Second Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Thursday, February 26, 2026

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 127

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Routine Business

Tributes

Firth Bateman, George Windsor and Paulus Maas

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2026

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Peter Milobar

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Bill 5 — Trade Recognition Act

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Teresa Wat

Jeremy Valeriote

Darlene Rotchford

Peter Milobar

Paul Choi

Kiel Giddens

George Anderson

Ian Paton

Hon. Rick Glumac

Gavin Dew

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Bill 3 — Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2026

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Peter Milobar

Darlene Rotchford

Hon. Rick Glumac

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Citizens’ Services

Hon. Diana Gibson

Jody Toor

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General

Hon. Niki Sharma

Steve Kooner

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Infrastructure

Hon. Bowinn Ma

Misty Van Popta

Thursday, February 26, 2026

The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

Firth Bateman, George Windsor

and Paulus Maas

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I rise on a sad, sad day. We’ve lost a few important people, two people in my community.

Firth Bateman was well known to myself and the member for Delta South. Firth passed

away at Surrey Memorial Hospital on Christmas Day after an ongoing battle with some

health issues. He was fortunate to be surrounded by family when he passed away. He

was born in Belleville, Ontario, on August 2, 1947. He was raised in Stirling, Ontario.

He had such a large presence in our community. In his professional life, he was a

social worker for the Ministry of Social Services. Later in life, he moved on to financial

and estate planning. He loved outdoors. He was loved by his family and friends. He

had his dog. He loved his dogs — Jessie, Gamble, Festus, Jingles.

He was a selfless man, a fierce supporter of those he loved. He leaves a large hole

in the lives of those who loved him. He’s survived by his wife of 48 years, Gillian;

his son Torin; and his daughter Cara, who I believe lives here in Victoria. He’s also

survived by his sister Bonnie, and his younger brother Glenn.

He served on the Delta police board. The member for Delta South and I were just reflecting

yesterday on the funny encounters that we’ve had with him when he just randomly calls

us and says, “I need to talk to you about urgent politics in Delta,” and sure, he’ll

call me, and then he’ll call him, as well, to get both sides of the story.

He will be really missed in our community.

We also lost George Windsor. He was a long-time Delta community member, volunteer.

George passed away peacefully on February 6.

Prior to his illness, George dedicated himself to minor sports in Delta. He was very

active in the refereeing space. He trained and mentored referees. He was the president

of the North Delta Minor Hockey Association. When his hockey duties were over, George,

on the side, would build sets for the Sidekick theatre in Delta.

Every time I saw George he would talk about community. He was just always smiling.

And every time I’d see him, I’d say, “George, where’s my bacon?” because he used to

make his own bacon. Without a doubt, within four or five weeks, he’d be knocking on

my door and saying: “Here you go, buddy.”

[1:05 p.m.]

My love goes out to George’s family, in particular Val Windsor, who was chair of Delta

school board for many, many years.

Lastly, two years ago, I was able to recognize my friend Paul Maas, who came to visit

me here. He came with his family to do heli-skiing. That was a passion for him and

his in-laws.

Last week they were in Austria, when they were heli-skiing and, unfortunately, got

hit by an avalanche. Paul’s family survived, but his father-in-law passed away and

was unfortunately not able to be found. I just want to send love to my friend Paul

and to his entire family in the Netherlands.

It’s hard to make sense of these types of tragedies, and I want to ask the House to

send condolences to this amazing family.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 4, the Supply Act.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Citizens’

Services. When they are completed, I call the Attorney General estimates for the Douglas

Fir Room as well.

In

Section C, the Birch Room, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Infrastructure.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Supply Act ( No. 1), 2026

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I move that Bill 4, the Supply Act (No. 1), 2026, be read a second time now.

Existing voting appropriations will expire on March 31, 2026. Bill 4 provides interim

supply for ministry operations and other appropriations for approximately the first

three months of 2026-2027 while the House completes debate of the appropriations presented

in the 2026-2027 estimates.

Interim supply for ministry operations and other appropriations is required to ensure

continuation of government services until the final supply bill comes into force.

Bill 4 also provides one-third of the combined voted amounts in

schedule C and

schedule

D of the 2026-2027 estimates for disbursements related to capital expenditures, loans,

investments and other financing requirements.

The one-third authorization provided for in relation to these disbursements is higher

than proportion authorized in relation to ministry operations, as the disbursements

described in schedules C and D are not evenly distributed throughout the year. Therefore,

the higher level of interim supply is required to accommodate the payments that will

be made under these schedules.

Bill 4 also authorizes the full amount of the disbursements referred to in

schedule

E of the 2026-2027 estimates.

Schedule E of the estimates outlines the revenue collected

on behalf of and transferred to specific programs or entities. There is no impact

on the operating results, borrowing or debt resulting from the collection and transfer

of this revenue.

These interim supply appropriations are based on the accountabilities and allocations

outlined in the 2026-2027 estimates. The final supply bill for the 2026-2027 fiscal

year will incorporate these amounts to ensure that it reflects the sum of all voted

appropriations to be given to government in that fiscal year.

Peter Milobar : I rise to speak to the Supply Act (No. 1), 2026, Bill 4.

I agree with much of what the minister has laid out. Normally, I only pretty much

say that on this bill, and then we move on.

[1:10 p.m.]

Frankly, given the minister’s diatribe to end the budget debate right before lunch,

though…. You know, I think it’s important that we don’t, in the future, wind up having

the minister think by any means I’m trying to mislead this House when it comes to

budgetary bills or the numbers within it, and I certainly wouldn’t want to mischaracterize

what the minister just said.

