Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:59 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 7 — Economic Stabilization
(Tariff Response) Act
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 7, Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act, to order. We are on clause 3 as amended.

On clause 3 as amended (continued).

Peter Milobar: Just a couple of questions. I do appreciate that the Attorney has indicated that we’ll cover off the sunset clause as we get to the sunset clause provision, which is clause 29, if memory serves, on this bill. But there are some questions that I think we just need a little more certainty around as they pertain to clause 3, because when you read clause 29 it looks like this first part is subject to the sunset clause.

[3:00 p.m.]

Can the minister provide more certainty around…? If a regulation is made under clause 3, does that regulation expire at the sunset clause, or does it live in perpetuity, essentially, once it is made?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, it expires, but it also gives the minister an opportunity at that point to make it permanent, whether there are legislative or regulatory changes that need to happen to do that.

Peter Milobar: I’m correct in my interpretation, then, that on May 28, or whatever the date was in the sunset clause, clause 3 ceases to exist in its entirety.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes.

Peter Milobar: Can the minister indicate when the trade ministers would have met on the federal committee that is supposed to be dealing with interprovincial trade issues that would fall under clause 3? When was the date of the last time they met?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It was just this morning.

Peter Milobar: Okay, thank you. That provides a little bit of relief, because the only other meeting I was aware of — they’re not overly public, the meetings, it seems — was…. I happened to notice a tweet, actually, from the minister back at, I believe, the end of January, the day before the first tariff threat was talked about in February.

My point is, I guess, that it doesn’t seem like it’s a committee that meets super frequently. It has been meeting for seven, eight years now, and very little progress in terms of interprovincial trade barriers has happened, even though that’s the sole focus of this group. It’s literally the trade minister from every province and the federal Trade Minister at the table. That’s it. That’s the committee.

A clause 3 is really what’s needed — the guts of trying to enact interprovincial trade barrier removal. We now have one year to have all of that work done, all the regulations put in place and ministers to decide if the regulations should continue on past that year.

How does the Attorney reconcile the logistics of a timeline like that in the real world where businesses are trying to make investment decisions based on things that may or may not (a) come to fruition or (b) even exist in 12 months?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I am happy to talk about the role of the sunset clause when we get to that clause — I think it, maybe, makes sense to do that — but I will give an answer at this stage.

The balance of the bill is an extraordinary measure. What we are saying is that we’re giving the tools, through regulation, for the override of any regulation or legislation that exists to date. You could classify that as an extraordinary measure, to give cabinet that type of ability, in the sense of it being an economic stabilization bill and our need to do that.

In order to put the right balances in place for that work, the sunset clause plays a counterbalance to that use of that power that actually — we think, with the conversations that we could have — helps in a few ways.

First of all, the certainty will come, once this act is in place, from the negative list approach. It’ll be very clear, once that’s in there, what is not being subject to this regulatory regime or whatever comes into place.

Through that exemption list, businesses will be very certain as to whether or not they’re included as an exemption. Then all the rest of them are removed from that, so those trade barriers are dropped on those goods and services. In the speed of doing that, it gives us the ability, with JEDI, to make sure that we had it right through the use of this power.

There are a few things that could happen once you get upon the end of that sunset clause. You could have had a response from certain businesses that it needs to be adjusted this way or that way, so you could make things permanent, in a way. You could extend the sunset clause through the legislative process if you felt like it was going well. And you could do the deeper stakeholder and legislative work that may take longer. But in the context of the emergency situation we’re in, you can do the dropping of barriers and do that longer-term work to stabilize it for the long term.

Maybe that helps, in the balance that we struck, but I’m sure we can have more conversations about that when we get to that.

Steve Kooner: I’d like to reference clause 3 and subsections (3) and (4), I believe.

In (3) and (4), there are discussions about the minister and discussions about the regulatory authority and requests being made to the regulatory authority to make changes in regulatory provisions.

[3:10 p.m.]

I have a few questions in regards to that. Is the Attorney General able to provide a list of regulatory authorities that would not be affected by this legislation, that have no involvement in trade?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Asked and answered, Chair.

Steve Kooner: The reason why I ask this question…. I know that B.C. Hydro is mentioned later on in this bill. But when you think of B.C. Hydro, you don’t think that they get involved with interprovincial trade. So I’m just wondering if B.C. Hydro…. What would be the implications with B.C. Hydro?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s not in this section, and I’ll be happy to address that specific question once we get there.

Steve Kooner: What are some immediate regulatory changes that we can expect to see from this clause that will be pretty immediate?

Hon. Niki Sharma: With respect to this section, there’s no regulatory…. This is not the section that covers regulation-making powers.

Steve Kooner: In regard to subsection (4), there’s a discussion here — “within 60 days after the date of request” — that refers to a minister making a request to a regulatory authority. How did the government determine a 60-day timeline?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That 60-day time limit comes from the Labour Mobility Act, and it was just felt to be a reasonable timeline to have that regulatory authority do the work that it needs to do.

Steve Kooner: Now, in subsections (4) and (5) here, it talks about making a request — the minister can make a request to a regulatory authority — but it also goes further in subsection (5), I believe, which talks about how, in the event the regulatory body or the regulatory authority fails, the minister can take certain actions.

In regard to that, are there any financial or other penalties for bodies unable to reach their 60-day deadline? Is there any penalty for those regulatory bodies?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

Steve Kooner: As there are probably a whole bunch of regulatory bodies — like, there are many to count — my next question is: is there a particular regulatory body that will be handling a substantial amount of regulatory provisions, in terms of amending them and all that?

In terms of the work that the Attorney General’s office has done, have they narrowed in on a particular regulatory body that may be doing a significant amount of work moving forward? Is there such a regulatory body?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, there is not one particular regulatory authority that is in our mind right now that would do or be responsible for many changes, as the member suggests.

Rob Botterell: To the Attorney General, subsection (4), which has the 60-day limit, states: “the requesting minister may, by order, do one or more of the following.” That “may” enabling provision — would that permit the minister to give an organization or a regulatory authority additional time in the event there were a number of requests that might not all be dealt with within the 60 days?

I see that as enabling, not requiring, so I just want clarification on that point.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, the member is correct. It gives the flexibility of the minister to respond to a particular situation if necessary.

Steve Kooner: In regards to clause 3, there are many definitions. You see a definition for “agreement,” a definition for “authorizing enactment,” a definition for “regulatory authority,” and a definition for “regulatory provision.” But this particular part, part 1 of Bill 7, has to do with interprovincial trade barriers. It involves other provinces, involves our province and other provinces, and it is a response to a foreign jurisdiction.

Is there a reason why there isn’t any sort of definition in this part that talks about a foreign jurisdiction, what is included and what’s not included? So there’s…. Yeah, maybe answer that question, if possible.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Legislative drafters would only define terms that are relevant to the particular part, and in this situation, because it deals with regulatory authorities, it would be internal. It wouldn’t be relevant.

Steve Kooner: Well, I disagree with that explanation. I think it is relevant.

At this time, I’m going to be moving an amendment to introduce a definition for “foreign jurisdiction.”

I move an amendment to clause 3 to add a definition, “foreign jurisdiction,” and it would read: “‘Foreign jurisdiction,’” in quotations, “means any government that is not part of the government of Canada, a province of Canada or a territory of Canada.”

[3:20 p.m.]

On the amendment.

Steve Kooner: The reason for this is that this part talks about interprovincial trade barriers and the concerns of many provinces.

This is being introduced at a time when a foreign jurisdiction has threatened our jurisdiction with tariffs. It’s important to make sure that there is not an opportunity to misinterpret what is a foreign jurisdiction and what’s not. It’s important to define what is actually a foreign jurisdiction and what is not.

In this definition, it includes: “means a government that is not part of the government of Canada.” So Canada is not a foreign jurisdiction. A province of Canada is not a foreign jurisdiction, and a territory of Canada is not a foreign jurisdiction.

This would clarify this bill significantly. This bill does have to do with a response to a foreign jurisdiction. This is the part that actually deals with interprovincial trade barriers in response to a foreign jurisdiction.

So I’m proposing and moving this amendment.

The Chair: Members, we will take a ten-minute break. We’ll return at 3:31 p.m.

The committee recessed from 3:21 p.m. to 3:32 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order.

On the amendment moved by the member for Richmond-Queensborough. The amendment proposes to add the definition of the term “foreign jurisdiction.”

Unless the member can explain to the committee how the term is relevant to the clause, the amendment would be out of order, as the term is not found within clause 3.

I remind members that clause 3, specifically subsection (1), provides definitions only for the purposes of clause 3 in the bill.

Steve Kooner: It is highly relevant. We’re talking about interprovincial trade in part 1. This is the definition section for part 1. And if we’re going to have any sort of distinctions between what is a foreign jurisdiction or what’s included in interprovincial trade, it’s a highly relevant term.

The Chair: I would remind the member for Richmond-Queensborough that it is not a definition section.

Steve Kooner: With all due respect, Chair, there are definitions in this section, and in part 1, this has about three or four definitions. Although it may not per se be a definition section, there are definitions. Any definitions that need to be defined are there in this particular clause at this stage.

The Chair: I would again ask the member to look at section 3 (1). The heading is: “Amending regulatory provisions.” Clause 3 (1): “In this section…”

And if we go back to part 1…. Heading: “Part 1 — Interprovincial Trade Barriers.” Heading: “Definition for this Part.” Two distinct areas within this bill which talk about definition sections.

What you have suggested…. As I mentioned, you’ll need to provide a relevancy as to why this amendment would fit within this area of the bill, and I am saying, at this point, that it’s out of order.

Steve Kooner: It is clearly relevant because at the initial definition that was provided earlier on…. That was before clause 2 was discussed, and now we’re getting more into the substantive part of part 1 where discussion is being had more so substantively about interprovincial trade.

[3:35 p.m.]

The Chair: I would ask the member to provide further clarification as to how the definition and the term would be used in this section.

Steve Kooner: The further explanation would be, when you’re referring to a regulatory body or a regulatory authority and they’re dealing with interprovincial trade, what interprovincial trade is. Interprovincial trade is something that’s not with a foreign jurisdiction.

The Chair: I’ve determined that the amendment is out of order.

Peter Milobar: I’m just seeking clarification. Is it the Chair’s sole discretion and sole opinion on this, or is this coming from the Clerk’s office? Is it coming from the Attorney General?

I’m a layperson. I’m not a lawyer. I know there are lawyers in the room. But when I read this and I see “authorizing enactment,” in bold, “means an enactment under which a regulatory authority may make regulation….” That’s in 3 (1). And then we have “foreign jurisdiction,” in bold, “means any government that is not part of the government of Canada, a province of Canada or a territory of Canada.”

I fail to see how one is not seen to be as a definition and one is. One is ruled completely out of order, which…. It would be for this chamber to decide whether or not it moves forward or not on an actual vote. It just seems we’re…. I’m not sure if we are debating with government at this point or if we’re now needing to make our cases on sections and provisions in this bill with the Chair.

The Chair: Thank you. I respect your submissions. However, the decision is made by the Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole, which is me, and I have determined that that amendment is out of order.

Peter Milobar: Then could we…? Not having my standing orders here, I look for direction through the Clerk’s office here before we move on past this clause to better understand how these rulings…. We have other amendments moving through this.

Not every Chair will have the same level of potential legislative expertise as this current Chair does. There should be a consistent standard for the opposition in terms of how amendments are brought forward to this chamber to be actioned or not, voted on or not by the government.

It seems that we could be into a very arbitrary skill set if the Chair is not — the current Chair; I want to be clear on that…. In terms of their understanding of things and moving forward as we hit other amendments through this bill….

Is it merely whoever happens to be timing in the Chair that could make the determination or not? That would open up a very strange process in this place if that is indeed how it’s going to be continuing forward.

So, through the Chair, I guess we would perhaps need a bit of a recess to seek clarification through the Clerk’s office how this is going to unfold for the next little while. We’re only on clause 3 of a 30-clause bill.

The Chair: I appreciate the submissions of the member for Kamloops Centre. We will take a ten-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:38 p.m. to 3:48 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order.

The amendment, proposed by the member for Richmond-Queensborough, that subclause 3(1) is amended by adding the following, “Foreign jurisdiction means any government that is not part of the government of Canada, a province of Canada or a territory of Canada,” has been deemed to be out of order.

Amendment ruled out of order.

[3:50 p.m.-3:55 p.m.]

The Chair: Thank you, Members. Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question is: shall clause 3 as amended pass?

Clause 3 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 7
Kahlon	Morissette	Higginson
Routledge	Popham	Sharma
	Botterell
NAYS — 5
Kooner	Dew	Boultbee
Mok		Williams

On clause 4.

Kiel Giddens: I’m pleased to rejoin the discussion again this afternoon. We are making some progress, folks.

[4:00 p.m.]

With regards to clause 4…. Labour mobility is a topic we’ve touched on briefly in the other clauses, but this is very explicit in its intent — obviously, exempting the Labour Mobility Act. This, to me, is…. I still do have some challenges, and we’ll have some questions on the intent and the rationale behind this. We do need to, as we’ve talked about previously…. Previous areas that dealt with interprovincial trade also included labour mobility as part of the discussion, whether that was in the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement or the extension to the New West Partnership.

Also, other jurisdictions in Canada…. When we talk about interprovincial trade, labour mobility is intertwined with it very closely. So when you work in a province and provide a service in another province, that labour mobility is important for the actual ability to provide that service or good in another province. Really, a mobile workforce is also critical to work in our province.

Some in the chambers might recall that previously in my career, I worked in the LNG industry. I can tell you that labour uncertainty…. Both stability, keeping a stable labour supply, but also the amount of labour supply available in the labour market was actually critical.

