Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 11:10 a.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

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

On clause 7 as amended (continued).

Gavin Dew: Just picking up where we left off yesterday, we were discussing matters around issues such as community benefits agreements and project labour agreements and whether or not the powers enumerated could be used either to require such agreements or to change requirements around such agreements, particularly in the context of American-headquartered labour unions.

I’m hoping that the Attorney General can expand on what consultation was undertaken, both with organized labour and with open-shop, in order to ensure that they had an understanding and confidence around what the powers in section 7 or part 7 do and do not allow.

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to make it clear on the legal powers in this bill, this is an enabling piece of statute, which I think we’ve talked about before. So it enables action.

Where we’ve taken the bill, I think we talked about previously that…. At the TEST committee, there’s the B.C. Federation of Labour, Unifor and USV that are present on that committee and are actually very actively involved in many aspects of our tariff response, along with business leaders and First Nations. So that’s part of the discussions there.

Once a directive has been issued, or a directive is at play, then there is an opportunity, also, to touch base with the organization it impacts and the specifics of what that directive would do to any organizations affected.

Gavin Dew: That’s very helpful information. I’m trying to understand, again, not only the effect or the empowerment contained within the bill, but also the consultation that was undertaken with such groups in order to make sure that they understood what is and is not achievable with the bill.

Just for my confirmation, am I correct in understanding from the Attorney General that voices from organized labour have been consulted around what can and cannot be done under part 7?

Hon. Niki Sharma: As I mentioned previously, I presented Bill 7 and the discussions at the TEST committee, which has representation from labour on it.

Gavin Dew: In light of the fact that organized labour obviously was consulted, can the Attorney General confirm that voices from open-shop labour were also consulted, such as the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’ve canvassed this many times about the consultation process with respect to this bill. I’ve been clear about the steps that we’ve taken in the response to destabilization from the Trump administration. This bill is to give us the tools to act quickly in response to that.

Obviously, that means that we didn’t spend months or weeks or years consulting with a wide range of organizations. But the way this bill is structured, it’s an enabling power. It gives government the ability to use the tools in it to act. So there will be many opportunities when using those tools to make sure — and the work that’s underway with JEDI, as I’ve mentioned many times — that they’re designed in a way that takes into account all factors.

Gavin Dew: Just for confirmation, while I recognize it’s impossible to fully consult every single organization in the development of the bill, it would appear from inbound correspondence and from commentary that there is significant concern around section 7 and a desire for clarity as to what it can and cannot be used for with regard to things like community benefits agreements and project labour agreements.

Can I just get the Attorney General to confirm really clearly that organized labour was consulted with regard to this, and open-shop labour was not consulted? There are a number of fairly large organizations that are not difficult to reach, who I think would likely be looking for clarity as to what is and is not enabled by this part of the bill.

Just for clarity, a simple yes or no: were any voices or organizations representing open-shop labour consulted with regard to the development of this part of the bill? Yes or no? Simple question.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ve answered this question. I’ve listed the labour organizations that are part of TEST that we’ve presented the bill to. I can’t speak for every single ministry with respect to how they’re responding to their stakeholder group when it comes to the tariff response. I know that every minister is engaged with whoever their stakeholders are, including labour and the Ministry of Labour, to talk about what the impacts are of the tariffs on them. That’s work that all of government is doing.

But with respect to Bill 7, which is an enabling statute, I mentioned the TEST committee and the representatives from labour on that committee.

Gavin Dew: I believe the Attorney General keeps answering a different question than what I’m asking. I’m not asking whether organized labour was represented. I’m asking, once again, whether open-shop labour was represented or was consulted in any way, shape or form in the development of this bill, given the significant implications for labour and for different approaches to labour.

Just very simply, I’m asking for confirmation that there was any conversation whatsoever with representatives of open-shop labour, such as the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association.

[11:20 a.m.]

The Chair: Although the member may not be fully satisfied with the minister’s response, the minister has advised that the question has been answered.

I would request that you avoid repetition with your line of questioning.

Gavin Dew: The question has not been answered. The question was very simple: were any voices from open-shop labour consulted? The minister has a list in front of her that she’s looking at. I’m sure she can read off of that list, and she can inform me as to whether any representatives of open-shop labour were represented.

I don’t think the question is repetitive. Answering that organized labour has been represented is not an answer to the question of whether open-shop labour has been represented. The question is not repetitive. I would ask the Attorney General to answer it, please.

The Chair: Member, although you might not be satisfied with the minister’s answer, my view is that the questioning is repetitious in nature, and I would really encourage you to avoid repetition in your line of questioning.