I know she said: “Approximately one-quarter.” I’m not trying to quote her, saying

that she said “one-quarter,” because I believe it’s important to actually have the

full quote if one’s going to use that inside of this chamber in terms of the context

of what is being said within this bill.

So in clause 1, when the minister says “approximately one-quarter,” I can understand

that, and I certainly would not want to ever accuse her of misleading this House by

using such language by shortening that quote up in this debate or in future committee

stage, saying, “But you said one-quarter,” because that’s actually not what was said.

That’s the importance not only of budget debate but of these documents and the numbers

within them. We have to make sure as an opposition that we’re properly scrutinizing,

and although the government may not like that scrutiny from time to time on this bill

or other budget bills or other pieces of legislation in this place, that is indeed

the role and the responsibility of the opposition, whether the minister of any ministry

or the Premier agrees with that or not.

Certainly, we will embark on, and I will embark on, a full and thorough scrutiny much

longer than I normally do on a supply bill, when we get to committee stage, to ensure

that there is full, transparent and 100 percent accuracy on any and all calculations

that got us to the approximately one-quarter — not one-quarter — of expenditures in

clause 1 or in clause 2, which is the one-third, approximate one-third, and then even

in clause 3.

So again, it is a little disappointing, I guess, that sometimes members’ words get

shortened up to serve political interests in this place, especially when it’s at the

close of a debate. I think I’m our only speaker, so the minister may be able to close

again, and Lord only knows where that goes if it’s based on the response to the budget

close.

But we will, obviously, as an opposition, support this one — and only one — budgetary

bill, because we do recognize this is about keeping the doors of a hospital open and

operating, keeping the doors to schools open and operating while we continue to thoroughly

scrutinize and lay bare what is actually in the budget, much as we did with all of

our budget responses, which is actually the core of how these numbers in this bill

have been calculated, as the minister said. It’s based on the overall budget. That’s

why this is one particular fiscal bill we will actually support as an opposition,

because we do believe that that should move forward.

But as we scrutinize this at committee stage and figure out where exactly those numbers

are interrelated…. I’ll give one example: when the minister incorrectly quoted the

assertion that Public Safety was seeing a cut. Now, that’s operations, so that would

be part of clause 1, which is operations and comes into this calculation. It actually

does indeed have a $4 million drop in its overall budget this year. That is indisputable.

It’s the minister’s own budget documents.

What was actually characterized in our speeches is that we didn’t know what service

would pay the brunt because of that cut.

Now, the minister talked about, in her budget response to close, how other internal

areas within public safety were actually seeing increases. That actually proves the

point that the opposition was trying to say. If you have an overall cut of $4 million

and there are operational shifts to try to account for extortion in other areas —

we were simply pointing out in a speech, certainly not in the scrutiny of committee

stage or the scrutiny of budget estimates — where exactly would the other changes

happen within Public Safety?

The minister feels that was a mischaracterization. We certainly think it was just

trying to lay bare the facts for the public, and the minister instead decided to layer

on other political rhetoric, I guess, maybe because the budget has not been as well

received as the government may have thought it was. Somehow that is now the opposition’s

fault, because we created the budget mess that they just delivered.

[1:15 p.m.]

Point being, we will delve into, with great detail, just how much of that $4 million

cut is accounted for in clause 1, during committee stage, because, again, I would

not want to offend the minister or any of the government ministers, thinking that

we were deliberately or otherwise trying to mislead the public or stakeholders or

user groups or senior citizens or any people like that when it comes to the budget.

With that, Madam Chair, I thank you for this time.

We do look forward to committee stage. It will be a much more robust and thorough

investigative look into the various clauses this year. Again, I want to respect the

comments, as egregious as they were, during the close to the budget debate from the

Minister of Finance, but I’ll deal with that with my parliamentary privilege response

in future days.

But really, this is about, on the Supply Act, making sure that we actually have assurances

from the government that things they have made cuts in have been properly accounted

for and reflected in the supply bill so we make sure that they actually are being

properly funded for that approximately one-quarter of the year or for the one-third

of the year as it relates to other operations or other expenditures that are front-loaded

in a calendar year and exactly how that calculation came and the great detail that

we will require as opposition.

I guess this is just a forewarning for the minister and her staff so that they come

prepared with that level of detail, because, again, in the spirit of getting to the

truth for the public and the electorate, I think it’s critically important that we

actually do that work.

This year with the supply bill, we will support it, but we will make sure it has the

full force and effect of the opposition fully scrutinizing and challenging all the

assumptions made in these calculations by the minister.

I thank you for the time.

Deputy Speaker : Seeing no further speakers, I call the Minister of Finance to close debate.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Of course, government always welcomes honest debate and looks forward to a thorough

exploration of this bill and any bill.

I now move that we close debate.

Deputy Speaker : Members, the question is second reading of Bill 4, Supply Act (No. 1), 2026.

Motion approved.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I move that Bill 4 be committed to a Committee of the Whole for consideration at

the next sitting after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Brittny Anderson : I call second reading of Bill 5, Trade Recognition Act.

Bill 5 — Trade Recognition Act

Hon. Brittny Anderson : Could I just call recess for five minutes?

Deputy Speaker : We’ll have a recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 1:18 p.m. to 1:20 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker : I call the House back into session.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I move the bill be read a second time now.

I’m pleased to rise to speak to second reading of the Trade Recognition Act. This

bill modernizes British Columbia’s internal trade framework and advances B.C.’s leadership

in trade reform.

This act replaces ESTRA,

part 1, with a permanent framework to reduce trade barriers

in B.C. Businesses and consumers need certainty, and this legislation provides it.