That mobile workforce was a key risk to, for example, the LNG Canada project when they were looking to make a final investment decision prior to 2018, when they finally did. For two years, their biggest risk to the project, which they were trying to de-risk, was labour supply and labour relations, labour stability for the duration of the project.

It is something that…. As we’re looking to move quickly in terms of reacting to tariffs, the broader intent to this bill, making trades and making labour availability within Canada is important for moving quickly.

I’d like to ask a little bit more about this section of the bill, why it’s so explicit in exempting the Labour Mobility Act. I want to start by asking the rationale. Why did the government not include labour mobility within part 1 of the bill and in clause 4?

[4:05 p.m.]

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reason that we put this provision there is to actually create better certainty when it comes to the different modes in which dropping of trade barriers, with respect to services and people’s labour mobility, are dealt with.

What you’ll see — and I think we talked about this at length in section 2 — is that for non-trades, we would say, people that are not under a trade, the dropping of the barrier under those sections that allow…. If you’re able to provide a service in one province, you can provide it here. So that would help with labour mobility for construction sites and all those kinds of things.

With respect to the trades, in 2022, we introduced a regulation to the Labour Mobility Act that already drops trade barriers for red seal and says that if you were certified in another province, you can work in B.C. So under the Labour Mobility Act, we didn’t want to create duplication of work. That act is set up with the structure possible for us to drop the trade barriers for regulated professions. That work, like I said, in 2022…. I think to the member’s point with respect to red seal or trades, we dropped those barriers under that, a regulation under that act.

In order to…. The work under the Labour Mobility Act is important. And regulated professions — also important work. So that is happening, and we have the tools there. This gives us added tools, this bill, for non-regulated labour mobility.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the Attorney General for the response. Just so I follow correctly, and to make sure that there’s confidence in the existing regulatory tools, could the minister provide an example of a trade that would apply in this case and specifically, maybe, focus on the construction trades? That was in my original question.

Hon. Niki Sharma: What it refers to is anything under SkilledTradesBC. With respect to construction, it’s quite an extensive list.

[4:10 p.m.]

I would just refer the member to their website, where they list all of the things, under the subcategory of construction, about what would be covered under SkilledTradesBC. Under the Labour Mobility Act and through that regulation, it makes it so if you have one of those and you work in another province, you can work in B.C.

Kiel Giddens: I will certainly go to the SkilledTradesBC website and review those trades, and I think that’s relevant.

I guess this brings me back to just ensuring the confidence for tradespeople and mobility across the country, expanding that to the training and accreditation standards as well. This kind of goes back to previous discussions we’ve had around reciprocity, because it leads to harmonization of those standards across the country.

In not including labour mobility in this, is there any risk that the government sees in those standards of accreditation being non-equivalent across the country, or is the government confident that there is true kind of labour mobility in that regard?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think if we take a step back and understand that this is enabling legislation that gives the government the tools necessary to do the job of dropping interprovincial trade barriers for labour mobility…. In our analysis, we felt that the Labour Mobility Act gives us the tools that we need and government needs for regulated professions and trades. I gave an example of a regulation that was brought in in 2022 that does just that, which is work through that.

What was missing is what’s covered in this bill, which is the non-regulated or not covered under the Labour Mobility Act.

Kiel Giddens: So just to confirm, has that analysis actually been done, then, completed for accreditation standards of both trades and the professions?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to take a step back from this line of questioning.

The mechanism of creating the labour mobility with these red seal — we’ll circle in our red seal professions — isn’t about…. Although there is harmonization work when it comes to working together for credentialing and training and what it takes in each province to get that red seal, the point of dropping the barrier is that if you do have a red seal in Alberta, you can work in B.C. We’re not going to question the credentials or the training of that red seal program in that province.

If you look at it that way, in the line of the question, it may lessen, maybe, the pressure that the member is considering having on accreditation and standards of the courses, because it’s a different way to do it, right?

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the Attorney General’s response there.

I’m just wondering…. I think that I can appreciate that answer and the way of looking at things. The accreditation isn’t the only, I guess, barrier that exists, though, so that’s an important one to discuss.

But, really, I look at…. Again, I’ve mentioned my work with the chamber of commerce in Prince George. We used to do a survey of kind of risk to doing business every year, and access to labour was always the top of the list. No matter what issue was going on in the province, northern B.C. just has a labour shortage challenge that is different.

[4:15 p.m.]

So I’m speaking partly for the benefit of businesses in my own community, and of course, for businesses across the country who’d like to work in B.C. and labour, their workers, who would like to work in B.C.

The other area that tends to be a barrier is the recertification. That’s a significant challenge for businesses looking to hire workers if they’re waiting for that recertification requirement. I mean, the one that comes up most common is probably nurses waiting to be recertified. Fortunately, we do allow, in B.C., some leniency. They can work while they’re waiting for that to occur. But other professions, actually, can’t work in B.C. as easily.

I’m wondering if the Attorney General could provide a little bit more context on where barriers to recertification would be dropped. Is that covered in the Labour Mobility Act, or is that something that still needs to be contemplated in some way?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m going to refer the member to the Minister of Health with the work that’s being done for nurses, because I know there’s been quite extensive work there, and I don’t want to…. I think that would be the best place for that answer.

In terms of the contents of the bill, the reason that this section is in here is because the same tools exist to drop barriers under the Labour Mobility Act as what we are putting in here for the non-regulated professions. Government’s work on those…. In essence, under the Labour Mobility Act, we’ve given government the tools to do similar things to what we are doing here. It’s duplication to do it here when it already could be done there.

Then I think that the question…. I know it’s in the Minister of Health’s mandate letter to really focus on the question that was posed about how we want to bring more nurses and more health professionals here and reduce those barriers to have them working right away. Although I don’t have all the extensive work that’s been done on that, I think the Minister of Health would be happy to answer that.

[4:20 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate that. Nursing was an example, but I think looking broadly at labour mobility is part of this as well. I do know that there are certain occupations that are subject to provincial or territorial legislation that really mandates workers to hold a certificate or licensing specific to where they practise. So it’s quite common in professions.

But obviously, this can create a barrier. Sometimes that can include administrative requirements. It can include fee schedules, things like that, that have to be completed. I’m just wondering if, within the Labour Mobility Act — so that we can ensure it doesn’t need to be included here — there is, basically, certificate-to-certificate recognition between professions that covers enough of the labour mobility that we need to really prevent trade barriers for labour mobility within the country.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The powers and the work are being done under this particular piece of legislation to make sure that certificate-to-certificate recognition exists, like the member asked. I know that the minister is, as per the mandate letter, working on that. I’m told that one of the issues is the time it takes, even if it’s recognized, for that health professional or whatever to get that certificate.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister.

I appreciate that that’s in the Minister of Health’s mandate letter, but what about other mandates? For example, the minister responsible for the Industry Training Authority, the Minister of Labour, other areas where certificates may apply, need to be reviewed or made equivalent.

Hon. Niki Sharma: In our view, the Labour Mobility Act gives us the tools to do what the member is asking. I think I’ve given some examples, like the regulation in 2022 with Red Seal. We’ve already been using that piece of legislation to do the type of work that he’s talking about.

Kiel Giddens: We’ve talked previously, of course, in this part of the bill, about consultation specifically. I’m wondering. On the labour component and labour mobility, who did government consult with about the wording of clause 4 and, in this case, excluding occupations that are included in the Labour Mobility Act?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to take a step back from the member’s question, what this enabling legislation does is give the tools necessary to do the job, right? Under the Labour Mobility Act, we asked internally in the ministry: “Does this piece of legislation provide you with the tools that you need to go about continuing the work of dropping mobility issues with respect to regulated professions?”

[4:25 p.m.]

As a piece of enabling legislation, that was a lens that we used to look at this particular section. Because in various ministries they talk very much, especially advanced ed and skills training…. A lot of ministries have different regulated professions under them. Because they are regularly in touch with the stakeholders in the community but also understand the HR issues related to that profession, the question that we were asking is, “Do you have the right tools to do the work?” which is a different one than I think the way the member is posing it.

Obviously, this was a piece of legislation that was put together under very unwelcome circumstances with respect to the trade war that we’re in and the threats on Canada. We really relied on the experts, who understood over many years what the barriers were, to help us understand what legal tools they needed to do the work. That was the lens we applied to all of our work.

Rob Botterell: My understanding is that the RCT met this morning. I have it on pretty good authority that there’s going to be a federal election on April 28, following which there will be a new federal government. Shortly after there’s a new federal government, of whatever political stripe, I imagine the RCT and other provincial and federal representatives will be diligently working to reduce interprovincial trade barriers.

It seems to me that this section is really intended to avoid overlap and duplication, because if this section was not in the act, then businesses and employment organizations would have a great deal of concern about: which legislation do I look at? What requirements apply?

My question to the Attorney General is: was the motivation for this section as straightforward as, “We have a regulatory framework on labour mobility; let’s make sure we don’t confuse British Columbians by not making it clear that that’s a separate regulatory framework,” which I’m sure the RCT and others will think about as they work through this?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think the member has articulated what I’ve been trying to say in my responses. I appreciate his response, or his question. That’s exactly the reason that we wanted to create certainty when it comes to which regulatory regime applied to different….

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Richmond-Queensborough. My apologies — Prince George–Mackenzie.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you, Madam Chair. I haven’t moved. I’m still living in Prince George these days.

The Leader of the Third Party raised a point about, obviously, reducing duplication. I, in fact, agree with reducing duplication, but we are talking about enabling legislation, as we’ve talked about, so we want to make sure that the existing legislation gives the tools that this enabling legislation can take advantage of as well. It is important to understand.

The minister did talk about the experts and needing the tools to do the job. Part of my question was, really: as we’re talking to experts, who are they? Were there labour groups that discussed this? Were there business organizations? Could that be elaborated on a little bit more, more closely?

Hon. Niki Sharma: With respect to this particular piece of legislation, in part, they were internal to government — what was discussed about the tools. But this is not the totality of the work.

[4:30 p.m.]

The expertise that we’ve developed in ministries with our government team is over years of discussions about labour mobility and labour mobility issues and changes that have been made by using the Labour Mobility Act, like under the regulation I mentioned, in 2022, and whether or not they needed new legal tools to do the work.

That’s the reason that we put this particular section in. We believe that the Labour Mobility Act…. Although continued work that’s happening on a quick basis may mean that we take a look at that act and see if it needs to be changed or adapted, at this stage, it has the tools to do the work for regulated professions.

The tables that everybody’s sitting on right now will help to come to agreement across jurisdictions on where we need to move.

Kiel Giddens: I can appreciate that labour mobility is something that has been discussed among groups, as we’ve talked about. The fact that the New West Partnership…. It would have been in that context that some of those discussions would have taken place.

But I guess I’m still wondering about which organizations within that context would be…. Their weighting of, sort of, the opinion of government that led to this decision…. Which organizations, actually, were the ones that provided that expertise that led to the decision in this clause of the bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I believe I’ve answered that question.

Kiel Giddens: Was it…?

The Chair: Though the Chair, if you don’t mind, Member.

Kiel Giddens: I apologize, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Apology accepted.

Kiel Giddens: As we look at organizations that do have that expertise…. I appreciate that government does have a lot of expertise, but a lot of these organizations would be external to government.

Maybe a simple question: did the government include the opinion of the B.C. Federation of Labour in their discussion on how to craft this?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I presented this bill to the test committee and had a discussion about the bill at the test committee, which includes representatives from labour. I haven’t heard anybody come to me and say, with this particular section, that they’re worried about this part in particular. I’ve heard discussions about other parts of it.

I think the real way to situate the power of this is: does the government have all the tools it needs to do the work of dropping trade barriers related to labour mobility, related to goods and services? This piece of legislation fills in the gap when it comes to goods and services and some of the services that are not included in the Labour Mobility Act.

That is the complete regime, if this is passed, that we will have in B.C. to address all of the problems.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the Attorney General’s response, but I guess I’m still trying to understand. Were there groups that were specifically…? The minister referenced the test committee. Was there opposition to allowing individuals with skills certified in other provinces to come and work in British Columbia? How was that factored into the crafting of part 1 and clause 4?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, and I’ve already talked about changes we made in 2022 under the Labour Mobility Act that I think address the question.

Kiel Giddens: In relation to employer organizations that would have factored into the government’s opinion and expertise in gaining knowledge, I’m wondering if the Attorney General could elaborate on the opinion of the Business Council of B.C., the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and other leading business organizations on how labour mobility would be factored into this part of the bill.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to make it clear, I am not aware of, and nobody has provided, any concerns about part 1 of this bill, especially some of the organizations that the members have asked for. What this does is create the certainty of legislative and regulatory frameworks that are applicable to different sides of our labour force in B.C. I have not heard anybody share any concerns about it.

Kiel Giddens: The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has expressed concerns with the amendments, including part 1.

For one, for the Attorney General’s reference, the sunset clause, and that part of it, is an issue for that organization. The other component that they’ve raised as a concern is the fact that they want to make sure that that harmonization has occurred, and they want interprovincial trade and labour mobility barriers to be made permanent. They’ve also talked about labour mobility as a very important aspect.

That’s why I’m asking this line of questioning, to make sure that those independent businesses’ issues — these are typically small businesses — are looked after within this. The reason I’m asking, on behalf of groups like the CFIB, is that I’m wondering if the minister heard any concerns about how this would impact wages or contracts with employees, things of that nature that….

Labour mobility is important for these employers, so I just wanted to find out: has their input been factored into clause 4 and part 1 of this bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ve already answered that question.

The Chair: Member, if you can adjust your line of questioning, that would be helpful. Thank you.