Gavin Dew: If the Attorney General will not answer the question directly as to whether open-shop labour was represented, will she make available the list of folks consulted that she is currently looking at? Will she make that list available so that I can ascertain for myself whether representatives of open-shop labour were represented in consultation around this portion of the bill, which has significant implications for open-shop labour?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reason that I’ve answered this question is that I’ve said clearly to the member that I presented Bill 7 to the TEST committee, and I listed the organizations that were on the TEST committee that represent labour.

I’ve also said that the Minister of Labour, who is part of our tariff response and our tariff response committee, is constantly in contact with many stakeholders.

This bill is an enabling statute that helps us bring into force legal tools that every ministry and every stakeholder will have to help the government respond. I have no doubt, although the Minister of Labour isn’t here — another ministry is, JEDI — that they talk to a whole range of stakeholders, including the ones that the member has talked about.

Gavin Dew: I have reached out directly and been informed that at no time was the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association representing open-shop labour consulted by any member of government on this bill.

I’m wondering if the Attorney General would like to just answer the question very simply for everyone’s confirmation — that, no, open-shop labour was not consulted in the development of this bill.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The Independent Contractors Association is not on the TEST committee, and I answered the question about the full-government approach to what we are doing in response to the tariffs. I have no way right now of verifying, because it’s not applicable to the bill.

I told the member where I consulted with the bill and the enabling powers in the bill. Any minister, or government as a whole, has not spoken to that organization.

The Chair: Before I recognize the member, I would just now recognize that the minister has provided her response, so please continue without the repetitious nature of your questioning.

Gavin Dew: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will endeavour to ask original questions.

Can the Attorney General clarify why voices from open-shop, including the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, were not consulted with regard to a portion of the bill that has major implications for their industry?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay, so I think the member would be better informed about the response if he knew the breadth and depth of the representation that is on the TEST committee. It includes many organizations that actually represent the breadth of both the labour and employer side and the business side representation in this province. I went before them and talked about Bill 12.

[11:25 a.m.]

That includes the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the Council of Forest Industries, B.C. Business Council, B.C. Agriculture Council, the Mining Association of B.C., Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, Vancouver-Fraser Port Authority, Prince Rupert Port Authority, Life Sciences B.C., Food and Beverage B.C., First Nations Major Projects Coalition, United Steelworkers, B.C. Federation of Labour, Unifor, Shell, B.C. Assembly of First Nations, Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, First Nations Summit, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, B.C. Tech, New Economy Canada, tourism association of B.C.

These are the members of the TEST committee that represent a wide breadth of leaders and organizations in this province. Very grateful that they’re giving us their time and their expertise to help us formulate our tariff response.

Again, this is an enabling piece of legislation, so it gives the government tools and powers to respond. That is what it’s meant to do. And the conversations of how the tools in this legislation will be used will be ongoing.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the Attorney General listing the members of TEST. I’m struggling to understand…. Since the Attorney General has raised the composition of that committee…. There’s a wide range of organizations represented. I think I heard three representatives from organized labour.

Could the Attorney General just please help us understand, in light of the size of the construction sector, if there was a particular reason why representatives of open-shop labour, such as the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, were excluded from participation in TEST and why they were seemingly not consulted whatsoever by any arm of government in the development of this legislation that could have very material consequences?

At minimum, it runs the risk of creating confusion as to what the powers are and what the consequences could be, with very serious implications for their members and for working people all over British Columbia.

Hon. Niki Sharma: My impression of this line of questioning right now is a misunderstanding of the breadth and representation that is listed in this TEST committee. Actually, also, the composition of the TEST committee is quite irrelevant to the bill.

I think I’ve expressed more than once, and particularly on clause 7, about who we spoke to about the bill particularly and also what other government ministers are doing to speak to many of their stakeholders. I would not have the information before me right now because of the breadth and depth of the work that is happening cross-ministry, the full-government approach right now.

So I have nothing else to offer on this line of questioning.

The Chair: Member, you have heard the minister’s response. I ask that you avoid the repetitive nature of questioning.

Gavin Dew: Thank you, Madam Chair. I certainly have no desire to be repetitious. I’m simply looking for clear answers. The Attorney General brought up the composition of the TEST committee — I didn’t.

But in light of the conversation, I’m wondering if the Attorney General could help me understand. Of the three representatives of the organized labour community on the TEST committee, which of those three, if any, have their headquarters located in the United States of America?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I don’t know the answer to that, nor do I see how it’s relevant. I forgot to mention B.C. Building Trades, but I guess I did in the bigger list. That’s an important one.

Gavin Dew: I would draw the Attorney General’s attention to her many prior remarks about wanting to deprioritize American content in terms of procurement as to the relevance of this. My understanding is that of the preferred unions of this government that participate in community benefits agreements, 20 plus have their headquarters in the United States. Union dues paid by members of those unions roll up to union headquarters located in the United States.