It reduces unnecessary duplication. If a good may be sold or used elsewhere in Canada,

it may be used or sold here. If a service has been supplied in another province, it

may be supplied here in British Columbia. Moreover, this bill preserves B.C.’s ability

to protect environmental, health, consumer and other important standards.

Businesses often find it difficult to trade goods and services across the country.

Requirements are hard to identify, add unnecessary costs and slow economic growth.

By modernizing our recognition framework, the act lowers administrative and compliance

costs, improves speed to market, supports consumer choice and strengthens competitiveness

for B.C. businesses. All of this is achieved without weakening the protections that

British Columbians rely on.

The legislation complements national efforts under the Canadian free trade agreement

and ongoing discussions to expand Canada’s mutual recognition agreement. British Columbia

continues to be a leader in this space, particularly in advancing recognition for

services, which are increasingly important as part of our provincial economy. This

act allows B.C. to take responsible, forward-looking action while supporting broader

national progress.

The legislation includes exceptions to ensure that B.C. retains full authority where

needed. These safeguards ensure that recognition does not compromise public protection

and that there is no race to the bottom.

The act does not apply to B.C. measures relating to Indigenous Peoples. The recognition

rule does not interfere with current or future Indigenous-specific initiatives. For

example, preferential procurement opportunities would continue to be outside of the

scope of this act. Furthermore, the act does not apply to preferential hunting opportunities

available to Indigenous People under B.C. law.

The act includes practical mechanisms to ensure successful implementation. If a B.C.

regulator maintains a measure that does not align with the act, the responsible minister

may require that the measure be amended or repealed.

The Trade Recognition Act is balanced, practical and forward-looking. The act reduces

unnecessary duplication. It supports B.C.’s businesses and consumers. It strengthens

economic competitiveness. It replaces temporary legislation with a permanent and stable

framework. And it preserves B.C.’s safety, environmental and consumer standards. This

bill modernizes our internal trade rules while protecting the interests and values

of British Columbians.

I will ask all members to support that we proceed to Committee of the Whole with a

detailed examination. With that, I look forward to hearing my colleagues speak to

this bill.

Teresa Wat : I rise today to speak to Bill 5, the Trade Recognition Act.

In plain language, this bill is meant to make it easier for goods and services that

are legally sold or supplied in other provinces to be sold or supplied here in British

Columbia. The idea is mutual recognition, to cut down on duplicate certifications,

duplicate approvals and needless barriers that make it harder for businesses to expand

and harder for consumers to benefit from real competition.

We support that concept. We support the goals of reducing interprovincial trade barriers

and making Canada’s internal market work better for British Columbians. That is good

for workers. It is good for businesses that want to grow, and it is good for families

who have been paying too much for too long. But supporting the concept does not mean

giving this bill a free pass.

[1:25 p.m.]

We have questions about the mechanics. We have questions about how this will actually

work in practice, especially given the significant discretion that is left to regulation

and implementation. We have questions about whether this government is prepared to

do the hard follow-through required for a bill like this to deliver real-world results.

It is also impossible to discuss Bill 5 without discussing the context, because the

government is not arriving at this issue fresh. Bill 5 comes in the shadow of Bill

7, which was one of the primary pieces of legislation in this House last year.

Bill 7 was introduced with a lot of urgency and a lot of tough talk, including demands

for aggressive powers in the name of immediate action. People will remember what happened

next. Bill 7 landed with sweeping language and sweeping authority. It immediately

triggered widespread concern about overreach and a lack of legislative oversight.

Critics warned it went far beyond a targeted tariff response.

Then, as the backlash grew, the Premier publicly walked back a major chunk of the

bill, announcing the removal of what many describe as the most extraordinary

section

and acknowledging it did not strike the right balance between fast action and democratic

safeguards.

When the government now comes forward with Bill 5 and asks the House to trust the

follow-through, it is fair and necessary to remember the Bill 7 pattern: urgent rhetoric,

first; controversy, second; retreat, third. And still very little evidence of real-world

action that matches the scale of the powers they demanded.

Bill 7 was sold to this province as urgent. It was wrapped in emergency language,

moral certainty and a promise of decisive action. Then, after all that noise, British

Columbians have seen basically nothing.

We are still awaiting evidence that this government used those aggressive powers to

drive meaningful regulatory changes. We are still awaiting evidence that this government

actually followed through in a serious way on the procurement rhetoric that surrounded

Bill 7. We are still awaiting proof that this government did more than posture. That

is why we keep coming back to Bill 7.

Under Bill 7, this government insisted it needed extraordinary tools because everything

was urgent. Fine. But where is the public scoreboard? Which specific regulatory measures

were actually changed using those powers? Which barriers were actually removed? Which

ministries issued directives and followed them through? Where is the evidence that

procurement rules were materially altered in a way that actually changed purchasing

decisions on the ground?

We heard the tough talk. We saw the controversy. We watched the retreat. What British

Columbians have not seen is transparent proof of results. If this government wants

trust on Bill 5, it needs to start by showing that it used the powers it already asked

for.

This matters to Bill 5 because Bill 5 is another bill where this government will make

big claims and then ask British Columbians to trust that the follow-through will come

later. But British Columbians have learned that later too often means never or not

in any way that changes life outside this chamber.

[1:30 p.m.]

So yes, we will support this bill. We will support it because we agree with the objective.

But we will also insist on something that this government has struggled with: accountability

for results.

Now let’s turn to what Bill 5 actually does. At its core, Bill 5 creates a mutual

recognition rule. Goods and services that are legally sold or supplied in another

province can generally be sold or supplied here. This should reduce formal entry barriers.

