in terms of which stakeholders, specifically, were consulted?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m going to endeavour to get such a list for the member, but I can say from the conversations we’re having it would be very extensive. Ministries set a part on every table to talk to their stakeholders. JEDI has had a standing email address where businesses have come to respond to things, including the bill.

We’ve had such a high level of response and open door policy since the tariff threat has come forward. I’ll just say again the number one thing that we’ve heard from, particularly, businesses was a dropping of interprovincial trade barriers, and that’s certainly part of it.

So it wouldn’t be a small project to get such a list. Maybe we can move on to the next questions, and we can endeavour to put that together.

Gavin Dew: I do think that the Attorney General did confirm that that list would be made available in due course. Is that correct?

Okay, that’s correct. She has confirmed that.

I’m a little confused because I’m hearing about an open door policy, I’m hearing about extensive consultation, and yet, by all accounts, there appears to have been a breakdown of consultation.

Having seen, during the same time that this was underway, the apparent breakdown in consultation over Bill 4, in which this government made assurances that there had been extensive consultation only for it to be discovered that there had been virtually no consultation, that the consultation that was undertaken was several years ago, and for numerous business organizations to write letters to the government asking them to consult, only to have the legislation rammed through….

I am a little bit concerned, and I’m wondering if the Attorney General could speak to: what was the breakdown in consultation that happened during this process?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I believe I’ve answered the question quite a few times now about the steps that we’ve taken.

[7:20 p.m.]

The thing that’s concerning me a little bit about this line of questioning is that it seems to be…. The members over there are really stuck on process during a time of unprecedented challenge and threat to our country and our economy.

We did consult. We spoke to many people about what was needed, and interprovincial trade barriers was the number one thing that we heard. We also heard: “You need to move with speed when it comes to stabilizing our economy.” We will…. I’ll keep answering these questions about all the people — the task force and the FPTs, the ministry — that we all engaged with to get to where we are today.

But just want to say that another thing we heard is that you need to move quickly. So we are hoping that this bill goes through the House quickly and that we’re able to get to work when it comes to the barriers that we can drop that the business community, like everybody, has said that we need to do.

Gavin Dew: I respect the importance of speed, but I am, again, confused because I have in front of me quotes from three groups that were involved in that consultation. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce said: “While it is clear Trump’s trade war has spurred an economic emergency, it is not clear to us that the sweeping powers are required or justified.”

The Greater Vancouver Board of Trade said: “The introduction of Bill 7 and the sweeping powers it would have conferred to the cabinet have raised significant questions about responsible democratic governance and created significant uncertainty for the business community.”

The Business Council of British Columbia said: “Canada’s reputation as a stable and reliable place for investment depends on the stability and accountability embedded in our institutions, including our system of parliamentary democracy. Now is not the time to weaken them.”

I think that the Attorney General, perhaps, is confusing speed with the abrogation of basic democracy. I’m very, very concerned by this attitude that we’re hearing that anything is justified by the Attorney General’s need for speed.

So returning to that breakdown of consultation, if in fact the Attorney General believes there was no breakdown of consultation or believes that what they were hearing was a need to ram the gas pedal over and over again, to what does the Attorney General attribute the massive outpouring of very, very substantial concern from the business community with regard to the progress of that consultation? And can the Attorney General confirm whether the concerns that were expressed publicly were first expressed privately?

Hon. Niki Sharma: What this process is an example of is a very healthy democracy. We have had to move with speed when it comes to responding to this threat that’s coming at us very quickly with executive orders. The Premier, the Minister of JEDI, the Minister of Finance, almost every part of our government has been solely tasked in figuring out how we as a government respond to that challenge. And we have had to move quickly.

To the concerns that were raised…. I think the member has made those quotes a few times now. And they are on the record, I assure him. From that discussion, I went to the test committee, and I talked through their concerns, and we are amending the bill in response. What that is an example of is a healthy democracy and a government that is standing up to make sure that we get it right in this very uncertain time where things are changing very quickly.

I just want to say that we landed in a space where we think we have the effective tools that would be necessary for government to respond in these uncertain times, and we took into account the concerns that stakeholders had about other portions of the bill.

Gavin Dew: I’d ask the Attorney General just to clarify. While that all sounds great, what has been reported in media has been that those concerns were expressed privately, significantly before they were expressed publicly.

If the Attorney General believes this was a healthy, robust democratic consultation process, to what does she attribute the fact that stakeholders who had apparently been consulted privately expressed their concerns about this bill? To what does she attribute the fact that they felt that it was sufficiently problematic that they needed to make their objections public some days or weeks after they had made those same concerns known to the government privately?