Kiel Giddens: I’ll move on to another line of questions here. Did the ministry make any models, projections or recommendations on what not including labour mobility in this section would do for B.C.’s economy?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to maybe bring some clarity to this conversation, on what the Labour Mobility Act does. Right now the status quo in B.C. is certificate-to-certificate recognition of regulated professions under the Labour Mobility Act. We have that legislative framework in place right now in B.C., and it’s the reason why we added part 4 to this act.

In terms of the question of an analysis, I guess the analysis would be that the tools in here — which are, you could argue, as strong, in terms of recognizing other provinces’ goods — were not needed, because they’re contained in the Labour Mobility Act. The legislative tool is there.

That’s not to say that there’s no more work to be done. I think right now what we’re seeing with JEDI and other ministries is an understanding of what stronger tools may be needed in the on-the-ground implementation of some of that work, which is what the focus of ministries is right now.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the Attorney General. I think as part of that, it does speak to the one of the issues with the bill — in its entirety, actually — because the initial premise of the bill is that this is all about moving quickly.

We keep hearing, over and over again, throughout part 1 of the bill, that it is about more work that needs to be done to be able to have that enabling work happen — whether that’s in JEDI, in the Ministry of Labour or in other ministries where this has to happen — and the Labour Mobility Act is another example of that.

I guess what I’m trying to do is to make sure that this bill has the right tools to make sure that we can in fact act quickly. That’s what the government has stated as its intent. That’s what the business community expects.

At the onset of my first remarks the other day in this chamber, I talked about the C.D. Howe Institute report that talked about $200 billion worth of economic activity within Canada that we’re trying to unlock by the nature of interprovincial trade within Canada. Labour mobility is always attached to that conversation.

The reason I’m asking is because if the government is looking to act now, in a time of economic uncertainty, why not include the provisions explicitly within this clause and in this part, in its entirety of the bill, so that the labour mobility provisions can be clear and a signal to the business community that government can in fact act quickly?

Hon. Niki Sharma: First of all, just to take a step back from the comments at the beginning of the member’s statement, there never has been a piece of legislation in the history of the province that is so powerful when it comes to dropping interprovincial trade barriers for goods and services across this province, and we’re working with a Team Canada approach to do that. I would challenge the member to point me to another piece of legislation that has such powers to do so in such a quick way.

The other thing I’ll say is that — from, I think, all of our perspectives on the policy work — it makes no sense to duplicate laws of the land in another law. If a law stands under the Labour Mobility Act and is doing things like I mentioned before — like in 2022 through regulation, making Red Seal transferable, making sure that there’s certificate-to-certificate recognition of professions across jurisdictions — if that stands, as it does right now, it wouldn’t make any sense just to duplicate provisions in a bill.

[4:45 p.m.]

Actually, that would cause more uncertainty and more confusion, and it would maybe question why we would feel the need to do that with another law that already stands in B.C.

There is more work to do on labour mobility, and it’s happening in rapid pace right now. I’m happy to say that the tools of the Labour Mobility Act or anything that needs to be used or regulated under that will give us the ability to unlock a lot of that potential.

Kiel Giddens: I know we’ve gotten a little bit more high level in terms of where this clause of the bill fits into the entirety of the act. But it is, of course, enabling legislation. Overall, the bill, as originally presented, had to be walked back by the government. We’re hoping to see amendments on part 4, obviously. That was an example.

But we’re making sure that interprovincial trade and labour mobility are actually going to be covered into this bill because, as I have always stated, this is the most consequential portion of this entire legislation. It’s important for the businesses of British Columbia.

So as I reflect on that, I want to just ask the government for a message and a commitment to the business community. If there is still work to be done as part of this enabling legislation, will they commit to meeting immediately with all of those relevant business organizations that I had previously mentioned in the debate to make sure that labour mobility and other interprovincial trade barriers are all being captured and covered into what needs to be removed to unlock the economic potential that interprovincial trade can actually in fact do?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, I just want to say that there has never been a bill before this Legislature that has done more to drop interprovincial trade barriers than what is before the House right now. In fact, some of the business organizations that the member is referring to express extreme support for part 1 of this bill, saying it’s going to take much-needed steps towards enabling trade within Canada, and without reading those supportive comments, really seeing that this is the farthest that this government has ever gone with respect to this.

The member is asking if we’ll commit to meeting with organizations. Our Minister of Jobs and Economic Development, our Premier, we are meeting with organizations that are impacted all the time — not just businesses but labour, health professionals across the gambit of who’s impacted by the trade war now and who might be impacted by the trade war. I mean, there’s a commitment to do what we’re already doing.

Yes, we will continue to meet with organizations that are impacted and make sure that they know that…. I know the Minister of JEDI has even put forward a direct email address that people can directly respond in a rapid way and raise their concerns to her ministry.

[4:50 p.m.]

I’ll just say on the note about the labour mobility issues that the Prime Minister and the Premiers have directed the Committee on Internal Trade to develop a service standard of 30 days or better to make sure, even though there’s certificate-to-certificate recognition in B.C., that it’s rapidly being enforced so that we can have better standards on the ground.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you for that fulsome answer from the Attorney General. I appreciate that that work is going on and want to see it continue to go on, and specifically towards labour mobility. I would make the request to the government, to the relevant ministers, like in JEDI and Labour and other ministries, that labour mobility would apply to have those conversations. And I’m asking in earnest to make sure that this is done properly.

I appreciate the Attorney General providing that context on the Committee on Internal Trade. That’s certainly relevant to the discussion we’ve been having so far. I think, for the public, that is good information to be aware of.

Just, I guess, with regards to the work at that committee and how it applies, I’m wondering…. Just to make sure that the Labour Mobility Act tools and what we have, the way clause 4 is used in part 1 of the bill…. How does this ensure that we don’t interfere with the national labour mobility framework while we’re pursuing the freer trade of goods and services and, as an extension, labour mobility within the country?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, that’s exactly one of the reasons that it is carved out. We know that the Labour Mobility Act is…. I think one of the reasons it was enacted is to align with that national labour mobility framework. So it’s actually the reason why we don’t want to complicate, provide uncertainty or duplicate work when we’ve done the work, and we think we have the tools under a piece of legislation.

Gavin Dew: I do just want to dig in about two answers back to the matter around support for part 1(4). I did hear the Attorney General say, and I believe it is true, that there is robust support in the business community for part 1. However, I would reflect back on the evolving public conversation around Bill 7. In the first days or weeks of the publication of the initial version of that bill, there was widespread media coverage which asserted that there was strong support in the business community for Bill 7.

It became clear later that there was significant hesitation among folks in the business community, including those who had been involved in extensive discussions with the government and had been consulted. It was not, in fact, support for Bill 7; it was support for part 1 of Bill 7 that was present and robust in the business community.

I would just like to get the Attorney General to expand on her assertion that part 1 is supported by the business community and help to confirm whether, in fact, there is robust support from consultations undertaken for part 1(4), specifically, as it stands.

The Chair: Attorney General.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Asked and answered, Chair.

Gavin Dew: Madam Chair, the question hasn’t been answered.

The Chair: Excuse me, Member?

[4:55 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: I would ask again whether there has been any public statement or any private statement that can be shared with the opposition in order to have a better understanding as to a more fulsome breakdown of the discussion and of the support that may or may not exist for different elements of part 1, specifically section 4.

I asked the question, and I will ask it again, because I want to have certainty around this matter. I do not want the government to be embarrassed again by the realization after the fact, having asserted that there is robust support for all elements of the first part of the bill…. I would hate for the government to be embarrassed by contradictory statements, as government was previously embarrassed. I’m simply looking for clarification that there is in fact robust on-the-record support for section 4.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reason I said I asked and answered this is because I said there was support for part 1, and I have never heard anybody raise section 4 as an issue.

Gavin Dew: I apologize. We’re all, in fact, confusing sections and parts and clauses. There’s been a lot on this.

Hearing that section 4 has not been raised as an issue, I would just like to understand whether there was specific consultation, whether that was flagged for direct discussion with the business community or with labour groups specifically. I still am confused as to whether or not there has in fact been a clear assertion of support. I want to ensure that we’re not hearing an assertion of support on behalf of organizations that may or may not actually have asserted that support.

I want to afford the opportunity for the Attorney General to recognize the possibility that there might yet be a robust discussion to be had around this section, were the issue canvassed fully with folks in the business community. I’m simply just trying to get a better understanding of whether that work has been done or will be done.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Asked and answered.

The Chair: Member, if you can redirect your line of inquiry, that would be helpful. Thank you.

Gavin Dew: I will happily do so, Madam Chair.

In the service of better understanding the implications of section 4, I would like to ask whether the ministry undertook any models, projections or recommendations on what, including labour mobility, this section would do to B.C.’s economy and whether, in the development of such models, consultation with business economists of regard were undertaken.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Asked and answered, again.

The Chair: Member, I would direct you to your colleague’s comments and questions to make sure that you’re not repeating the work he has already done.

Gavin Dew: My apologies.

Just to confirm: will such models be made available?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, asked and answered. Same line of questioning that I already answered.

Gavin Dew: Just one more question here. This government and others have previously talked extensively about expanding certifications for foreign-trained credentials. I’m looking to better understand why, in the context of a very robust conversation both provincially and federally around the recognition of foreign credentials, we would not want to apply a similar approach to interprovincial credential recognition.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I canvassed all the ways that we are doing that with the Labour Mobility Act. Obviously, it wouldn’t be applicable to this act whether foreign credentials would apply, because we’re dealing with credentials within Canada.

[5:00 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for the answers that we’ve been supplied so far.

On this side of the House, we’re also trying to work towards relief for British Columbians, because a lot of British Columbians are worried about tariffs. But we want to make sure we’re getting it right, because a lot of people are also concerned, in B.C., how this bill came about. So it’s important for us to ask those questions so the people at home that are listening can have a robust understanding of this bill.

There was some discussion that was had. The Attorney General mentioned there were certain elements of duplication. That’s why clause 4 is in here, so extraprovincial occupations involving labour are not — those types of provisions are not addressed again. That’s why there’s an opting out of extraprovincial occupations pursuant to the Labour Mobility Act.

I understand that, but if we compare clause 4 to clause 3, clause 3 referred to goods and services. Now we’re talking about labour. But even in goods and services, there is a certain element of duplication involving goods. There’s a duplication involving services. That’s why clause 3…. The prime example of how duplication exists is that clause 3 was actually talking about inconsistencies and overriding provisions and stuff like that.

So if there exists duplication in, like, goods and services, and now we’re being told that there’s duplication in labour, and that’s why this clause is what it is — that’s why it’s saying extraprovincial occupations in regards to the Labour Mobility Act should not be included — that doesn’t really make sense.

Does the Attorney General have an explanation why it makes sense in this case versus not in the sense of clause 3, in comparing clause 4 to clause 3?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m unable to provide that answer unless the member can point to me somewhere in the clause or section 3 where there is a duplication with another piece of legislation that deals with trade barriers and dropping of trade barriers.

Steve Kooner: Sorry. What I meant to say was — I referred to clause 3. I was actually meaning to refer to clause 2, sorry. So the reference was to clause 2, 2 and 4. Section, yeah, clause 2.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, again, Chair, I would like to know from the member what part of clause 2 refers to or exempts duplication of another legal instrument that involves dropping of interprovincial trade barriers on goods and services.

Steve Kooner: There isn’t specific language that talks about duplication, but the provisions, how they’re worded, they indicate there is some duplication of certain regulations addressing the same subject matter.

If you go to clause 2 again, it talks about “subject to any laws of British Columbia respecting who may….” You know, it refers to other laws, and it’s a “subject to.” And then it goes further. It goes further in subsection (5) of clause 2: “if there is a conflict or inconsistency between (a) an enactment or regulatory measure,” and then it says what provision would apply. So it talks about inconsistencies.

Why it’s talking about inconsistency, in my respectful submission, is because there are other regulations, other enactments that are actually covering the same content. That’s why it’s referring to it.

In terms of the explanations that were provided in terms of clause 4, of duplication, it’s my respectful submission that there is duplication in goods and services as well. Otherwise, some of these provisions would not be referring to other enactments, about inconsistent enactments and conflicts and subject to, if there was no other enactment in regards to specific content.

So that’s an example. Yes, there is no specific wording that says “duplication” in clause 2, but if you read the section as a whole and you read the wording, that inference is there in regards to duplication and addressing the same content with various different enactments.

[5:05 p.m.]

So the question is, again: if we’re trying to avoid duplication, that answer or that explanation doesn’t make sense when we also have…. We have duplication in regards to goods and services already, but we’re allowing for provisions on goods and services, but we’re not allowing it on labour.

The question again. If we have provisions that deal with content that’s referred to in this bill but also there are other enactments, in my respectful opinion, that would be duplication. I’m just trying to understand why there is a difference in one section ruling out specific content because there is argument that there is duplication.

The Chair: I will remind the committee that at this time, we are debating clause 4 of part 1. We have already passed clause 2 of part 1. If we could stay focused on clause 4, that would be appreciated.

Please do not argue with the Chair. Thank you, Member.

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s hard to answer that question because clause 2 and clause 4 are very different, and they operate very differently. We don’t look at legal regimes and how to solve a legal problem in the way that the member is positioning it, as “if you do it in this section, you need to do it in this section.”

What you do is try to figure out what the legal tool is that you need to solve the problem and to make sure you have the wording in place to solve that problem.

Clause 2 is worded to solve the problem of dropping barriers on goods and services. This part 4 is included because we have a legal regime that deals with the Labour Mobility Act, whereas we don’t have a legal regime that specifically deals with dropping interprovincial trade barriers.

So there is nothing to be gained from comparing this section with clause 2 because they are targeted and used to do different things.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for her response.