It should help some businesses avoid duplicative testing, duplicative approvals and

duplicative certification.

It is also worth noting that industry has identified some positive features of this

bill. One is that it makes mutual recognition permanent and removes the uncertainty

of a sunset clause. Businesses plan investments and expansions based on stable frameworks

and temporary measures that could disappear.

Another is that it is unilateral. It does not depend on B.C. negotiating reciprocity

agreements province by province. It is a default approach that, in theory, should

lower barriers more quickly.

Industry also pointed out that Bill 5 generally aligns B.C. law with the Canadian

mutual recognition agreement, the CMRA, framework, which is a direction many in the

business community support.

All of that is constructive, but the strongest area for focus is what is not included,

what is not guaranteed and what may still prevent real market access, even if paper

entry becomes easier. There is a risk, and it is a real one, that Bill 5 makes entry

easier on paper while leaving practical barriers in place. This is where it helps

to separate two concepts that get mashed together in government talking points.

The first is formal market entry. Can a product be sold here at all? Can a service

be supplied here at all?

The second is practical market access. Can a company actually operate here in a commercially

realistic way? Can it distribute? Can it market? Can it meet licensing rules? Can

it navigate retail restrictions? Will enforcement practices effectively block it anyway?

Bill 5 focuses heavily on the first concept, but the bill also very explicitly preserves

B.C.’s authority over post-entry rules. Under division 2, particularly sections 4

and 5, the bill preserves B.C.’s authority over how goods and services are sold, used

or delivered once they are in the market. It also contains carve-outs, including monopolies,

taxes, Indigenous Peoples and incorporation.

Now, there are legitimate reasons to preserve some post-entry rules. Nobody wants

mutual recognition to override local rules in assured ways. But as industry has flagged,

the way

section 4 is written can operate as an escape valve.

If post-entry rules are interpreted broadly, then barriers may simply relocate rather

than disappear, so a business may avoid a redundant certification requirement at the

front end but still face a maze of operational requirements once inside — distribution

rules, licensing rules, retail rules, marketing rules and enforcement practices that

still shape whether it makes commercial sense to serve B.C.

[1:35 p.m.]

Entry may be easier on paper, but practical market access can still depend on those

operational rules and their enforcement. Here is what I mean by the difference between

paper entry and practical access.

Imagine a small manufacturer in Alberta that makes a building product, something boring

but essential, like insulation, fasteners or components used in HVAC. If it is already

lawfully sold there, mutual recognition should mean they do not have to redo the same

testing and certification just to serve customers in B.C. That is the promise.

But if, once the product is in, they face a thicket of post-entry requirements around

distribution, labelling, retail rules and approvals that functions like a second gate,

the practical outcome is the same: higher costs, fewer suppliers and less competition.

We can pass a bill and declare the door is open, but if the hallway is still blocked,

families and businesses will not see lower prices.

On services, think about a specialized service that businesses rely on, like equipment

inspection, technical maintenance or certain kinds of consulting. If a firm can legally

supply that service in another province, mutual recognition should help them offer

it here without running into duplicate hurdles. That could mean more competition and

better pricing for B.C. businesses.

But again, if the post-entry rules around licensing, permitted scope of work or who

can serve whom are interpreted broadly, then recognition becomes theoretical again.

A company may be allowed to supply the service but not in a way that is commercially

workable. That is why the mechanics matter and why

section 4 must not become a loophole.

That is a key point. The government will be tempted to declare victory the moment

this bill passes, but businesses do not live in the statute book. They live in day-to-day

operations. If this government wants to claim this bill reduces barriers, it needs

to prove that those post-entry rules are not being used to preserve the same obstacles

under a different label.

Now, this is also where the comparison to Bill 7 matters again. A key difference between

the interprovincial trade framework that was being discussed in Bill 7 and what is

being done in Bill 5 is how regularly change is likely to happen. Bill 7 pushed regulators

toward amending or removing rules that conflicted with the recognition framework.

It was more forceful, more aggressive. That was part of why it triggered push-back.

Bill 5 keeps a similar tool. Ministers can still ask regulators to change rules and

can step in if they do not. But Bill 5 also explicitly preserves B.C.’s authority

over how goods and services are sold or delivered once they are in the market. So

the extent of regulatory change will depend on how broadly those post-entry rules

are interpreted and how actively ministers actually use these powers to resolve conflicts.

Let me put that in one sentence, because it is the heart of this critique. Bill 5

may open the door, but it does not guarantee the hallway is not still blocked.

[1:40 p.m.]

Now, there’s another theme we need to put on the record. Limitations remain even under

the national mutual recognition approach. There are major categories that have been

excluded or limited under the CMRA framework, including categories like food, live

animals, alcoholic beverages, cannabis, tobacco and plants. In addition, governments

can adopt specific carve-outs that allow them to retain requirements in areas they

choose to exempt, listed under annex A in the CMRA agreement.

If the government wants to talk about affordability, it should also acknowledge that

this bill will not touch some of the categories that matter most to the costs families

feel every week. If this government wants to talk about leadership, it should also

explain what carve-outs B.C. intends to give and why, and how we will ensure those

carve-outs do not become permanent excuses for inaction.

Trade barriers are not just about whether something is allowed in theory. They are

about whether something is allowed in practice. That brings me to another missing

piece — trucking and logistics. Trade is movement. Goods do not magically teleport

between provinces. If we do not align rules that affect interprovincial trucking and

the movement of goods, then internal trade remains expensive and fragmented, regardless

of the legal framework.

Industry is telling us B.C. has not clearly signalled intent to join the MOU partnership

on interprovincial trucking. If that is true, it raises a basic question for this

government: is B.C. serious about reducing internal trade costs, or is B.C. only serious

about passing bills that sound good only?