[7:25 p.m.]

The Chair: Attorney General.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Thanks, Chair. Just seeking your guidance again on how these are tied to particular clauses that are before us. If you can provide me with that guidance, I would really appreciate it.

It’s a similar question that I’ve been asked again. What I would say is that in the speed and the way that we had to respond to the tariff threat, we endeavoured to do everything to make sure that we’re responding as quickly as that threat was facing us.

The Chair: At this stage of the debate, the committee is focused on the consideration of clause 1. There is some latitude in consideration of clause 1. However, it is important that the committee be reminded that we do focus on the bill at hand and clause 1.

Kiel Giddens: Just with respect to clause 1, we’ve been in a discussion on consultation. The Attorney General referenced the fact that healthy democracy includes significant consultation. I do think it was a healthy democratic process that as soon as an undemocratic nature of the latter portions of the bill were referenced, that was challenged, and we’re going to see, hopefully, amendments.

But with respect to clause 1, I want to get back to a little bit about the consultation overall with other provinces. We talked a bit about that in relation to the bill when we were discussing Nova Scotia’s bill, for example.

There’s been a lot of reference to the Committee on Internal Trade, to the various federal-provincial-territorial tables. I’m just wondering if the Attorney General can clarify. Have other provinces specifically been consulted on clause 1 and part 1 of the bill?

[7:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have reached out to other Attorneys General — which is how you’re supposed to say it, Attorneys General — in the country. I’ve sat down — we’re scheduling with a few of them — to talk about different approaches, in terms of the legal side of it. There’s a lot of legal complexity when you start to design things in the context of international trade agreements and being a law-abiding jurisdiction and how you navigate that when an actor isn’t.

There was an FPT where the DMs discussed their approaches to various things like legislative or retaliatory tariffs. I think that’s a constant discussion.

I have issued an invitation to other jurisdictions if they want to share. I think we really are trying to take a Team Canada approach. We’re all facing very similar legal and regulatory issues. We’re hoping to build that network, and I already talked about the various tables that are already existing to make sure we can do that.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the Attorney General for the response. Just to clarify so I understand it accurately: through that Committee on Internal Trade and the federal-provincial-territorial tables, were the actual clause and the part 1 provisions…? Was it actually explained in detail how B.C. is going to be doing things differently from other provinces and their intent to act in this clause and this bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, we did not show, just like Nova Scotia didn’t for us, particular clauses of our bill before they were enacted. We had the benefit of seeing Nova Scotia’s once it was introduced. I think it was through the legislative…. I may be losing the timeline when we were looking at it.

But generally speaking, given various types of privilege — legislative and Solicitor General are different types of privilege — that attach themselves to a bill, once it’s in the drafting phase, it’s not a common practice for different Attorneys General to share drafts of bills because of all those things. They have to be passed and treated a certain way with a certain level of confidentiality at that time.

Steve Kooner: In regard to consultation on clause 1, what was discussed earlier was that consultation was had. My question is…. There were probably a number of concerns from the stakeholders. Were any of those concerns incorporated in drafting this bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, and I’ll give you an example. BCBC endorsed part 1 of the bill and said it was a positive and necessary step and aligns with long-standing business recommendations.

Steve Kooner: Other than the endorsements, were there concerns that any of the stakeholders mentioned that they wanted rectified in this bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Not about this clause, or, generally, the interprovincial trade section.

Steve Kooner: In regard to the regulatory measures, clause 1, discussion was had in regard to ministers being able to fill in the blanks of how these regulatory measures would be implemented. There was, I believe, some discussion that in addition to ministers, there will be other authorities as well.

[7:35 p.m.]

Is it fair to say there will be other authorities, such as Crown corporations and non-profits, having directive authority through this legislation? There are other entities that are non-governmental that will have authority out of this legislation. Is that fair to say?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

Steve Kooner: In addition to the minister, what will be the authorities, exactly, that will have discretion to implement the regulatory measures?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to provide clarity for what the definition of “regulatory measure” actually means…. I think there’s a misunderstanding that it means the regulation that a minister would bring in. The reason for the definition, and the use of the definition, is to define what interprovincial trade barrier is to be dropped. That’s the regulatory measure definition, just to provide some clarity.

This is answered later on in the bill, under clauses 3 and 5, so I’ll be happy to get to it when we get to that clause.

Steve Kooner: I believe the member for Prince George–North Cariboo has a question about how this clause was drafted. I’ll turn it to that member.

Sheldon Clare: I’m looking at the wording of this particular clause in a technical sense. One of my backgrounds is technical writing. When I look at the term “regulatory measure,” in this part, I take this as meaning that this applies to part 1 of this particular bill. I take it that is correct. Is that so?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes.