I have a follow-up question. Is this the first time in B.C. that we’re seeing a carve-out for labour mobility or extraprovincial occupations? Is this the first time we’re seeing this in a piece of legislation? Or is there a precedent from before as well?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m not aware of any examples, and my team has searched and is unaware of any as well.

Steve Kooner: If we’re not aware of any examples, have there been any studies done in terms of how this precedent…? What precedent will this section set for future legislation?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ve canvassed for quite a long time the need for this particular provision and the need for this regime to be clear that it doesn’t apply to this part.

So I don’t have anything further to offer on that on this conversation except to say that there is legal rationale for why we have included this in this section, and the work will be in dropping the interprovincial trade barriers using the tools that exist.

Steve Kooner: Have there been any studies done in regards to how other provinces may perceive this particular section when they’re looking at interprovincial trade with British Columbia?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, and I would imagine that such a study…. I’m not sure how you would frame that or do it, but in the context of the time that we’re in and working together as a Team Canada approach, I would say that would just slow things down.

Steve Kooner: Provided that there’s no precedent from before in excluding extraprovincial occupations in regards to the Labour Mobility Act, that could send a message that there have been exclusions in terms of interprovincial trade from British Columbia. And we’ve heard that there are concerns from stakeholders. One reference was the CFIB, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

When we’re carving out sections from content, when we’re carving out labour and isolating it from goods and services, that sends a message that we’re not giving a fulsome approach to removing interprovincial trade barriers, especially when there’s urgent need. The business community is looking at the government in regards to expediency to deal with the tariffs. People are threatened with losing their jobs, and people are threatened…. There are business community members that feel threatened in suffering business losses due to the threat of the tariffs.

Increasing labour mobility through interprovincial trade would provide benefits to B.C. We’ve heard for some time now there are certain professionals that would like to practise across provinces, but they run up against obstacles.

So this is the time, if we want to kind of act in expediency, to provide some sort of resolution to help the business community, making sure that we have the proper safeguards to protect us from the foreign entity that’s threatening us with tariffs, to include a fulsome approach with a full piece of enabling legislation that addresses all pieces, all content, that concern interprovincial trade.

So at this time, I would like to move an amendment to clause 4; that is by amending clause 4 by striking the word “not” out.

The Chair: Members, we have an amendment to clause 4, and the amendment is as....

[5:15 p.m.]

Would you like to speak to the amendment at this time?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I would just like to, if I can, Chair, ask a question, because I think it will help.

I haven’t heard the member articulate what he believes the amendments will do and what the implications are to the entire regime. If he can explain that to me, that would be helpful.

Steve Kooner: Well, when you’re removing the word “not,” that gives the opposite meaning. That allows for the inclusion of extraprovincial occupations that are referenced in the Labour Mobility Act. That sends a signal to the business community that in times of urgent need, their concerns are being taken into place and the government is serious about interprovincial trade barriers. That sends a clear message in regard to that.

The amendment would make it easier for skilled carpenters, electricians, nurses, doctors and any other skilled workers that could move to B.C. if barriers were removed. It would support increasing trade and mobility between our provinces. B.C. already has a shortage of skilled workers. This would help us in this province.

The amendment would include labour mobility and add greater free trade. So it would apply to labour mobility.

The Chair: Thank you, Member. The amendment has been reviewed and appears to be a direct negative. As such, it is considered to be out of order. The preferred practice is for a member to vote against the clause rather than seeking to move an amendment proposing a direct negative.

Thank you very much for your amendment. We will continue on clause 4.

Steve Kooner: So when the government was formulating clause 4, and, you know, the labour mobility was being carved out…. But the government was aiming for addressing interprovincial trade barriers and removing them.

By removing labour mobility, were there any concerns had in government or anybody that the government consulted with in terms of stakeholders that said that or felt that the definition of interprovincial trade barriers and their removal were being narrowed or the bill’s scope was being narrowed rather than broadened by carving out a certain aspect of this?

Were there any concerns within government or amongst stakeholders?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ve already answered this many times.

The Chair: If you can redirect your line of questioning.

[5:20 p.m.]

Seeing no further questions, shall clause 4 pass?

An Hon. Member: Division.

[5:25 p.m.]

The Chair: Members, at this time, it appears that we have everyone in place. Are we all right to waive the next four minutes and 22 seconds?

Leave granted.

The Chair: Thank you so much. Before putting the question, I remind all members that only members of Section A, or their duly appointed substitutes, are authorized to vote. The question is whether clause 4 of Bill 7, the Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act, shall pass.

Clause 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 7
Blatherwick	Neill	Davidson
Parmar	Routledge	Sharma
	Botterell
NAYS — 5
Kooner	Dew	Boultbee
Mok		Williams

The Chair: We will be moving on to clause 5 after a ten-minute recess. Everybody who’s supposed to be back in their seats, be back in by 5:37, please.

The committee recessed from 5:27 p.m. to 5:39 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you, members. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 7, Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act, back to order.

On clause 5.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you very much, and welcome to the chair, Madam Chair.

[5:40 p.m.]

Maybe I’ll take this opportunity, as well, to thank the Attorney General for answering these questions and being a part of this process.

I also want to thank the staff. This has been a long week already for many of you, so thank you very much for the work you’re doing on behalf of British Columbians. We are asking these questions on their behalf to make sure that the legislation is understood and there’s fulsome scrutiny of the bill.

Again, as we’ve said many times, internal trade and labour mobility is crucial in Canada. We’re trying to ensure that we have knowledge that we’re getting it right.

Part of that is clause 5, in regard to the power to make regulations. Obviously, in legislation this is common practice; this is an important part of legislation, granting these powers. But they should not be taken lightly. This is, obviously, an important clause of part 1 — of the entire bill as a whole. Really, when it comes to regulations, they need to be transparent.

That’s partly why, in relation to this overall part 1 of the bill as stand-alone legislation, it is still my belief, and many others, that this would have made sense. The power to make regulations under a cleaner act on interprovincial trade and labour mobility would make more sense. I’m wondering in this power if the Attorney General could respond to, again, why this is not a stand-alone power being granted in this clause of the bill.

The Chair: We’re just having a technical issue, so we’re going to take a brief two-minute recess to check on the issue and resume.

The committee recessed from 5:42 to 5:43 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you. We’re calling the Committee of the Whole back to order.

Kiel Giddens: I’ll repeat my question, as it wasn’t recorded in the previous instance. Clause 5 is in regard to the power to make regulations. So it’s an important part of any legislation, and this is consequential here to part 1 of the bill. Again, we’re trying to get trade and labour mobility right. And my question is: in granting this power — it’s not something to be taken lightly; this is an important part of legislation — why could we not have done this in a stand-alone bill?

I’d like to just hear the answer from the Attorney General as to why, with respect to clause 5, part 1 of the bill, this couldn’t have been done with a stand-alone bill.

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Before I answer, if the member could provide more clarity: does he mean whether or not all of part 1 could have been a stand-alone bill, or is he referring to the regulatory power versus the other part of part 1?

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate that maybe I could have been more clear; it’s getting long in the day. In relation to the granting of regulatory authority — in relation, overall, to part 1 — why couldn’t part 1, as a whole, have been a stand-alone bill, so that the granting of regulations under clause 5 could have been simpler, perhaps, if done under those circumstances?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Two aspects of this answer. The reason there’s a part 2 and a part 3 is because of our other responses to the tariff threat.

With respect to part 1, if we were thinking in terms of regulatory versus legislative, the regulatory provisions in clause 5 help give flexibility and ways to make sure that by clause 2 in part 1, the powers of part 1 have the ability to basically protect anything or do anything that the minister, through their work, would want to do through regulation to exempt it from the interprovincial trade barriers dropping.

Kiel Giddens: Maybe just because it wasn’t read into the record properly before, I again want to thank the Attorney General for the work on responding to these questions. I also want to give a very special thank-you to the staff, who are working hard on behalf of British Columbians. Public servants do a fantastic job on our behalf.

I guess the reason I’m asking this question in this context…. I recognize the other parts of the bill that were in relation to the response to tariffs, but this particular section, and the regulations that would come out of it, could be viewed as different and apart from the other parts of the bill.

There are organizations that have said that had interprovincial trade been introduced on its own, then the regulations would not have had a sunset clause. It would be made permanent, they’d be part of a long-standing, stand-alone piece of interprovincial trade legislation, and they would have regulations that would follow that bill in its entirety.

I’m asking because I would like clarity as to why part 1 wasn’t done as a stand-alone bill without a sunset clause.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Chair, I have spoken to a question that was almost identical to this one before, but I will provide an answer again.

[5:50 p.m.]

The uses of clause 2 in this bill are considered pretty extraordinary powers to be given — to override all pieces of legislation and regulation with respect to interprovincial trade barriers. The overall goal is to make them permanent and to make the work permanent, but the flexibility that’s built into this act gives the ability of ministers to do a few things.

Through the negative exemption list, it will be very clear, when the regulations are adopted, which industries or which sectors are not included in the dropping of trade barriers — or which goods and services, to be more specific. That will be the way that we will operate, and then the minister and the government can see if there are any adjustments that are needed as they roll out, and the regulatory power gives the flexibility of that.

Then with respect to the sunset clause, there’s an ability to then come before the Legislature or do the changes necessary to make sure either to extend some of those regulations or to do the work of making them permanent.

Kiel Giddens: I very much appreciate that response. I think it was an important one to be read into the record to understand the intent of permanence of provisions. I think that’s good clarity, and that’s something that I wanted confirmed, so I appreciate that.

With regards to the sunset clause and coming back to the Legislature, I’m wondering if the Attorney General can provide some context of at what point that could occur. Obviously, we don’t know the time limit of the tariff response and what is needed there, but could this be at any point, and would there be anything that would prevent coming back to the Legislature at the earliest opportunity?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah. We would expect that work to be done very quickly, and if not already underway, as soon as possible. It gives the opportunity for the space between where the sunset clause would kick in, and there would be two opportunities before the Legislature and/or through other forms of regulation to make those changes.

Kiel Giddens: So just to clarify, it would come back to the Legislature two times prior to the sunset clause coming in? Sorry. Maybe I misheard it.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, I didn’t describe that properly. There are two legislative sessions in between. That’s what I meant by that.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the Attorney General for the clarification there.

Maybe moving on to another topic, the power to make regulations. A lot can be done through policy, obviously, and this is part of the intent of the bill as a whole. But in policy, that’s where the political aspects come into play. In many cases where political parties enact their political platforms, some of that is through legislation, but a lot of the work and detail ends up being through policy and regulatory ability.

For example, I look at things that have been created that are more political in nature, the way our regulations are granted, and I want to use the example of community benefits agreements. I’m saying this as critic for Labour for the official opposition, because those agreements do exclude the vast majority of contractors and their workers from public projects. That could be construed as a politically motivated act to do that.

There are workers across the province who aren’t able to work on these public projects unless they agree to join a union that is improved by the government. Obviously, that has driven up the cost of public projects. It also, in this context, is a little bit ironic, because American-headquartered unions are the only ones that are included on that list.

[5:55 p.m.]

I’m wondering how this bill, in terms of the regulatory power, might work for businesses who are coming…. Regulations being enacted for goods and services of a business coming from outside the province, how does this impact B.C. Infrastructure Benefits and community benefits agreements overall?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just in terms of the legal mechanisms in this part of the bill, a CBA wouldn’t fit the definition of a regulatory measure, which was the very first clause, if you remember back, that we talked about. So it wouldn’t necessarily apply to or be implicated in any of the powers here.

What I would say is that we are, at some point, going to get to the discussion about procurement, and I wonder if there’s a procurement question that’s in the member’s inquiry or line of inquiry there.

Kiel Giddens: Yeah, we will get in a fair bit to procurement.

The reason I’m asking is because I’m wondering how businesses and supply chains, just as they’re adjusting…. How can they adjust if the internal trade part of the bill has the sunset clause? How can they adjust to regulations? How will they be publicly disclosed to make sure that businesses are aware?

We’ll leave it at that.

Hon. Niki Sharma: All regulations are public, and there will be, as we mentioned in this discussion, that negative list that’s created. So it’ll be very clear which regulations and what the authorities do.

Steve Kooner: In reviewing section 5(1)(a)…. It states that “the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows: exempting a good from the application of section 2(1).” But when you review clause 2, you see that there’s a lot of discretion of the minister to still exclude certain goods. So I’m just wondering: isn’t this section redundant? Is there a reason why we have another exempting provision in clause 5?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There is no exemption power in clause 2 that we talked about. This is the exemption power found under regulation.

Steve Kooner: There was a discussion that was had in terms of clause 2, in terms of…. Certain provisions can be excluded. They can be overruled. We went at length about the words of “subject to other laws” and stuff like that. So, basically, that’s what I’m referring to. There were certain qualifications that I spent a lot of time talking about in clause 2.

[6:00 p.m.]

When I’m talking about the exempting language, is it the interpretation of the Attorney General that exempting is different from a qualification on a clause?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, they are very different things legally.

Steve Kooner: Then, in regard to the second, I have a point in regards to subsection (b) of clause 5, and that refers to exempting another province of Canada from the application of section 2(1). When I view this, it’s like…. What I view it as….

Is this suggesting that the province of British Columbia could say: “Look, we’re not going to do interprovincial trade with a certain province in this country”? Is that what this is trying to get at?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, it provides the minister with the ability to exempt — we’re talking about a specific good, because it will be through a negative list — from the dropping of trade barriers for a specific province.

Steve Kooner: Has the government contemplated any sort of reactionary measures that may be encountered by our government with another province if certain goods are exempted and that are actually coming from certain other provinces?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Although we would never intend to use such a provision, the reason it was put in, in this piece of enabling legislation, is that through the examination of….