If B.C. is engaged, what’s the timeline and what changes will British Columbians actually

see? If B.C. is not engaged, why not?

Now I want to return to

section 4, because this is where the mechanics really matter.

Section 4 appears to preserve government’s ability to regulate products and services

after they have entered the province. There are legitimate reasons for some post-entry

rules to prevent absurd results and protect public interest. But as industry has highlighted,

section 4 is broadly written.

Let me linger on

section 4 for a moment because this is where a lot of the real-world

impact will be decided. I understand why government wants a provision like this. You

do not want mutual recognition to accidentally override sensible local rules. But

if post-entry is defined too broadly, it becomes an escape valve that can preserve

almost any barrier so long as someone can describe it as operational. That is exactly

how you end up with reform that looks bold on paper but feels unchanged in practice.

So when I ask the minister about the intended boundary of

section 4, I’m not asking

for a weak reassurance. I’m asking for clarity that business can plan around and that

this Legislature can hold this government to.

I want to put clear questions to the minister and invite answers either in this debate

or at committee.

First, what is the intended boundary between an entry barrier that is overridden by

mutual recognition and a post-entry rule that is preserved?

[1:45 p.m.]

Second, will the government publish guidance to regulators on how

section 4 is meant

to be interpreted so that it does not become the escape hatch that swallows the reform?

Third, does the government agree that a post-entry rule that has the practical effect

of blocking market participation should be treated as a trade barrier and addressed

under this framework?

Fourth, how will conflicts be identified and resolved? Will there be a transparent

process so businesses can see which barriers were raised, which barriers were removed

and why?

Fifth, when ministers request regulators to amend or remove measures, will those requests

be made public with reasons so British Columbians can see whether this bill is driving

real change?

Those are not hostile questions. They are the basic questions that determine whether

this is meaningful reform or just a change in branding, because, again, Bill 7 is

a credibility test. This government demanded aggressive powers under Bill 7, framed

it as urgent and then retreated when controversy erupted.

British Columbians have yet to see convincing evidence that those powers produce real

change. So this government does not get to ask for another leap of faith. It gets

scrutiny. It gets conditions. It gets questions on the record. It gets a demand for

proof.

I want to bring this back to the people this bill should help. This matters to workers.

An apprentice who wants to follow work should not be told their skills are valid in

one province and suddenly questionable in another. This matters to small and medium-sized

businesses. A manufacturer or service provider should not have to pay for duplicate

testing or duplicate approvals that do not add safety but do add cost.

This matters to consumers. Competition is how you get better pricing and better choice.

In a time when families are watching every single dollar, government should not defend

duplication and friction that inflate costs. This matters to the broader economy.

A province that is serious about growth does not tolerate barriers that separate Canadians

from Canadians.

So we will support Bill 5 because we agree with that direction. But we will also be

honest about the government’s track record and the risk that this bill becomes cautious,

symbolic and incomplete.

Let me be constructive and specific about what we expect from this government to ensure

Bill 5 is more than a slogan.

First, an implementation plan with dates, not an open-ended regulation. A clear schedule.

Second, transparency on exclusions and carve-outs. Publish what is excluded, what

is exempted and why, before the bill comes into force, not after.

Third, measurable reporting. How many barriers were identified? How many were removed?

How many conflicts were resolved? How many regulatory changes were made? If this government

claims this reduces costs, show the scoreboard.

[1:50 p.m.]

Fourth, guidance on

section 4. Define the boundaries, constrain the loopholes, and

make it clear that barriers cannot simply be re-labelled as operational to avoid mutual

recognition.

Fifth, disclosure of ministerial interventions. If ministers are going to ask regulators

to change rules, disclose it. If they step in, disclose it. If this government is

using strong power, it should not be invisible.

Finally, a review clause. After 18 to 24 months, bring back a report to this Legislature

on what actually changed and what the measurable impacts have been.

If this government agrees to those commitments, it will go a long way toward building

confidence that Bill 5 is real, because without those commitments, the risk is obvious.

The government will pass a bill, declare victory, and then implementation will be

slow, quiet and limited. British Columbians, unfortunately, will be left with another

statute that sounds strong and delivers little. This is exactly what many people believe

happened with Bill 7.

I will close with this. We will support Bill 5 because British Columbians benefit

when we reduce internal barriers and improve competition. But we will not pretend

this government has earned trust on implementation. We will not allow them to rewrite

history on Bill 7. We will not let them claim urgency when their track record has

been sound and fury followed by silence. We will support this bill for British Columbians,

and we will demand the follow-though that this government has too often failed to

deliver.

Jeremy Valeriote : It’s my pleasure to speak to Bill 5, which aims to bring into legislation the removal

of interprovincial trade barriers by recognizing how other provinces regulate the

sale of goods and services.

Trade policy remains top of mind for British Columbians, with continued threats from

the U.S. to many sectors of our economy. I’ve heard this in my constituency and from

people across this province. The Third Party caucus recognizes the value in reducing

unnecessary barriers and making it easier to buy from other provinces and to ensure

our products are for sale across the entire country.

We should be making it easier to trade with provinces and territories across Canada,

and therefore, I want to support this bill. I really do. But I have questions and

concerns about what the real benefits of this bill are for our economy and the people

of B.C.

We have to strike a balance between facilitating trade while upholding the high standards

and protections that people rely on, and we need to make sure that economic efficiency

isn’t the reason to sacrifice key safeguards like labour standards or environmental

protections.