Sheldon Clare: Now, when I’m looking at this term, which purports to be a definition, and you just said that “regulatory measure”…. You provided a definition, but this clause itself is a definition. I’m looking at the words in this particular definition — this is what this clause purports to be — and it says: “includes a directive, requirement, guideline, program, policy, administrative practice and any other procedure.”

Notwithstanding the lack of an Oxford comma after “practice,” I look at this clause and I’m wondering: are these terms likewise not also used throughout this document, and are they also not likewise in need of definition?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, we don’t need to define the rest of the items that are included in that definition because we don’t use them throughout. This was drafted from the Canadian free trade agreement definition of regulatory measures.

Sheldon Clare: Well, I was looking at the term “regulatory measure” as it is used in this part, and it is frequently paired with the term “enactment,” with the word “or” between them. Is a regulatory measure also an enactment? Are they equal and equivalent, or are they somehow different?

I think this matters to people. It matters in the crafting of a statute as to what the words actually mean and how they’re used. I’d be very interested in the Attorney General’s perspective on whether those words are equivalent or they have a different meaning.

[7:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: An enactment could be a regulatory measure, but a regulatory measure is broader and actually also includes the rest of the things in that list.

Sheldon Clare: So a regulatory measure is broader, and an enactment doesn’t include those measures in this list? Is that correct? An enactment would not ever be a directive, requirement, guideline, program, policy, administrative practice or any other procedure? Is that correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, an enactment could be a regulatory measure, like a regulation or a law of B.C. It’s defined in the Interpretation Act. But as you see in the definition, regulatory measure also includes policy, which is, of course, not an enactment. Regulatory measures are broader.

Sheldon Clare: It seems to me that the definition itself tends to be a little bit confusing, and I wonder if it needs to have another look. When I look through the use of an enactment and I look at the use of a regulatory measure, it seems to be given equal status where it’s used.

With regard to that point, I wonder, when you chose to use the Canada Free Trade Agreement for this definition, why was that chosen in particular? Why was there not a made-in-B.C. definition chosen for terms that would apply to a provincial bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reason for using the Canada Free Trade Agreement…. The idea of a regulatory measure comes from there. It’s a way to encapsulate what might be included in an interprovincial trade barrier.

There are modifications from that to make it more applicable to B.C., I’m told by some of the drafters, but that was the reason that we based it on that.

Sheldon Clare: In the terms of this definition, a concern that has been brought to my attention is this very broad use of “any other procedure.” That seems to be incredibly broad in this definition.

[7:45 p.m.]

When you couple that to things like directives, requirements, guidelines, programs, policy and administrative practice, this seems to be a huge definition that really encapsulates far, far beyond what the stated intent is of this legislation.

I’m wondering why there would be such a broad definition for what appears to be a simple term. How is this going to give people comfort that the legislation is actually focused, narrow and intended to really provide the protection for British Columbia in removing interprovincial trade barriers?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to clarify again, which I think will help explain the definition, about what this is used for. “Regulatory measures” as defined there is not, which I think I’ve heard a couple times from the other side, what it empowers a minister to enact through regulation. A regulatory measure is meant to define what an interprovincial trade barrier is.

In that sense, you would want to be as broad as possible in your definition to capture any number of things that might be included in an interprovincial trade barrier, in effect. So it’s to define that regulatory measure or the interprovincial trade barrier.

The language in here is taken from trade lawyers and people that work in trade. It’s a common language that we tried to pull from when it comes to that definition. There was an understanding that what we are talking about is interprovincial trade barriers or trade barriers that we were dropping.

Sheldon Clare: I wonder, in looking at the term “administrative practice,” was there consultation given to S.A. de Smith’s work on the subject of administrative law, policy and practice? Because this would appear to be an administrative statute. If so, how would that have coloured the construction of this definition?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, this is part of language to define what an interprovincial trade barrier is. I’ll give you an example. If it’s an administrative practice that is to do with processing applications, and the manner or order or how it’s done is in effect an interprovincial trade barrier, then that would be an example of something that you would capture under this definition and therefore have the ability to remove that barrier, subject to any exceptions.

Sheldon Clare: Could you perhaps provide some examples of what would be considered “any other procedure” in terms of the use of this definition? I think the people of British Columbia deserve to know just how inclusive this definition is.

[7:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, the definition is meant to be as broad as possible because in this state we’re defining what is an interprovincial trade barrier. What the analysis, and generally other trade agreements, finds is that when you dig into it, it can show up in different ways.