We’re all taking a Team Canada approach and making sure that we’re all working together to do that. But in an instance where there is a province that either has a standard that is what we’d consider below a standard that we would set a good at or is an outlier when it comes to a certain good or, in this situation, a good, then the minister has the flexibility to be able to do that particular exclusion.

Steve Kooner: Would it also be fair to say under this provision, which states, “exempting another province of Canada from the application of section 2(1),” which refers to goods, there’s nothing stopping the Lieutenant Governor in Council from exempting all goods from that province, pursuant to this legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s right. The way it’s drafted, it could be used flexibly for the minister, including as the member describes.

Steve Kooner: Having that particular language in our legislation here…. Doesn’t that send a message that we’re being protectionists rather than being open for free trade, in this province, with other provinces?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Other provinces that have enacted legislation or are presenting legislation are taking the approach of what we talk about as “reciprocity.” They’re saying: “Our trade barriers will drop if another province enacts similar legislation.” How we’ve designed this bill is to be more flexible, so what you could do, depending on how it goes, is you could drop a trade barrier without reciprocity from another province.

[6:05 p.m.]

But in that scenario, if it is how we’re making sure that we also have the ability to protect B.C.’s businesses, in instances when we would need to, from a province that is maybe not acting in a mutual way that we would want them to, we would have the ability to protect or put up those restrictions against that province, against the goods.

So to some extent, all of the conversations that have happened about trade amongst provinces require a level of reciprocity for them to work, and we’re really hopeful that the Team Canada approach will get that level of mutual agreement across the way. We are working towards that.

But in the instances where that doesn’t happen, or if there is a particular good that a B.C. business or a certain sector is asking our minister or the ministry to say, “Hey, this could be the implication if we drop it with this province,” and it would be a negative thing for B.C. business, then it gives the minister the flexibility to adjust and accommodate that circumstance.

Steve Kooner: But doesn’t that create uncertainty to the business community? They’re thinking that it’s a Team Canada approach, that there’s going to be free trade across the country, but then there’s a provision such as this giving discretion to a minister to kind of exclude all goods from a particular province. Does that not go against the principles of free trade, go against what the business community is wanting and go against what the rest of the country is wanting in terms of lowering down interprovincial trade barriers?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I want to take a step back and again reiterate that this is enabling legislation. When you contemplate enabling legislation, you set up scenarios through the regulation that give the powers that you think may or may not be necessary during this dropping of interprovincial trade barriers and the work that’s happening on every table.

There could be a scenario where provinces have actually agreed amongst themselves that we are going to delay the dropping of the trade barrier on this particular good for a certain period of time. This provision would give the minister the power, then, to say: “Well, for this good, we have a separate agreement with this province, and this is how we’re going to go about it.” Maybe that minimizes impact to that industry or that business.

Interprovincial trade barriers and how they show up are extremely complicated. Our approach is to drop them and then give the regulatory power for the work of exempting things that we know would either go against B.C. businesses or jobs or be something that is a standard that, as British Columbians, we wouldn’t want to have for certain goods in our province. With that enabling legislation and the regulatory powers that are laid up, it gives us that flexibility to do that.

With respect to the certainty question, I think we have to remember that this part is in force once that regulation is in place. So when the regulation is in place, what it will create is a negative list. That negative list will provide the certainty to all those in this particular situation — goods that would be under this regulation. So that will give the business community certainty related to that.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for her response.

I have a follow-up question to that. If there is a negative list after considering exemptions…. That’s not a one-time thing, though — right? There can actually be subsequent lists as well.

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just in the context of legislation and regulatory and legislative process, there’s no permanence related to legislation or regulation. Changes of government can change legislation and regulation as they sit, so you would never be able to provide an absolute level of certainty to communities.

But what we can do through these provisions is make sure that the ministers who are tooled up with this enabling piece of legislation have the tools and ability to be flexible, to change if needed, to respond to stakeholders and their concerns, to understand the changing landscape that’s happening with mutual trade agreements and the shifting of provinces working together in a different way and to enact them quickly if we need to — or there’s an opportunity there for the B.C. community and workers or businesses or any other thing.

Also, something really important to remember is: why would you want an exempting provision? Well, the reason you’d want one is that there might be health and safety reasons. There might be public interest reasons why we would want to exempt a certain good from dropping an interprovincial trade barrier. That’s important work to have a lens on.

The power of clause 2 is the dropping of all trade barriers except these exemptions. So it’ll be very clear to the public and all actors what they are.

Steve Kooner: For businesses that are concerned about uncertainty…. Certain businesses will probably change their business practices. If they want to come and do business here in B.C., they’ll probably change how they’re structured. So when a business is planning, they want to know that there are some certain terms, so if they change their practices, which could be labour-intensive or cost-intensive, they would want to know that the situation won’t turn on them in terms of regulations and legislation that’s in place or certain negative lists that exist.

So I feel that maybe the business community can be given a certain soothing if they were assured there are certain checks and balances on a minister’s discretion to exercise some of these provisions in here. Are there any sorts of checks and balances that are applicable to a minister’s discretion in regards to this section?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are two significant checks and balances on the use of this power.

I just want to say that we heard from the opposition in response to the bill that they find it very important that the Legislature is involved in processes and that there are democratic protections against the use of powers. So this is why not only the amendments were made to this bill but why the bill is structured the way it is.

One of those checks and balances is the Lieutenant Governor in Council, so that means cabinet makes the regulation under clause 5. And the other one is the sunset clause, which allows for there to be clarity about what exists and allows us to work through permanent changes, to make sure that when those changes happen, they come back to the Legislature or some kind of legislative process to do that.

There also would be…. On the tables that we’re sitting in when we’re negotiating with our other provinces, there is going to be a lot of pressure of progress and new avenues to drive changes through those.

[6:15 p.m.]

We would have to justify any changes that we would make provincially at those tables and through those agreements. So everything…. All the work is moving towards certainty and permanence but with the rights, checks and balances in place.

Steve Kooner: Can the Attorney General just explain the first check and balance? I thought I heard “tenant” governor in council. Was it “Lieutenant Governor in Council?” Can the Attorney General please explain that first check and balance?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I said “lieutenant.” I think I said that correctly, although I’m often corrected if I say “lieutenant” instead of “lef-tenant” Governor in Council, which means that it is not a regulation that the minister makes. It’s a regulation that cabinet makes, which is a different sort of regulation.

Steve Kooner: But that is technically a regulation that’s made by ministers, because ministers are in cabinet. Is that correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The difference is sometimes enactments grant the minister responsible the regulatory-making power, and some legislation grants the Lieutenant Governor in Council, which means cabinet, so it’s an all-of-cabinet decision.

Steve Kooner: For the people listening at home, can that process be explained? When a decision is being made by Lieutenant Governor in Council, by cabinet, is it just a recommendation by a minister and it goes to the Premier and somebody signs off on it? How does that work? How much say does the minister that’s handling the file actually have in that decision?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Like many cabinet processes, what would happen is the responsible ministries, or the ones doing the policy work, would present whatever that would be, in this case a regulation, and then it would be up to cabinet to sit around the table, discuss that and make the decision on that regulation.

Steve Kooner: In regard to the second check and balance, which was referred to as a sunset clause that will allow for, eventually, some permanent changes…. In regard to permanent changes, does the government have any timeline when permanent changes may start to come in regard to some of these provisions in clause 5?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This was asked and answered previously.

Steve Kooner: It may have been answered in a previous clause.

I guess I’m just seeking clarity if what was discussed in terms of the sunset clause in regard to previous clauses — if that’s applicable to this as well?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes.

Steve Kooner: Going on to subclause 5(2), if you read along (b), there’s a wording about establishing, defining classes of goods, services or provinces of Canada. When I read that phrase, “provinces of Canada,” and then I put into perspective what I’ve just heard in terms of explanations for this particular clause, in terms that a particular province could be exempted….

As per this, just to clarify, it could be more than one province that could be exempted, more than one province that could be exempted from the removal of interprovincial trade barriers. Is that correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, that’s correct. There are some really good reasons for a minister eventually making a decision like that.

[6:20 p.m.]

What we’ve seen with trade across Canada is oftentimes, or maybe more often than nationally, B.C. has been able to form agreements with more neighbouring provinces. And the northwest trade agreement is an example of that, where it’s provinces that are close to us.

Through those other agreements, there may be examples where those provinces agree to do something a certain way and it just makes more sense regionally or for some reason like that. This would give the minister the ability to make sure that’s clear through regulation.

Steve Kooner: If there were no safeguards and, say, the legislation just said that trade was open, what’s the worst downside of just having free-for-all, open trade across the provinces, in regard to goods and services?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There might be any number of reasons.

First of all, the approach generally is, and it’s actually through the wording of the legislation, to do a general dropping, except for the exemptions. There would be, kind of, more of a widespread approach of not having trade barriers — if we’re talking about goods now, here, and we’ve described services in detail before — except for the exemptions.

Why would you want to have an exemption? Well, you could think of a health and safety standard that exists in a good that we, for some reason, feel doesn’t meet something that we would permit to be sold in the province as a good. It allows the minister, through regulation and, I guess, eventually cabinet, to act in the public interest. If there’s a public interest reason that that good, in this instance, or service…. If we need to make sure there’s a barrier in place from it being sold in B.C., it gives them that ability.

Things like ICBC…. We have a different approach to car insurance in B.C. than other provinces, which has resulted in cheaper car insurance rates here in B.C. than other provinces. If there’s something that we, in the public interest, would say is excluded from the dropping of all barriers, it would give us the tools and ability to do that.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for her response.

There was something that the Attorney General spoke about: we may have different standards here in terms of health. There were a few other examples that were mentioned, but I’d like to refer back to an earlier part of the debate. I believe there was some discussion that there are a lot of common standards right across the country. If there are a lot of common standards right across the country, doesn’t that take care of this fear that we need to be still more protectionist here?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, the approach that this legislation sets out is the dropping of all barriers to goods, and I think I mentioned that before. The default stance is the dropping, and the regulation is just an ability in a circumstance, and I gave an example of ICBC, where we would have a different approach and we would maybe want to exempt it from that dropping. It gives the regulatory authority to do so.

Steve Kooner: Earlier in part of this debate, not too long ago, there was a reference to how if certain other provinces did not bring down their barriers, the exempting provisions would actually help to address that situation.

To that particular issue, is the Attorney General of a belief that other provinces would not offer reciprocal or free trade, and is that a justification for this legislation?

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have no reason to believe that, and actually, it’s quite the opposite. The legislation is pretty broad and, I think, a strong leadership stance in our position when it comes to interprovincial trade barriers and how they impact the economy because of the powers and the balance of this bill and what it will do.

As I mentioned earlier, I don’t think there has ever been a bill before the House in this province that has had more of an ability to drop interprovincial trade barriers than the one that’s before us.

Steve Kooner: Has the Attorney General been in any discussions with this government’s provincial counterparts, and can certain examples be shared today with our side of the House to tell us how many provincial jurisdictions are actually willing to engage in interprovincial trade and relieving these restrictions?

Have there been discussions amongst other provinces and other jurisdictions that have suggested that they will reciprocate, they will remove their interprovincial trade barriers?

Have there been those discussions? If there have been those discussions, how many actual provinces have said that they’re going to bring down the barriers? Is it all the provinces, or is it just some of them?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’ve had a chance to talk about this quite a bit, I think, on clause 1. We are at every table, and I think it’s all of them. All provinces and territories are at the table for dropping interprovincial trade barriers.

Steve Kooner: At any point in any of those discussions with those other governments, were there any concerns that they would be exempting some of their goods and services?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Not that I’m aware of.

Steve Kooner: Does the Attorney General’s office have a current list that they want to exempt under this clause 5 readily available that they anticipate producing into the public in the near future?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No. The ministries are working on it, and once it becomes a regulation that’s passed, it will be very clear what that negative list is.

Steve Kooner: Is there a timeline to when this side of the House can actually be able to see that list?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I don’t have a date right now, but I know that JEDI is working very hard, so it would be as soon as possible.

Steve Kooner: I know an example was given earlier about certain goods that would be excluded, that violate health standards, but can the Attorney General’s department be more clear about which goods, exactly, have been considered and that they are aware are going to be on that example list?

Hon. Niki Sharma: My team recommended that I say as soon as practical, which I thought was kind of funny. Inside joke.

Interjections.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Thank you.

To the question: I, of course, cannot bind any cabinet process right now. Any regulator would go to cabinet to do that. That would be something that will be coming and is being worked on as we speak.

Steve Kooner: Is it fair to say that there are certain goods in the government’s minds that they’re thinking about putting on an exempting list, but they’re not in a position to disclose those right now?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, the work’s being done right now to identify that.

[6:30 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Is that the same for services? I understand that there’s a process in place. Is there a similar process for services as well?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes.

Steve Kooner: I was told that the timeline is as soon as practicable for goods. Is that the same for the services, as well, or will that be faster than the goods?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Same timeline.

Gavin Dew: In reviewing section 5(1)(b), (c), (e), (f) and other areas, I find myself somewhat confused around scope. I note in the explanatory note of the bill: “Part 1 of this bill provides for the removal of barriers to the sale and use of goods and the supply of services in British Columbia in relation to goods and services from another province or territory of Canada.”

The language used within the bill itself specifies in all those instances — again, 5(1)(b), (c), (e), (f) and other areas — only another “province” of Canada. From my basic research, it would appear that best practices for the drafting of bills are that “province” and/or “territory” should be spelled out, given that the two are constitutionally distinct and that such an omission could lead to legal ambiguity.

Could the Attorney General please clarify whether this is a drafting error or whether it is intentional and we do not intend to pursue reduced interprovincial or interterritorial trade barriers with our friends in the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to appreciate the member’s very specific question about a specific clause and the wording of the clause. Excellent.