The first issue I want to talk about is that we’ve been talking about removing trade

barriers for over a year now. Last year

part 1 of Bill 7, the Tariff Response Act,

was passed to great fanfare for the huge economic benefits it would have for our province,

and we were told that these were urgently needed changes that were so urgent, the

Premier would be forced to call an election if they weren’t passed.

The problem is that the

section of that bill on interprovincial trade barriers was

never brought into force by this government. It did functionally become established

in December 2025 with the Canadian mutual recognition agreement, but how can we and

the public know what the benefits or harms of this new bill are since these trade

barriers were only finally eliminated two months ago?

Is this bill necessary? Has the federal government made this piece of legislation

redundant? And why was the original piece of legislation never brought into force?

These are all questions that the minister needs to answer to assure this House that

this bill is of benefit to all British Columbians and to assure us that he understands

the complicated patchwork of legislation governing this federation.

I’m glad my Third Party colleague, the member for Saanich North and the Islands, is

here because he spent a huge amount of effort successfully advocating last year for

the sunset clause in the Tariff Response Act as well as transparency, oversight and

accountability provisions, to make sure that we could have a real-world assessment

of the impacts on removing these barriers for British Columbians.

[1:55 p.m.]

Now this new bill is being proposed, and these provisions are conveniently omitted.

We keep hearing about these major benefits of removing internal trade barriers for

Canada and B.C.’s GDP, but where is the analysis on what has happened over the last

few months since the signing of the Canadian mutual recognition agreement?

I believe we need to see some of the early results of this work. The impact on small

businesses that are the backbone of our provincial economy is unclear. Unlike the

oil and gas lobby, they don’t have the direct ear of senior ministers. We need a better

understanding of who will benefit and who will incur potential new costs.

Some exemptions have already been added to this bill from consultation that has happened

across sectors, which is a good start to make sure it is responsive. But we don’t

yet know if there will be ongoing structured consultation mechanisms for further exemptions

and who will make these decisions.

Seems like many of these questions are still not answered after this government has

already had a full year to remove trade barriers.

Second issue. The other big concern we have is how much this is really doing. Removing

these barriers sounds great on the surface, and I’m sure there’ll be benefits for

some sectors. But we also need to make sure we acknowledge the limits of how much

this will help people in this province and make sure that this government isn’t giving

people and small businesses false hope.

The benefits and trade-offs from this legislation need to be made clear to British

Columbians — yet another reason why a one-year trial would have been so helpful.

This is one potentially useful tool, but it isn’t a whole toolbox. I think it’s important

to be clear that this change is not a substitute for the real reforms we need to make

to make sure that we have a strong, diversified and climate-aligned economy that works

for people all across this province.

We’ve raised some of these issues recently. For example, the B.C. government is currently

purchasing nasal naloxone at a higher price from an American company when they could

be supporting a B.C. business and saving public money while doing it.

This government also continues to directly subsidize the LNG industry that also funds

President Trump and his war on trade. If we’re truly committed to economic independence,

then ending those ties would have a much bigger and more direct impact on our economic

security.

platforms that are used to promulgate disinformation and drive the MAGA movement —

including X, formerly Twitter — rather than supporting local media.

None of these issues will be solved with the removal of internal barriers, so I want

to make sure that this bill doesn’t take away from the focus on other important issues.

Especially now, we have to maintain high standards that support workers and businesses

to make sure these are not unintentionally eroded by this legislation.

I hope the promised benefits from removing internal barriers come to fruition, but

I worry that the focus on internal trade barriers will prove more of a communications

exercise than something that delivers real results.

To close, I think it’s important we keep our eye on the bigger picture of (1) protecting

our climate, (2) ensuring affordability and (3) helping workers in all parts of our

province.

With those concerns in mind, I look forward to hearing more specifics from the minister

on this bill at the committee stage.

Darlene Rotchford : I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today in support of the Trade Recognition

Act.

One of the foundational pieces of our Look West strategy is to secure more ambitious

Canadian mutual recognition agreements. The CMRA, which B.C. signed in November of

2025, will see each and every Canadian province and territory agree to recognize each

other’s regulations on the sale of goods except food.

The practical impact of this is that if a product can be sold in one province, it

can be sold in another without further testing, approval or certification. This was

an unprecedented step and marked one of the most significant reductions in interprovincial

trade barriers in Canadian history.

B.C. led this work around the negotiating table. It was a momental achievement to

get this agreement concluded. But we must go further, and that is why our government

has introduced Bill 5. Bill 5 represents a continuation of B.C.’s national leadership

on internal trade.

We passed Bill 7, the Economic Stabilization Act, last year. It was because we knew

we needed to act fast. We will cast our minds back to the time last year. Nobody knew

what was coming. There were new threats almost every day. In North American history,

trading relationships began to quickly fall apart.

[2:00 p.m.]

Part 1 of Bill 7 gave B.C. the ability to recognize other provinces’ regulations and

allow for goods sold in these provinces to also be sold here. Many other provinces

have taken this step, and the CMRA signalled that each province intends to align with

this national strategy to reduce interprovincial barriers.

As more provinces move toward similar legislation, the benefits for provinces like

B.C. grow greater. B.C. businesses, if they wish, will be able to more easily expand

to new domestic markets. These are new opportunities that are unlocked by purposeful

work to remove interprovincial trade barriers wherever possible.

Part 1 of Bill 7 will expire this May, so B.C. needs a legislative framework to be

able to continue its progress on interprovincial trade. Bill 5 will ensure that there

is continuity so that we can stay aligned with the CMRA and continue to work to make

progress on internal trade while we negotiate further with other jurisdictions. When

we can bring other provinces together to come to a broader mutual agreement, we will

already have the legislation in place to enact the agreement right away.