The “any other procedure” is very common in legislative drafting, as you would know with your technical background. It helps you have a placeholder for something you didn’t imagine is an interprovincial trade barrier or regulatory measure that’s doing that. You didn’t contemplate at the outset, so you couldn’t list it. That was the reason for it.

Sheldon Clare: What I was asking…. I understand the need to be wanting to be inclusive in this. However, could you give us some examples of things that could be considered “any other procedure”? I think that’s a pretty big thing to be throwing in a definition. I mean, I come from a world where definitions are narrow and focused and clearly understood. I don’t understand this definition.

Hon. Niki Sharma: One example might be a reporting requirement or a requirement to file a document or something that, in effect, acts as a barrier.

Sheldon Clare: Well, again, when this was drafted, what references were used in its draft besides the free trade agreement?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The policy and drafters, when they looked at this, it was really important to root the work when it comes to these definitions as much as you could with the current framework in terms of free trade and other trade agreements. I’m told from the policy team that they looked at the CFTA, as already mentioned, and the Labour Mobility Act, and they had internal consultation with ministries about where it shows up.

Sheldon Clare: The word “policy” in this definition of regulatory measure is also used in a later clause under “regulatory provision.” Are regulatory provision and regulatory measure identical terms?

[7:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: They are in fact two different things. One is…. We talked about regulatory measures, so I’ll keep that one aside. A regulatory provision is something that’s made by a regulatory body under an enactment.

Sheldon Clare: Again I’m wondering why, when this term “regulatory measure” is being defined as including policy, policy is also defined under a different term. What is the justification for that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think the provision the member is talking about — which I’d be happy to talk about in detail once we get there, under clause 3 — is different in the context that it’s used in. They are quite apart in how they are applied and used in this act.

Once we get to clause 3, I’d be happy to go through in detail the different ways that that shows up.

Sheldon Clare: Am I given to understand that words can be defined differently in the same bill in different parts? Is that correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: A policy can be made under an enactment or a regulatory body under a different authority. So that is the reason for the separation and the different definitions.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

Steve Kooner: Clause 2(1) reads: “Subject to any laws of British Columbia respecting who may sell, purchase or use a good, a good that may be produced, manufactured, grown or obtained in, used for a commercial purpose in or distributed from another province of Canada may be sold or used in British Columbia.”

Now, my question is to the first part of this phrase. It says: “Subject to any laws of British Columbia respecting who may sell, purchase or use a good….” Why is this clause being made subject to?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s very specifically put in there with the intention of protecting the public. There are a few good examples that I can provide the member. For example: who can possess body armor or armored cars? Right now we have a legislative regulatory regime around who can possess them, and you would want to make it clear that this provision wasn’t dropping that.

Also, we talked earlier about the age of majority for purchasing alcohol. We have a standard here in B.C. that we have enacted at a certain age, and we wouldn’t want that to be dropped either. So that’s the reason for the subject-to.

[8:00 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Earlier the Attorney General mentioned that the minister would get some discretion to fill in the blanks in legislation through the regulations. What’s so different in this particular clause, where a minister cannot fill in the blanks?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Maybe we could ask the member to clarify the question a little bit more.

Steve Kooner: A question was asked earlier about alcohol, and an answer was given in regard to alcohol. That’s why a minister…. I’m paraphrasing now. That’s why a minister should have discretion to…. There’s a negative list, and the minister should be able to put in exemptions.

In this particular clause, it seems to be putting in a qualification upfront rather than later on. So why is this clause any different than what we were discussing before? Why is there a qualification done to this clause when other clauses will have their qualifications put in by ministers at a later date?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It was just a matter of the speed and efficiency that we could go about this project. The method that the member described as a possible method, where you could have said the minister has to go through all the legislation and regulation and make sure that any restriction to where something’s sold, like an age requirement for alcohol and all that…. We felt like that was a very big project, and instead, they should be focused on breaking down the interprovincial trade barriers that we know affect our economy and affect the ability to open up other markets.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Steve Kooner: A follow-up question. There are clauses in this legislation that do not have the qualifications, and those clauses are to be altered at a later date. So I just want to make that clear: there’s a distinction here with this particular clause. The qualification — it has been put on here, but there are other clauses in this bill that do not have those qualifications. Is that correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’d be helpful to know which clause that the member is talking about, but maybe if I could explain how the bill is constructed.

The bill is constructed in a way that, with the provision that we’re talking about, drops trade barriers. So except for the exceptions that the ministers are putting in regulation…. In this particular section, it was felt like it was needed to make it clear that any laws that were respecting who may sell, purchase or use a good was an exception from that blanket drop. And then the exceptions that come into place with the ministers provide that ability to circle around just the exceptions.