The answer to that question is in the Interpretation Act. I can get you the section. It’s section 29. It says if “province” is used on its own, it by default means all the territories as well.

Gavin Dew: I’m still uncertain as to why, in the explanatory note, we are explicitly spelling out province or territory, but in the bill itself, we’re choosing to use only province. While I recognize the salience of the other applicable interpretations, I simply don’t understand why in the bill itself we are signalling to territories our disinterest in reducing trade barriers with them.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The explanatory note is often used like a plain-language description, so it helps people understand the content of the bill. The Interpretation Act is a piece of legislation in B.C. that helps us guide how we draft and what language we use and how it is meant to be interpreted. So in that way, the use of “province” legally clearly means also territories.

Gavin Dew: Recognizing the legal meaning, I do still have concerns about the clarity of the bill, and I would like to request a recess as we consider bringing forth an amendment accordingly.

[6:35 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: It’s standard drafting practice in this province that legislation incorporates definitions in the Interpretation Act. In doing so, if you repeat the interpretation in the actual legislation, you create legislative confusion. So it’s just standard practice.

Maybe I’m mistaken, but I’d like to direct a question to the Attorney General, to understand whether my interpretation of how the Interpretation Act provides an umbrella of definitions that apply across all the thousands of pieces of legislation in B.C. is correct.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The member is correct.

Gavin Dew: This is the part where we come up with questions, so that we can draft an amendment. Thank you all for sticking with the drafting and amendment show, as our folks draft amendments. Super fantastic.

I have lots of questions, which just haven’t come into my mind yet. You know, I feel like 14½ minutes is very achievable. I’ve got all these great Bill 7 jokes. I’ve got all these great tariff jokes. It’s fantastic. My act has been prepared for forever and ever and ever.

Returning to my prior question, can the Attorney General please expand on any consultation undertaken with the territories that might reasonably have led toward the belief that it was not significant — or perhaps it was significant — to those territories that they be explicitly included in the bill, in plain language, rather than relying on the underlying Interpretation Act to provide that clarity?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ve met with the AG and the Premier of Northwest Territories personally about how we could be of assistance to each other in dropping interprovincial trade.... I know the Premier has as well, but also they’re at every table when it comes to trade barriers. That’s part of the conversation.

Gavin Dew: Can the Attorney General expand on whether there’s any reason why she and her colleagues on the government side of the House would not vote, accordingly, to amend the bill to explicitly spell out “province or territory”?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s because it would be unnecessary. As I think we’ve already canvassed, there is a legal order to how we draft and include legislation. If you do specific things that are outliers in one piece of legislation, it wreaks.... Well, the legislative drafters would say it would provide havoc to the rest of the legislation. So you just don’t do that.

Gavin Dew: Based on that explanation, can the Attorney General edify me as to why, if that inconsistency would be problematic, we have that exact inconsistency included in the bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s not in the bill; it’s in the explanatory note. Again, the Interpretation Act provides a full answer to the question.

Gavin Dew: Can the Attorney General generally agree that it would be a positive gesture toward our friends in the territories to more explicitly spell out, in the bill, our preference for a fulsome and inclusive definition that would allow for them to fully appreciate our appreciation of them and fully appreciate just how important the territories are to interprovincial trade?

[6:40 p.m.]

It’s recognizing that, by its very nature, the terminology we use around interprovincial trade, in itself, marginalizes our friends in the territories, who might very well ask why it is that we refer repeatedly to interprovincial trade, rather than some other terminology that would duly provide them with a greater sense of inclusion in this great country of ours.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Asked and answered.

The Chair: Member, I would ask that you redirect your questioning to a new line.

Gavin Dew: Thank you. An amendment is presently on the way and will be arriving shortly. As that amendment proceeds down the hallways of the Legislature, hopefully moving at the speed….

Oh, look at that. Look at that. How wonderful. An amendment has arrived, as if from the very heavens, just in the nick of time. After all of that stalling, all of that super-interesting discourse, I have now brought this proposed amendment, and I would be pleased to provide said amendment.

Having expertly prepared this amendment on a just-in-time production basis — a grand metaphor in a time of trade integration, as we think about the production of vehicle manufacturing and other such things…. Using a just-in-time production methodology, we have developed this proposed amendment, which I would like to bring. The amendment reads as follows.

[SECTION 5, by adding the underlined text as shown:

5 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows:

(a) exempting a good from the application of section 2 (1);

(b) exempting another province or territory of Canada from the application of section 2 (1);

(c) providing that an enactment or regulatory measure applies to a good, or to goods from another province or territory of Canada, despite section 2 (2);

(d) exempting a service from the application of section 2 (3);

(e) exempting another province or territory of Canada from the application of section 2 (3);

(f) providing that an enactment or regulatory measure applies to a service, or to services from another province or territory of Canada, despite section 2 (4);

(g) prescribing regulatory authorities for the purpose of the definition of “regulatory authority” in section 3.

(2) In making a regulation under this section, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may do one or more of the following:

(a) establish terms and conditions;

(b) establish or define classes of goods, services or provinces of Canada;

(c) make different regulations in relation to different goods, services or provinces of Canada, or different classes of goods, services or provinces of Canada.]

The Chair: Thank you, Member. We will take a short recess.

The committee recessed from 6:43 p.m. to 6:45 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, I call the Committee of the Whole, Section A, back to order.

Member, the proposed amendment is out of order on the basis of redundancy, given the drafting standards and the provisions of the Interpretation Act noted earlier.

Amendment ruled out of order.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have an amendment to move with respect to this particular clause, and I believe it’s been previously circulated to all members. Specifically, it changes the definition of government procurement entity.

The Chair: Members, we have an amendment to clause 6. You’ll find a copy of the amendment in the orders of the day. The amendment is in order.

[CLAUSE 6, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Definitions for this Part

6 In this Part:

“government procurement entity” means

(a) a government organization, as defined in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, other than a corporation or organization that is excluded from this definition by regulation under section 11 of this Act, and

(b) a corporation or organization that is included in this definition by regulation under section 11;

“government procurement entity” means a government organization, as defined in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act;

“procurement”, in relation to the procurement of goods or services, includes sourcing, selecting, receiving and contracting for goods or services and other steps taken to acquire goods or services;

“protected person” means the following:

(a) a government procurement entity;

(b) a person who is a member, director, officer or employee of a government procurement entity.]

Amendment approved.

On clause 6 as amended.

Steve Kooner: In regard to the definition of protected person under clause 6…. Does the definition of a protected person include the Lieutenant Governor in Council?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

Steve Kooner: Would the Legislative Assembly, as it receives funds from a consolidated revenue fund, be considered a procurement entity under clause 6?

[6:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, it’s not.

Steve Kooner: In the new amended definition, under clause 6, it now refers to: “A government procurement entity means a government organization, as defined under the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.”

I had a chance to review that Budget Transparency and Accountability Act and the definition of government procurement entity. I believe what it said was that it means a corporation or organization that is within a government reporting entity. Can the Attorney General explain this definition?

Hon. Niki Sharma: To give more clarity on what that definition is, the BTAA contains some extensive and detailed definitions, but broadly speaking, a government reporting entity is made up of the corporations and organizations that, under the applicable public sector accounting standards, are considered to be controlled by the government, directly or indirectly.

Steve Kooner: Could the Attorney General elaborate on that definition? It seemed a bit technical to me, but just try to maybe summarize it in a few sentences, so I can understand it better.

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s all the corporations and organizations that are under government control, so that would include Crown corps, health authorities, things like that.

Steve Kooner: Would it also include municipalities, cities? Would they be considered government procurement entities? They do operate under enabling legislation, and they’re entities through provincial statute. Would they actually come under this government?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No. They’re not a government reporting entity.

[6:55 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: So although they’re not a government reporting entity…. Just to clarify, they’re not a government procurement entity, correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s correct.

Steve Kooner: The example was mentioned — Crown corporations. Would that include all Crown corporations, or are there some exceptions?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It does include them all, but the way this is structured, the government may or may not choose to issue the directives at all of them, but it includes Crown corps.

Steve Kooner: In addition to Crown corporations, are there certain organizations…? What would be an example of organizations included within the government procurement entities?

Hon. Niki Sharma: An example would be health authorities.

Steve Kooner: Is the Attorney General able to provide an extensive list of every organization that would be under a government procurement entity, since my understanding is that not all Crown corporations would be part of this?

[7:00 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: It is actually a very complicated question to answer because what a government reporting entity is changes every year. But the clearest way of knowing what the current list is, is to look at Public Accounts, because they’re documented on there. It would be 29 Crown corporations for sure, and every other government reporting entity means that they have to show up in public accounts with their reporting.

I’d just refer the member to the public accounts year-end. The list of all government reporting entities would be included in that accounting.

Steve Kooner: The Attorney General referred the House to examples of organizations. The example that was given was health authorities. My understanding about health authorities is that they get funding from the provincial government, and there are also regulatory frameworks that actually create those authorities. If there are other bodies that also are created by the province through statute and also they are funded by the province, would they also be classified as a government procurement entity as well?

I’m just trying to understand this. I don’t have a proper understanding of it, so I’m just trying to understand it. I know it’s health authorities; that’s one example. Is there a easy criteria that I can get? So I can figure out, okay, this must be caught under the organization.

I know there is a legal definition, but it’s pretty technical. And so maybe an example could be provided to me on how a health authority becomes a government procurement entity — because it has these specific criteria, and that’s how it becomes it. That type of example would really help me understand. I’d be grateful if the Attorney General could provide a response with such an example.

Hon. Niki Sharma: There’s a definition under the BTAA of a government reporting entity. If you walk through what the entity is based on that definition, a health authority would be captured for a couple reasons. So one is identifying a health sector organization specifically in that definition. But the key one, which is an accounting principle, is: through the generally accepted accounting principles, is it considered to be controlled by a government organization? So in that sense, I think, as the member described, a health authority would fit that definition.

[7:05 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: There seem to be two main criteria. One is that an organization is an entity through legislation, gets some sort of authority from legislation from the provincial government under a provincial statute. The other criteria is accounting principles that show that the organization, financially, is essentially controlled by the provincial government. Am I correct in my understanding?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It can show up more complicated than that, but I think essentially that’s correct.

Steve Kooner: In regard to the accounting principles and being controlled, could it be that the authority also has funds coming from another source other than government? Or is it, essentially, that it would only be controlled by government if all the fund sources were coming from the provincial government?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The key point to make clear to, I think, everybody on this is that you know if you’re a government reporting entity, because you have tipped off the general accounting principles of that provision that says you’re essentially government controlled or enough controlled by government that you are a government reporting entity. That means that you have to provide information that shows up on public accounts.

Its not a surprise to the entities if they meet that test or not because of the way it applies to them. It’s really a multifactorial approach to it. You can be, for example, a non-profit organization that receives government funding and not a GRE. Or you can be an entity that receives government funding and other sources of funding and be a GRE that reports. It’s a very fact-specific analysis, which is why it changes every year and could change every year with respect to that.

Steve Kooner: In regard to the reference to non-profits, some non-profits essentially established themselves because there’s a provincial need, and certain provincial government services are essentially contracted out. Those entities, the non-profits, essentially set themselves up to provide a form of government services. A lot of them do get essentially all of their funding from, say, the provincial government to operate. So is it fair to say a non-profit could also be a government procurement entity?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, it depends. It’s a fact-based analysis. For example, ICBC is a non-profit, so it would be, obviously, a GRE. I think it’s hard to give an answer in an absolute when it comes to this, because it’s related to so many factual…. It’s a factual analysis that makes you an GRE or not.

[7:10 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: Can the Attorney General speak to the implications of procurement as defined in terms of the applicability to collective bargaining agreements?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Unless there’s further clarity on the question, the process in the definition of procurement doesn’t mention or include collective agreements.

Gavin Dew: To add clarity to the question, or attempt to do so, when I read under procurement — the selecting, receiving and contracting for goods or services — under services, I would assume that there could be implications to the organized labour complement of a government procurement entity. Would that be correct, or would that be incorrect?

I’m just trying to understand whether there are potential implications for collective bargaining agreements or for the potential for government to breach or override collective bargaining agreements.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just confirming that the definition of procurement does not include collective bargaining in scope.

Gavin Dew: I may have to explain further in order to understand what I’m getting toward.

If, for example, a government procurement entity, in the course of procuring services for construction or for other such things, wishes to mandate a community benefits agreement or wishes to mandate a requirement, for example, that a service provider be unionized or not be unionized or exist in some other status, what are the implications there?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to clarify, I don’t think we see a connection on this side between collective bargaining or CBAs and procurement policies in the sense of where the procurement directives and the powers of this would be about goods and services and the directive about what they are procuring. There wouldn’t be…. The CBA and collective bargaining process is quite apart from that.

[7:15 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the good-faith answer. I think that the Attorney General is answering the question that she thought I asked. I will try to clarify my question a little further.

I understand where we’re at around collective bargaining agreements. What I am referring to is not collective bargaining agreements themselves, but requirements imposed through the procurement process.

To provide an example, if a government procurement entity, in seeking a contractor to build a piece of infrastructure, in seeking a partner in delivering a government service or in otherwise engaging in procurement of goods or services…. Does this enable government to impose, for example, a requirement that there be a community benefits agreement or a project labour agreement or that a service provider or a goods provider be a unionized shop?

Does this give government the power to impose, either on a forward-looking basis or on an immediate basis, that certain labour conditions, as an example, be met in order for an entity, from which goods or services are being procured, to be eligible to provide those goods or services?

The Chair: Member, I believe your question would be better suited in clause 7. So I would invite you to relate it to this section, clause 6, please.