[11:30 a.m.]

I’m just trying to understand, in the context of this conversation, whether this government is more focused on being Team Canada or more focused on being Team Union.

There are certainly some contradictions there when we realize that, at the same time as this government wants to do victory laps and wants to do wedge politics and wants to talk about Team Canada, there’s a refusal to consult with open-shop labour. But there appears to be no qualm whatsoever about representation on TEST by labour organizations that are actually headquartered in the United States and whose members’ dues are rolling up into the United States and whose overall membership may in fact be conflicted in terms of their primary objective being supporting labour in Canada or supporting labour in the United States.

I think that’s very material. In particular, I think it’s very material relative to the powers enumerated in section 7.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The member is constructing a narrative that is wholly irrelevant to clause 4, which we’re dealing with right now, of procurement, and is talking quite a bit in a very disparaging way about our labour force here in B.C. and how many of these unions are representing a large number of our workforce right now — people that are scared right now about what their jobs look like and what will happen as a result of the tariffs.

I’ll just get your guidance, Chair. I find it very irrelevant to the powers of section 7 and a very disappointing line of questioning.

Gavin Dew: There is very direct relevance to the powers enumerated in 7, specifically because the questions that we have been dwelling on for some time are around whether such powers can or cannot be used to impose or remove requirements around community benefits agreements or project labour agreements. It’s a very legitimate question. It’s one that clearly there has been significant confusion around by stakeholders. I’m simply trying to get an understanding of those powers and around the consultation undertaken.

I’m genuinely confused why the Attorney General…. I have a lot of respect for front-line working people, including union members. I have real difficulty in understanding why the Attorney General thinks it’s appropriate to fearmonger and talk about the work of folks in the construction trade sector, particularly when she, just minutes ago, has dismissed out of hand the importance of consulting with open-shop labour. It seems as though the Attorney General thinks that uncertainty for open-shop labour is okay, whereas uncertainty for union labour is not okay.

I am looking for a really clear understanding of the implications of this section, and in particular, I’m looking to understand the powers enumerated and whether, for example, they could be used to change requirements around community benefits agreements or project labour agreements, taking into account the fact that through those community benefits agreements imposed by government, there is benefit accruing to American organizations, and the Attorney General has spoken often in her remarks about the desire to exclude American content.

I’m simply trying to understand how that is defined. Does the Attorney General think it is relevant whether or not the powers enumerated here would allow changes to community benefits agreements to ensure that Canadian workers benefit and that American union headquarters rolling up fees from members are not the beneficiaries, in order to be consistent with the messaging put out by this very government?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Asked and answered. If we think about the line of questioning right now and from yesterday, all of these questions have been answered.

Gavin Dew: While the Attorney General may wish to believe all these questions have been answered, they haven’t. And satisfactory answers have not been provided. Saying “asked and answered” doesn’t mean the question has been answered.

Just to confirm, was there discussion in the development of this portion of the bill as to whether or not the powers that are enumerated could or would be used in order to change procurement requirements around community benefits agreements to ensure that benefit is not accruing to the American headquarters of local organized labour groups? I think it’s a very simple question, and it’s one that’s quite fundamental.

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, Chair, if we go back to yesterday, the member asked me many questions about CBAs and what the powers do or don’t do with respect to interfering and-or the procurement powers of government to do that. I find this line of questioning very repetitive, and I’ve answered them.

The Chair: Member, the minister has provided her response. I recognize you might not be satisfied with her response. However, to ensure effective use of the committee’s time, I ask that you avoid repetition in your line of questioning.

Gavin Dew: My questions will be less repetitive if the answers are less non-existent or less repetitive.

I would like to understand very clearly whether the powers enumerated can be used to change requirements around community benefits. If the answer is that they cannot, I would like to understand why the Attorney General has not sought powers that would allow community benefits agreements to be changed to ensure that union dues paid by Canadian union members who are working in Canada stay in Canada rather than rolling up into America.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Belabouring the point over there, there’s nothing in the powers here under procurement of section 7 that allow us to direct a union. That’s not how the powers of government work, and it’s not how unionized labour in this province works. Government doesn’t do that.

I’ve answered the questions about the powers in here, and I’m happy to move on to another line of questioning.

Gavin Dew: I’m not done asking about this because I haven’t gotten answers, and I want consistency from this government. So look, Canada remains the only country in the world where a number of labour unions pay dues to unions based in another country — in this case, the United States. That means tens of millions of dollars every year from the wages of Canadian union workers are sent every day to union head offices in the United States.