We know that this global instability is not going to subside easily, so we are planning

for our future. Bill 5 is one measure that will help us build a stronger economy here

in B.C. and help us contribute to a more unified Canada.

B.C. is leading by example. We were one of the first provinces to introduce interprovincial

trade legislation. It was B.C.’s leadership working with other jurisdictions to address

concerns and find common ground that will help bring the CMRA to completion.

Make no mistake; the CMRA is a landmark agreement. While the CMRA establishes mutual

recognition for the sale of goods except food, Bill 5 goes further. This bill would

establish recognition for all goods and services. Not only does Bill 5 enable us to

align with the CMRA, but it also puts us on the leading edge of reducing unnecessary

trade barriers.

This is a long time coming. Report after report highlights the considerable economic

benefit that easier interprovincial trade could bring. For B.C., it could mean billions

of dollars added to our provincial economic output. This is growth that would deliver

good jobs for British Columbians in every community across the province. We are doing

it without compromising the protections that British Columbians rely on.

We will uphold regulations concerning health and safety, the environment and consumer

standards. We will also protect our critical public services, like ICBC. It is plain

to see that not only is interprovincial trade economically beneficial for business,

workers and consumers alike, but it’s also possible to do it without sacrificing the

values we hold dear.

Our government’s Look West strategy has established a clear plan for growth in B.C.

It lays out a path forward for B.C. to become the economic engine of Canada. To be

the engine, we need to be competitive. Interprovincial trade barriers have often been

obstacles to economic development, not just in B.C. but right across the country.

That’s why we’re targeting economic growth with a multi-pronged approach, so all British

Columbians can share in the benefits.

It all starts with workers. B.C. has incredible talent across many diverse sectors,

from life sciences to professional services to our skilled trades. That’s why, through

Look West, we’re doubling our investment in trades training to $214 million over three

years. Our talent is one of our key selling points. While businesses are making investment

decisions, we’re looking for readily available talent and a predictable talent pipeline.

When we are reducing interprovincial trade barriers, which increases our global competitiveness

and tracks levels of investment from within Canada and abroad, we are raising B.C.’s

stature as we compete for major projects and investments.

As we aim to grow our strategic sectors — like life sciences, advanced technology,

mining and critical minerals, maritime and aerospace, construction innovation and

more — B.C. will need highly qualified professionals to lead that growth. Many of

the major projects that will be advanced in the upcoming years will require B.C. to

recruit and retain many more of the skilled-trades workers who will get the job done.

That’s why we’ll continue to work with other provinces and territories towards an

agreement on labour mobility.

You can see how our interprovincial trade is a subtle but necessary component of our

plan to deliver good jobs and prosperity here for a stronger British Columbia. Bill

5 is a necessary and practical step forward as we work to modernize our internal trade

rules. The Trade Recognition Act provides new opportunities for B.C. businesses by

opening new markets inside Canada.

[2:05 p.m.]

It also provides administrative relief for those businesses, particularly our small

businesses, that cannot afford to do business in other provinces due to the cost of

duplicate regulatory compliance. For B.C. exporters, it means their products will

be more readily available across Canada, and for B.C. consumers, that means more opportunity

to buy Canadian-made products.

Bill 5 provides stability, continuity and predictability as we establish a permanent

provincial framework for internal trade. It does so while preserving the health, safety

and environmental attractions that we all value. The Trade Recognition Act is forward-looking

and sets the stage for B.C. to continue its national leadership on breaking down interprovincial

trade barriers.

I hope all members will join me in supporting Bill 5.

Peter Milobar : I rise to speak to Bill 5, yet another bill that is urgently needed by this government

to advance things in British Columbia. It makes me almost feel like we’re having the

Bill 15 debate all over again, or was that the Bill 14 debate? Oh no, this is actually

replacing Bill 7. All three of those bills were rushed and needed to happen right

away.

In fact, Bill 7, which this bill is taking a big chunk out of to rework, actually

had a whole

section that had to be removed because it was massive government overreach

that would literally give this government the ability to change any law or to ignore

any law that they chose. We wouldn’t even have needed to have a budget debate if Bill

7 had passed with those provisions in it, because the government was waiving the requirement

for themselves to even bring the budget forward into this chamber.

After hearing the Finance Minister today, I’d say it’s a good thing the opposition

does have an opportunity, on behalf of the public, to scrutinize the budget. That’s

the problem with Bill 5, ultimately. We are supportive of it at this stage, and that’s

the caveat, because just as we saw with Bill 7, as we got into committee stage — as

others started to actually scrutinize the bill, understand the true intention of the

government and what was either lacking or what was overreach — it became very clear

that it was not supportable.

At this stage, we support Bill 5, but as we work through this bill and as we work

through committee stage, we may find ourselves saying: “You know what? This really

isn’t going to hit the mark.” I say that because even in the previous member’s comments….

I don’t take great issue with what she is saying, but with interprovincial trade,

as soon as you say, “We will protect B.C.,” that’s a red flag for every other province.

That has been the sticking point with interprovincial trade barriers all along. If

you talk to a sector or you talk to a province, everyone’s for it as long as it doesn’t

actually change their small piece of that overall equation of the economy.

We need interprovincial trade barriers removed. I’ve been speaking about this for

quite some time, and frankly, it’s disappointing that this is as far as we’ve gotten

with this government.

They passed three bills in this place and said they needed them for immediate action,

to take immediate steps to bring the economy along, to move projects forward. Instead,

we have a budget that’s removing projects and slowing them down. We have three bills

that still don’t actually have regulations ready to go and enacted, just the regulation

on making the bill functional.