Interjection.

The Chair: It’s just that we’re at clause 6, which is just the definitions, at this point.

Gavin Dew: I take your point, Madam Chair.

Steve Kooner: Earlier we were discussing government procurement entities, organizations and corporations and how they would be considered within that definition. Were there any considerations, when this definition was being made, as to whether this was too broad of a definition?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m just wondering which definition the member is referring to.

Steve Kooner: The definition is the “government procurement entity.” I know it was amended recently, but still….

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, this is one of those incidents where we took into account concerns that were raised, particularly with our Green Party members here, related to that. The general concern was with the subsection (b) as it existed before — that it may be interpreted as too broad, because it’s a corporation or organization, and that the power would have given the regulatory power to add them.

We decided, after analysis on that, to remove it, just to make it really clear that “government procurement entity” meant, basically, anybody under the GRE.

Steve Kooner: Could the Attorney General explain the legal implications for an individual or entity being designated as a “protected person.” What are the legal consequences? What are the legal restraints in regards to being considered a protected person?

[7:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reason for this definition will be for the application of sections 8 and 9, related to indemnity provisions.

Steve Kooner: How did the government come to this definition for including these particular entities within “protected person”?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think subsection (a) is clear. We needed to provide that protection for government procurement entities. The reason for (b) was that we wanted to give the assurance also to, as in that list, “…a member, director, officer or employee of a government procurement entity” that they were included in that indemnity.

Steve Kooner: In regard to “protected person,” as was just referred to by the Attorney General, it refers to a government procurement entity. Also, in (b), it refers to a person who is “a member, director, officer or employee of a government procurement entity.”

Many of these individuals may have different levels of decision-making within the government procurement role, but the protection is a blanket protection. They’re all protected. Why did the government decide…? Despite the level of decision-making power in regard to a diverse category, why was a blanket “protected person” category given to all of these people in these particular categories?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reason for the broad definition there is to make sure that the people that were actually enacting the directives were clear, and that it was broad enough to cover any possible version of that.

Steve Kooner: Is the definition and use of “protected person” in Bill 7 consistent with how this term is used in other B.C. statutes?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The term “protected person” is used in many statutes, but obviously, every time it’s used, it has to be designed to fit the particular situation of the protected person you would like to protect. It has to be, I guess, custom-designed for that particular statute.

[7:25 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for that response. That was helpful.

I have a follow-up question. If there are unique situations in different B.C. statutes and there’s not a uniform use, the way that we’re using “protected person” here in this legislation, what are the intended legal effects of distinguishing it here?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The intended legal effect will be clear once we get to sections 8 and 9, because I will be able to describe how they’re being used.

Steve Kooner: Earlier I asked a question about whether the cabinet would be included in the government procurement entity by referring to Lieutenant Governor in Council, and the response was no.

So I’d like a further clarification. Is there a restriction from not being included? Is there a legal restriction in legislation from not being included?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s just that cabinet is not a government procurement entity.

Steve Kooner: On the basis that there’s not an actual legal provision prohibiting cabinet from being a government procurement entity but that it seems like it’s not being done, out of practice, I am moving an amendment right now to clause 6, under “protected person,” subsection (b), where it refers to “a person who is a member, director, officer or employee of a government procurement entity:”

[Clause 6 is amended by striking the word “of a government procurement entity”. And substituting: “Of a government procurement entity; (c) but does not apply to the Premier or any member of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”.]

I have that amendment, which I’d like to pass up.

The Chair: Members, we will take a brief recess to distribute the amendment.

The committee recessed from 7:28 p.m. to 7:40 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the Committee of the Whole, Section A, back to order.

Members, we have an amendment to clause 6 as amended.

On the amendment.

The Chair: On the amendment, Member, do you have any further remarks?

Steve Kooner: When I was going through these definitions, and I was trying to get clarification, I was trying to determine what the government’s role would be, what the cabinet’s role would be, in these definitions, and the Premier’s role.

Outside in the public, in regard to part 2, there are a lot of concerns around fiscal management. There are general political issues that are driving those concerns around this particular bill in regard to part 2, specifically around budget and stuff — concerns being a high rate of deficit. The high rate of deficit…. What was quoted by the Finance Minister was $10.9 billion, but it’s much, much higher than that. It’s probably another $3 billion higher than $10.9 billion.

The concerns are that just a few years ago or a couple of years ago the current government inherited a surplus of $6 billion in terms of budget, and now there’s a difference of, essentially, $20 billion. So there’s the concern in the public that they want more accountability. They want more restraint in terms of how further funds are being expensed and how they’re being spent.

The questions, when I was asking those questions, are to see if the cabinet is also a part of, say, the government procurement entity and also, I would say, if it’s also a part of the protected person. If that is the case, and if there is no legal statutory provision that is preventing the cabinet or the Premier to be included in any of these definitions, there’s an issue. There’s an issue that there might be unfettered discretion exercised in terms of the fiscal situation in this province.

So for those reasons, to have more accountability…. Some of these provisions make sense. There might be people that are exercising some authority because the government has told them to do that, to go make certain purchases. They should have certain protections because they don’t have the full insight of the legislation. They don’t have the full power of being decision-makers, whether they would like to carry out certain actions. But the government, the cabinet and the Premier do have that control to determine if they’re going to take certain actions, so there needs to be a higher level accountability set there.

And so for that reason, for the accountability and because there are no specific provisions preventing the cabinet to be included in, say, the government procurement entity definition…. As far as I understand from what I’ve learned so far, there isn’t a specific protection restraining the cabinet from being considered a protected person. So this amendment was brought forward.

[7:45 p.m.]

It’s an amendment that’s brought forward to protect the public so there’s more accountability, so the public doesn’t need to be concerned about fiscal management getting out of control. It has already gotten out of control to a point of a difference of $20 billion. This would allow some assurances to the public that if it’s the cabinet making decisions, they’re not supposed to be included in these protections here.

Those are my submissions too, and I urge the House on both sides to support this amendment, because it’s about accountability. It’s about accountability to British Columbians. That’s what it’s about.

The Chair: Thank you, Member. And just to confirm, the amendment is in order.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I won’t be supporting this amendment, and it’s for quite a few reasons.

I’ll start with the one that it’s a wholly unnecessary amendment. As I’ve described, we’ve already put in the protection that the member is seeking here by making it clear — and I have, on a whole line of questioning that we’ve just had — that “government procurement entity” does not include cabinet and does not include, by default, the Premier or government.

Because of that, the first definition not including it, adding it under “protected person” as a subsection (c), actually wouldn’t make any sense. I guess it’s the way I would put that. It doesn’t add anything to the structure of the bill because the government procurement entity already doesn’t include cabinet.

This is not a…. Not only is it not helpful; it actually is unnecessary because we’ve already sought to include that protection in the actual definition of procurement entity.

So we won’t be supporting this amendment.

Peter Milobar: You know there are always disagreements on wording in bills, and from my perspective, what this does is it provides a bit of certainty to people. Again, I think it’s in taking the entirety of Bill 7 in context why we as opposition are saying that something like this would provide a greater comfort, especially to the public service and those being directed by the Premier and the cabinet.

We do want those people protected for following through on directives that they have been given, but this is about procurement. This is about procurement that may or may not run in contravention to international trade agreements and the exposure that that may create. Certainly you want those other people to be protected, but we want to make sure that the Premier and the cabinet are actually doing everything in their powers to ensure they’re not being fast and loose with the directives.

I would point out that this bill started out with the Premier challenging people to take them to court over it because he felt he could be all-powerful with it. Then there was a bit of withdrawal — a bit. But all the same groups that wanted part 4 of this bill removed also wanted part 2, which we are on now, removed, and they wanted part 3 removed, because there’s a concern on how these parts will actually be used by the Premier and the cabinet, moving forward.

By having this amendment in place saying that it does not apply to the Premier or any member of the Lieutenant Governor in Council is really sending that signal to those same broad community people out there from all walks of life and all political stripes that felt parts 2, 3 and 4 were dramatic government overreach, that indeed things will be dealt with very sensitively, especially around procurement, that all measures will be taken to make sure we aren’t just doing performative press conferences, making directives.

We’ve had, I believe, three press conferences all announcing the same thing about government contracts and procurement from February 1 till now. The bill style hasn’t even been passed, but the Premier has made three different press conferences around it, directing the public service on what they are supposed to be doing in the absence of any legislation already being passed, while groups were saying they have significant concerns about part 2, which we are on, as well as part 3 and part 4.

[7:50 p.m.]

Based on the actions of the Premier himself on how he’s been dealing with the tariff situation, the procurement measures and practices of government, the directives he’s already been providing to the public service three times now, each time, I guess, desperate to have the press conference about it.

No really fundamental changes to what he’s been saying, but every two weeks it seems to be a reannouncement. This is a way to ensure that that fast and loose style is reined in a bit. Again, when the bill was introduced by the Premier, he invited challenges to this bill and said that he invited lawsuits, essentially, by saying that.

That makes people in the public service a little bit nervous. Yes, they will be indemnified in this, but that doesn’t necessarily protect the taxpayers of B.C. overall to any potential exposure or successful claims that may be launched. The person may personally be fine, but the taxpayers as a collective could still be at risk if the Premier and the cabinet do not have some check and balance within this bill at the same time.

That is why I can support the amendment, and I do hope the government takes it seriously and sees that…. Maybe in the Attorney General’s mind, we’re overstating, in a bill like this that’s supposed to have only a one-year shelf life anyways. There’s not really much harm in overstating, but leaving things wide open to interpretation is a bigger problem to me than overstating some things.

Thank you for the time on it.

Gavin Dew: I would echo what’s been said by my colleagues about the importance of clearly, clearly stating what’s happening here. I think the entire history of Bill 7 has been characterized by a lack of transparency. It’s been characterized by a feeling of overreach. It’s been characterized by a fear of a government attempting to take more power without accountability, and I think it has been a tremendous, tremendous detriment to the precious trust that exists between this government and the people that it is supposed to serve.

I can see no reason why this government would be opposed to providing complete and total clarity with this amendment. Stating very explicitly that protecting people is not applicable to the Premier or any member of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. I can see no defensible reason why the Attorney General and why the government would vote against this. I think that it would be a terrible signal about an unwillingness to take accountability and an unwillingness to be explicit about accountability if the government is not willing to vote for this amendment to provide clarity.

This amendment would enable someone to sue the Premier and cabinet for the actions they take under this legislation, which is an outcome that, as the member for Kamloops Centre flagged — the Premier invited that outcome. When you stand up, and you’re the Premier, and you invite people to sue you, you need to be consistent in what you’re inviting. If you’re inviting people to sue you, and then you intend to make it impossible to sue you, that’s not a lot of integrity. That’s not a lot of consistency.

So it is my full hope and expectation that the members opposite, those members of government, will be consistent with past statements made by the Premier, will be consistent with the values they claim to stand for and will vote unanimously to pass this amendment.

Rob Botterell: I don’t know if you’ve heard this word in a committee setting before, but I’m gobsmacked by the comments of my colleague.

It would be a completely inappropriate approach to legislative drafting and developing laws on a very serious issue to be supporting this type of motion. Ostensibly, it’s because in a public setting where there was public debate going on, the Premier somehow invited this, so let’s do this.

[7:55 p.m.]

That is flawed logic. The correct logic is to create the protection against legal proceeding in a way that is measured and approaches this in a thoughtful and defined way.

We in the Green caucus…. We have difficulties with this legislation, and we’re working through this committee process to get the clarifications we need and to look at the amendments we need, but this is not one of those amendments.

We do not support this amendment. We think that creating a situation where the Premier and cabinet are open to being sued…. What sort of environment does that create? That is not good public policy. We will not be supporting this amendment.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, the question is the amendment to clause 6 as amended.

Division has been called.

[8:00 p.m.]

Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section A, or their duly appointed substitutes, are authorized to vote.

The question is the amendment proposed by the member for Richmond-Queensborough to clause 6 as amended.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 5
Kooner	Dew	Boultbee
Mok		Williams
NAYS — 7
Kang	Sandhu	Choi
Routledge	Popham	Sharma
	Botterell

[8:05 p.m.]

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

The Chair: Good evening. The question is on clause 6 as amended.

Clause 6 as amended approved.

On clause 7.

Peter Milobar: Just a couple of overarching questions.

I was reading through clauses 7, 8, 9, 10, even 11. I wasn’t 100 percent sure where it would slot in. It’s kind of like our amendments. You know, it’s the Wayne Gretzky rule, where you miss 100 percent of the shots you don’t take. So we’ll keep trying the odd amendment throughout this bill. Who knows, maybe we’ll get lucky on one of those shots.

Same with the questions I have here to the Attorney. They are really meant to be that overarching — just to make sure we don’t skip past that one clause. I know the Attorney has been good about humouring us on that regard to this point as well.

In terms of the procurement directives in clause 7…. I think it’s pretty clear. I think everyone can agree that these directives are needed, because there’s a broad agreement out there that, essentially, actions taken by the United States have been in contravention of existing trade agreements. Responses are needed. I think everyone understands that. Everyone agrees with that. They might not agree with every single response, but the overarching concept of…. Some type of response is needed.

[8:10 p.m.]

That being said, our understanding, my understanding at least, is that if a new federal trade agreement is struck — with Canada and the U.S., Canada and Mexico, Canada and anywhere — that, in fact, would supersede anything in this bill, especially in part 2.

Can the Attorney confirm that any federal trade agreement, particularly with the United States, that gets developed will actually supersede any procurement directives in part 2?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I neglected to move the amendment for section 7. We will get an answer to the member’s question, but I’m wondering if I can just do that quickly first.