In fact, some of those dues have ended up being donated to electoral campaigns, including the electoral campaign of President Donald Trump. I think that’s pretty significant. I think that when it comes to consistency, what we have….

The reason why I continue asking this question is that there is a lack of clarity in the construction community around this portion of the bill. There is a desire to understand, both in terms of whether it can be used to impose community benefits agreements or project labour agreements…. The Attorney General has been totally clear that it cannot be.

I’m trying to understand if it can be used to change conditions around community benefits agreements or project labour agreements for government procurement. I don’t really feel I got a clear answer there. I’m trying to understand why we would not, through enabling legislation, create the right to change conditions around community benefits agreements in order to be consistent. What we have is a situation where Canadian union workers are being forced to pay dues that are rolling up to American head offices and being donated to the presidential campaign of Donald Trump.

Why would we not, through this enabling legislation, seek the power to make changes to community benefits agreements on public procurement in order to ensure that the wages of hard-working Canadian union labour workers are not being taken from them and given to Donald Trump in support of his damage to the Canadian economy and the diminishment of their opportunity and their livelihood?

[11:40 a.m.]

Why would we not seek to empower those kinds of changes through this legislation and through this section? I think it’s a very important question.

The Chair: Members, just a reminder to have your electronic devices on silent.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I want to go back to the powers of this bill and to explain to the member again. What I think he’s suggesting, which I hope he’s not, is that the powers of this bill have nothing in it to direct a union how to direct their dues, right?

If you were going to design a procurement process to, somehow through that process, dictate the dues of a union…. I wonder if that would be challenged by corporate. Let’s say it’s not. What, in effect, he would be saying was that some of the major unions that employ or membership spans a huge portion of British Columbians…. I don’t have the exact number on them, but I just think of USW, I think of building trades, a lot of the unions that represent many workers in this province.

I think what he would be suggesting, if I follow that logic — although at this point, I can’t say if it’s legal or not to even do that — is that he would be suggesting a pathway that would cut out a lot of workers from our procurement policy and therefore do quite the exact opposite of what we would be intending to use these powers for.

Gavin Dew: The Attorney General is mistaken. I am not proposing an approach that would cut out workers, nor am I proposing an approach that is hostile to organized labour.

In fact, I am proposing an approach that echoes an approach taken by the Confederation of Canadian Unions, which on February 24, 2024, the president, Gregory Ball, wrote to Prime Minister Trudeau at the time, asking them to ban the transfer of union dues outside of Canada.

So we have a situation here where there’s actually a pretty fundamental conversation around procurement, and where, in fact, unions themselves have been calling for a ban on their dues being transferred to America. They were doing so more than a year ago, but now the urgency of that conversation actually has been heightened.

Back then, it was a hypothetical. Today we’re dealing with a situation where this government has imposed community benefits agreements on a significant number of public procurement processes. Twenty-plus of the preferred unions in that particular situation have their dues flowing up to headquarters in the United States, which means the dues of hard-working, dues-paying Canadian organized labour workers are going into the campaign of Donald Trump.

So I fail to see how the Attorney General is arriving at the conclusion that my question is anything at all anti-labour. What it comes down to is a desire for consistency. The Attorney General and the government have talked over and over and over again about trying to cut Americans out of benefiting from procurement. Here we have a situation where you have American union headquarters who have been donating to Donald Trump benefiting from the sweat and toil of Canadian organized labour workers.

[11:45 a.m.]

I’m trying to understand whether the powers enumerated under part 7 allow government to change community benefits agreement requirements, for example, to require that in a situation where there is a requirement or where there is a mandate around organized labour participation, there is also a mandate that the dues of those workers working on Canadian projects paid for by British Columbia taxpayers are not flowing into the coffers of Donald Trump’s campaign.

If those powers are not enabled by part 7, why not, and will the Attorney General consider changes to enable that?

I think that’s very reasonable. I think it’s very fair. I think it’s very much on the side of the hard-working, front-line union workers in Canada who don’t want to be paying for the campaign of a president who is hammering them.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I would like to ask the member if he has consulted with the labour organizations that he’s referring to or the ones that I talk through that I presented Bill 7 to and whether they have asked for such a thing, because I have not heard that.

I would like to say very clearly that procurement and this provision is meant to direct government procurement entities to exclude America where possible, and the tools in this are to also get people to work, to help understand how people can get to work and how we can drive people to work. So maybe there’s a conversation that needs to be had with the Minister of Labour about what the member is suggesting.

But I would say that the mechanism of procurement through government with the pretty large labour union representation that was sitting at the table when we presented Bill 7 are more concerned or very concerned about making sure that people can stay in their jobs and their jobs can be protected, and this is a tool for doing that.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee is adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.