The negative list that I was talking about, had we not put that subject-to, any laws respecting the subject-to that the member is talking about, it would have been an exercise of going through every piece of legislation and regulation for a minister to understand.

For example, I talked about body armour or armoured vehicles. You could probably have weapons that are age-restricted. You probably have lots of things out there that have rules about who can buy them and then create a massive list of exceptions.

It didn’t seem like a very useful use of resources and efficiency of our staff, when they need to be very squarely focused on the work that is going to be needed to drop interprovincial trade barriers to stimulate the economy at a time of mass destabilization.

Steve Kooner: This talks about interprovincial trade, and obviously, it involves other provinces. Other provinces have some regulations as well. Wouldn’t that come into play?

[8:05 p.m.]

Why put a subject-to on this clause when you’re dealing with goods that are already circulating in other provinces, that are already dealing with regulations in those provinces? Why put the subject-to clause in this particular clause when you already have those protections?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think I’ve answered this question already, but maybe a little further clarity might help.

There are going to be incidences where, with respect to public safety, we have set clear limits on…. I talked about body armour, armoured cars. Probably there is a whole slew of things that are dangerous or we have to set age limits on. And so in that sense, it’s the legislative authority of this Legislature in this province to understand what public safety threats are there and set those. And I’ve given some examples of that already.

We are focused on interprovincial trade barriers, and there are plenty of reasons why goods and services…. We need to drop those interprovincial trade barriers to get things to market, to stimulate the economy, to do all the things that we’ve been talking about. But I would imagine the member would agree that having anybody own body armour or armoured cars or any age restriction on who can possess controlled substances would be something that the Legislature in B.C. would be best tasked to do.

So this isn’t about…. I think I’ve answered the question about why we’ve put that subject-to clause in this particular….

Steve Kooner: I understand this is to remove interprovincial trade barriers. That’s a good thing. And that’s to look at all barriers. Now, we have other Canadian provinces in this country that also have rules and regulations and to actually…. To your example, I’m pretty sure there are other provinces that also regulate body armour and stuff like that, body armour and other public safety equipment.

And so if it’s already being regulated, those entities are already going through the process in different provinces and that are going through the regulatory processes that are legislatively sanctioned in other provinces.

Why are we putting up an extra blanket subject-to clause? If there is a concern, why can’t the minister…? If there are only a few examples, why can’t the minister, after the fact, just make a regulation saying that particular item is not going to come to B.C.?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Once we get to later clauses like clause 5, I’ll be able to go through all the regulatory powers that this piece of legislation will give. And I think, in particular, some of the answers or questions that are being posed here would be answered by some of those regulatory clauses, 5.1(a) in particular.

I think I’ve already answered this question in terms of the enormous task it would take for our resources to be put towards the model that the member proposes in terms of having exceptions to those rules. So I won’t go over that again. I think what we have is the right balance between quickly dropping interprovincial trade barriers and providing protections in place where we see that we needed them.

[8:10 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: For clarification, clause 2 allows that any good or service that is approved by any other province is accepted into B.C. without compliance with other B.C. regulations.

Two questions in that regard. What does the government believe are the largest differences in regulations between B.C. and other provinces that are the most likely to be relevant here? Are there any key sectors in which they foresee this being an issue? Have any reports been undertaken in that regard, and if so, can the Attorney General please share those?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think we mentioned earlier the study that’s going on with JEDI, so I won’t go back to revisit that. But I will say that I mentioned the FPT tables that are at place right now, which have a key focus: transportation, foreign credentials, financial services and labour. Those are the ones that the provinces and the federal level are particularly interested in.

Gavin Dew: For British Columbian manufacturers who are following and have been following B.C. regulations and who have accordingly established their business models, their equipment, their capital investments, their labour conditions, does clause 2 create an imbalance or a potential issue of competitiveness if other provinces are not required to follow B.C.’s potentially stricter regulations?

What kind of issues around timeline or delay of implementation could affect the competitiveness of B.C. manufacturers in this regard? Has any substantial effort been undertaken in order to evaluate those kinds of potential issues and to prepare mitigation strategies accordingly?

[8:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Before I note the hour, I think that the member has identified an issue that exactly is part of the reason why we structured the bill the way we did. That is that we want to create opportunities for B.C. businesses, and we want to support them through this transition.

By having section 2 work in parallel with the regulatory-making power that’s later on in the bill and having the ministers do the work of figuring out who in their stakeholders are the businesses affected and how we can support them, there is a way through that negative list to create clarity of what the business environment, working environment is in B.C. and what interprovincial trade barriers are dropped.

I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:16 p.m.