I think that everybody has a copy of the amendment that we are proposing. It is just subsection (5) that says:

[CLAUSE 7, by adding the underlined text as shown:

Procurement directives

7 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may issue directives in relation to the procurement of goods or services by the government or government procurement entities.

(2) This section applies despite sections 4 and 4.1 of the Financial Administration Act.

(3) If there is a conflict or inconsistency between an enactment and a directive issued under subsection (1), the directive prevails.

(4) A government procurement entity must comply with a directive of the Lieutenant Governor in Council issued to the government procurement entity.

(5) A directive issued under subsection (1) must be published as soon as practicable by the minister on a publicly available website.]

The Chair: Shall amendment 7 pass?

Amendment approved.

On clause 7 as amended.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’re in a very complicated time when it comes to our legal adherence to trade agreements and how that shows up.

Generally, we’ve taken the approach, along with other provinces, that although we are upholding all of our trade commitments, it’s an exclude-U.S. approach that we’re taking because of the upending of all the norms with this very particular trading partner. How that shows up and how we adhere or don’t adhere to trade agreements is a bit tricky, because we would uphold those provisions with respect to other trading partners.

The way that the mechanism would work, to the member’s question, is that if there was a new trade agreement, which we’re all hopeful for, it would be just a negotiation of a new CUSMA or some version of that, and we would have an actor with the States that abided by those provisions, which would be the next thing that we would have to see. Then we would have, of course, the really flexible ability just to drop the directives or amend the directives in accordance with that.

Peter Milobar: Given we’ve been under a softwood dispute, which appears to be in contravention, in Canada’s eyes and B.C.’s eyes, of the trade agreement, but it had a carve-out…. I get that the softwood is another whole complicated mess on top of that, so I’m not trying to go into that rabbit hole.

Based on this bill coming forward, based on government directives and things of that nature, at what date did the government of B.C. feel that the United States had breached the free trade agreement sufficiently that it was no longer valid and that we could amend our procurement practices as a result?

[8:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: To answer the question, I think it’s interesting how much has changed with the executive orders over time. We were tracking it. February 1 was the very first executive order. We waited — just like, I think, a lot of Team Canada’s approach — before we saw if it was going to happen, until the legal words of that executive order, which made it pretty clear that it wasn’t just words, that there was going to the action, through executive order, that did violate the trade agreement.

Peter Milobar: I guess, to put a finer point on the question, it wasn’t when the proverbial sabre-rattling started with the United States. When did the province of B.C…? What was the date they feel the United States actually breached the free trade agreement and took actions that were in contravention of the free trade agreement? Not words, but actual actions.

Hon. Niki Sharma: There was a lot of intention, or expressed intention, by the President to enter a sort of trade war with the States ever since — I think even maybe a little bit before — he became President in January.

In terms of when we came to terms with the fact that he was serious about breaching the trade agreement, which I think is the heart of the question, February 1 was the executive order that was issued about the 25 percent tariffs. There’s been a lot since then. It’s been kind of a whirlwind, but that was the first clear… And my legal team pored over that, when we read the executive order, to understand what powers he was using and what legal effect they had.

So it was after that date where you saw actions from the government, including procurement directives and things like that.

Peter Milobar: Again, though, just to be very clear, my understanding of the February 1 directives or statements coming out of the White House — the stated actions that were going to unfold were for dates into the future. Is it the province of B.C.’s contention then…? Is it the Attorney’s contention that, as of February 1, despite no actual action other than issuing a paper of intent by the federal government of the United States, the President of the United States, that was deemed to be the contravention point of the trade act?

Or was it the date within those statements on February 1 that the province of B.C. deemed the contraventions would begin of the trade act between Canada and the United States?

[8:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Of course, this has been a Team Canada approach, so a lot of the discussions about coordinated responses were happening.

In terms of legal action, it’s the federal government that would lead that, and through the WTO. I’m sure through their materials, although I don’t pretend to be part of that process at this stage, that they would show February 1’s executive order as the first clear, written, legal mechanism or indication that there was going to be a breach of that trade agreement, which has led to very subsequent off-and-on-again swirl of “they’re in place; they’re not in place” up to the end.

What’s clear is that the uncertainty and the intention that was created from that point would indicate an actor that was not abiding by their commitments under CUSMA. I think there are probably tons of provisions you could find in CUSMA that would show the conduct of that behaviour was offline.

Peter Milobar: We’ll have lots of other questions in part 2 around this, so I would just ask if we can get a firmer date, moving forward — I don’t need it tonight, obviously — of when the province of B.C. and the justification of the actions…. Again, I’m not trying to be an apologist for the United States. I’m trying to figure out the exact legal date of that contravention.

As we’ve heard, the federal trade agreements supersede anything going on provincially. So if it wasn’t broken and the province was taking steps, in anticipation, that was breaking that agreement, technically we would have been breaking the agreement before the Americans were. We may not have been. Again, it may be that they say the February 1 date is the actual date.

I guess the question, then, is that I don’t see…. Again a broader general question around part 2 now that we’re through the definitions for this part. Other than the sunset clause later on in the bill, I don’t see where in part 2 specifically…. Given that this is a section meant to override what would otherwise be procurement issues that would be tied to an international trade agreement, I don’t see any clear language that says that with a new agreement being signed, these procurement directives are cancelled.

In other words, you could have Crowns out there still following this — even though there’s now a Team Canada approach, a federal agreement in place, being signed — signing contracts and out there with indemnification in their minds.

Why was there not a clause in part 2 that would be very clear that if and when a new agreement is signed between Canada and the United States, these provisions would immediately expire?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s a very uncertain time, and I think everybody would agree that we are in a time where we have a leader of the United States that…. It’s very unclear when they are going to abide by agreements and when they are not. I think there’s a hopeful scenario where we’re in a world where there’s a new version of a trade agreement and, on top of that, there’s adherence to that trade agreement by the President and the leadership in the States. Both things, I would say, are very uncertain at this stage.

But I will say that legally speaking, every time there’s a power to make regulation, there’s a power to rescind regulation. That’s inherent in the legal structure of this. In that context, if we get to a scenario where there’s a stable trade relationship with the States, although I think we can all agree that it has fundamentally changed our relationship, then of course, there would be an ability to normalize relationships.

Gavin Dew: Can the Attorney General itemize what limits, if any, exist on the content or scope of directives issued under this section?

[8:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are many levels here. I’ll just talk through all of them.

The first one is that the procurement directive is limited to the procurement of goods or services. So that is a confine. We talked extensively about goods and services already. The other one is that it only applies to a government reporting entity. Government reporting entities, under that definition, would be organizations that are essentially, as described earlier, deemed to be enough controlled by government to be under that umbrella. The scope of it, like I said, is goods and services. The decision-making authority sits with cabinet.

[8:30 p.m.]

What this does, in effect…. There is a whole series of potential legislation or other things that are involved in procurement in the province. It gives a reconciliation of that, to direct it towards this solution. Of course, it would be bound by the rule of law in general and any contracts or commercial relationships that would flow from that.

So the analyses, which I think you’ve seen in the procurement directives that have been issued, are about procuring goods or services, excluding the States whenever viable. There’s a whole bunch of qualifications about how it could be used, because there is, of course, a series of laws that govern these types of things. It is a matter of structuring it in a way that could be targeted the most effectively.

Gavin Dew: Would the Attorney General agree that the powers enumerated under section 7 would allow government to mandate community benefit agreements, project labour agreements or other similar requirements through regulation or directive rather than through legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to be clear, to start this off, government already has that ability. Any government that’s in power can decide the manner in which procurement occurs, especially for closely held entities. That’s something that exists already.

What this does is bring clarity to the procurement directives issued under the context of this trade war and what we’re deciding to do to support B.C. companies and exclude American companies through the procurement process. It is meant to be a legal structure that streamlines that and brings immunity provisions to those entities that act on behalf of government directives issued in the context of this trade war.

Gavin Dew: Can the Attorney General be a little bit more specific around the exact changes in the nature of the authorities available to government to mandate community benefits agreements or project labour agreements or similar arrangements that she touched on?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I mean, it’s a big question, because procurement processes are happening in many ways across government. A lot of them are held by ministries. Generally speaking, there are guidelines that attach themselves to that procurement process, and the political influence on that is kept separate.

So you have a procurement process that ends up going on, with the guidelines that are set in place that are not necessarily legislative. They could just be corporate rules for that ministry. They go about their procurement process, and they’re clearly stated to all entities that provide or want to bid on the process. It’s kept very separate from a political influence.

Gavin Dew: I read in subsection (3) that if there’s a conflict or inconsistency between an enactment and a directive issued under subsection (1), the directive prevails. Recognizing the powers that are enshrined in here, I’m still failing to understand how this does not add greater power to government to more quickly and more directly impose procurement conditions that could include the presence of something like a community benefits agreement or a project labour agreement, beyond the powers currently existing. Are there no additional powers?

Hon. Niki Sharma: One of the sole purposes of this procurement part or section is to trigger the immunity provisions for government reporting entities, because we’ll be asking them, through the procurement directives, to act quickly, right, to say: “Direct your procurement this way.” In that way, we want to make sure that they can act with the confidence of the immunity provisions in sections 8 and 9. That’s the real legislative tool that we were hoping to accomplish through this part.

[8:35 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: So what I’m hearing is that there would now be greater speed and greater immunity with which a government procurement entity could take action to impose new procurement conditions either before or during a project.

So, for example, could a direction be issued midstream on a project that, having previously been tendered on an open-shop basis, or having previously been tendered without the requirement to have a community benefits agreement….? Could such a project have a directive issued midstream which would require it to have such a community benefits agreement or a project labour agreement put in place?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think the question shows the complications of procurement.

In that situation, there would be contractual obligations that were, obviously, placed upon that government reporting entity that would prohibit it from ending a procurement process midstream. There’s nothing in this legislation that provides an override to a contractual agreement, or what ends up being…. When you enter a procurement process and there are bidders, there are legal protections in that one. So in that scenario, I would just say it wouldn’t be applicable.

Gavin Dew: For greater clarity, is the Attorney General providing assurance that the powers enumerated in Bill 7 will not be used to impose procurement conditions such as community benefits agreements or project labour agreements on projects?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I know we’re getting late in the day, but I think he changed the question from…. He was talking about midstream, and the next one, I think, is about whether this power would be used to impose CBAs.

Of course not. That’s not the intent or purpose of these procurement directives. They’re there to help us respond to a trade war. But there are mechanisms that governments have, beyond this procurement directive, to design procurement in different ways that would include having a CBA as part of it.

Gavin Dew: I hear that that is not the intent or purpose, but my question is not whether the intent or purpose of the legislation is to impose CBAs but whether the legislation grants greater power to impose community benefits agreements, project labour agreements or the like. I’m not sure I heard a clear answer on that front.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think I’ve answered that question now a few times — about what the bill does or doesn’t do related to CBAs. I mean, the point that I said, I think, earlier is that governments do have the power at the start of procurement processes to put things in the procurement like CBAs. That’s not a thing that is changed or triggered by these powers.

What happens with these is…. Our intent is to issue procurement directives to give guidance on making sure that government entities are participating in our response to this trade war, which is to design their procurement in a way that excludes American suppliers wherever possible. That’s the whole purpose of this.

The member is importing other examples that would just not happen.

Gavin Dew: I don’t think I’m importing other examples. I’m simply looking for a very clear answer.

Can the Attorney General provide an ironclad guarantee that the powers enumerated in Bill 7 will not be used to impose project labour agreements, community benefits agreements or similar requirements on procurement?

I’m not looking for a hypothetical. I’m not looking for discourse. I’m simply looking for the Attorney General to provide an ironclad guarantee that these powers will not be used in that way, given that that exact concern has been flagged by people in the business community.

[8:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, I think I’ve said this. Yes, the purpose of these procurement directives is to respond to the trade war that is before us, and that’s how they’ll be used.

Gavin Dew: That was, again, not an answer to the question. I recognize that, at a broad level, the intent of the bill is to respond to a trade war. But the question that I am asking — very specifically, and I’m looking for a very direct answer on — is whether the powers enumerated in Bill 7 will be used, can be used to impose project labour agreements or community benefits agreements.

I’m looking for an ironclad, clear, simple answer — not about intention, not about the broad intention of the bill. I’m looking for the Attorney General to stand up and state unequivocally that the powers enumerated will not be used to impose project labour agreements, community benefits agreements or similar labour requirements on government procurement.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think I said this already. I don’t know how to say it clearer. This power will not be used to impose the things that the member has identified. The point of this power and this procurement directive is to direct government entities.

Just if I can add: what we see with this ability is to unlock at least $600 million of infusion into our economy and support B.C. businesses through a very difficult time.

The member is trying to import all these, I guess, hypothetical situations that are irrelevant to the trade war that we are facing right now and the ability that we can use through procurement to support our province through that trade war and the uncertainty that’s happening right now.

Gavin Dew: I find it strange that the Attorney General believes that simple questions about the use of powers is somehow importing…

The Chair: Member.

Gavin Dew: … outside issues. This is very simple, clear stuff.

Can the Attorney General confirm whether the powers enumerated can be used to terminate the requirement for collective benefit agreements, or, for example, might be used in a context where community benefits agreements have been required for major infrastructure projects and those community benefits agreements involve partnerships with friendly unions who are headquartered in the United States of America?

I’m just trying to understand, given how specific the Attorney General has been about the desire to exclude American content from procurement…. Do these powers provide government with the ability to terminate or change requirements around community benefits agreements or project labour agreements that involve organized labour organizations that are headquartered in the United States and directly engaged in the United States?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, this does not give any powers for cabinet, in this case, to go into a community benefits agreement and alter or change the term in any of those agreements.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 8:43 p.m.