Before we even have that in place, we have yet another addition/change with Bill 5,

tying back into Bill 7, purportedly to remove interprovincial trade barriers, as well,

with the Trade Recognition Act. But Bill 7 was supposed to actually enable that to

all happen. What the heck has happened over the last year? Why do we need Bill 5 if

Bill 7 was the cure-all a year ago?

At its core, that’s why I say that at this juncture we support Bill 5. We’re not 100

percent clear, until we get into committee stage, that the government is actually

serious at this point and taking real, meaningful and tangible steps to get rid of

interprovincial trade barriers — interprovincial trade barriers that this government

rarely talks about openly. They do when it is politically convenient for them.

They spend more time talking about the President, less time talking about this. Yet

we know that interprovincial trade barriers create a 23 percent tariff-equivalent

drag on the economy in British Columbia.

[2:10 p.m.]

Precious little, though, has actually been done. They will talk about all the work

that has been done, how far things have moved, the tables that the minister is at,

that we’ve never seen this type of action before and that it’s a long time coming.

All of that type of language will be used, yet all the barriers are still in place

— substantively, anyway.

When this government gets more hyper-fixated on hyper-politicizing and mischaracterizing

statements on this side of the House, instead of being hyper-fixated to actually take

care of our own internal trade barrier issues that we have within our own country….

By the way, B.C. is the second-most impacted province on interprovincial trade barriers

in the country — second most. Only Quebec is impacted, and that’s just a little bit

more than B.C.

At a time where we’ve had a forest sector under attack and assault over the last year,

this government has pointed the finger south and not figured out a way to meaningfully

get rid of interprovincial trade barriers, not because that would necessarily save

the forest industry but that it might help us with our overall economy that is hemorrhaging.

When you look at the current budget, no steps taken. So now we have Bill 5. We have,

essentially, the replacement for Bill 7.

As my colleague from Richmond was saying, there are lots of questions that we have

within the various clauses. We’re not sure even with clause 1. We have a government

saying…. This is where it’ll be tough, in committee stage, to actually understand

what the true intent and what the true expectation of the government will be, moving

forward.

In clause 1, it defines “Indigenous Peoples” with the same definition as in DRIPA,

but we also have a government saying they’re bringing forward amendments to DRIPA

right now. We haven’t seen those amendments. We don’t know what the government’s intention

is with DRIPA, yet we’re supposed to pass Bill 5, which makes sure that it’s tying

itself, indirectly, to DRIPA.

Now, if we didn’t know there were amendments coming, you would read that clause and

you would just know how to interpret that with existing DRIPA legislation. But the

government has made it very clear that they are supposedly…. I say “supposedly” because

no one has seen or knows what those amendments are. Now that we’re underway in session,

one would have thought they would have brought that forward with some haste, given

the length of the session we have.

How does Bill 5 not just tie in with existing legislation but with the legislation

this government has very openly talked about amending? They won’t tell us how they’re

going to amend it.

That creates an actual bit of a problem when you’re trying to figure out how Bill

5 will actually function with the rest of the country, which does not have DRIPA in

effect, and how you’re going to remove that interprovincial trade barrier. How are

we to remove interprovincial trade barriers when you’re supposed to be jurisdictions

that recognize each other’s standings and when we don’t fully understand — as a jurisdiction

that stands alone with DRIPA in place provincially — how that will impact?

I’m not saying that to inflame the whole DRIPA debate. I’m saying it because it’s

just the reality of the situation we find ourselves in. We obviously have said that

we would repeal. We campaigned on that. We have a government that has said they’re

going to amend. We don’t know if it’s minor or significant. We also know it’s the

only piece of legislation like that across the country.

The government is saying that clause 1 in Bill 5, for a trade recognition act, will

have DRIPA in effect. We don’t even know what that means provincially, let alone what

that means to actually, truly, opening up interprovincial trade across the country

when no other jurisdiction has anything close to that as a provincial law. So I ask

that question now, and I pose that — as a warning question, I guess, an advance question

— to the ministry.

[2:15 p.m.]

I think it actually deserves a serious conversation and a serious answer at committee

stage, because it’s real and it could have very significant impact to how the removal

of interprovincial trade barriers even happens or not — not just for British Columbia

but whether it, indeed, happens across the country — with an impact to the national

economy.

So I do hope the government comes with a full set of answers to that particular clause,

because it is serious.

Again, it is not meant to incite anything. It is meant to actually deal with legislation

and how it’s worded — the government’s intent to it and how it interconnects with

other pieces of legislation not just in B.C. but how it will be interpreted across

the country to remove those interprovincial trade barriers.

That’s at the core premise of interprovincial trade barriers. There are provincial

laws and rules that are different, different standards across the country, and you

come to some agreement of a middle ground that people can live with and which standard

will be the overarching standard. And if you meet that minimum standard, essentially

you have access to the market.

I’m oversimplifying it, I know, but that’s the basic premise of interprovincial trade

and the barriers that Bill 5 is purporting to remove.

Goods sold or used in another province can be sold and used in B.C. Is that only if

they’re sold and used in another province under the guidelines of DRIPA or not?

Services delivered in other provinces can be delivered in B.C. Can a case be made

that those services, if they’re not conforming in other provinces, actually are allowed

to just come into the province and operate under the same provisions of a different

province that they are currently operating in, or do they have to conform?

In other words, it’s great to say that we welcome services from other provinces in,

but if it’s the B.C. standard and legislation that is now the standard being expected

to be held to by this government, you’re not removing interprovincial trade barriers.

You’re just telling everyone in the country to act like British Columbia.

I know what the response back will be, and I’m pretty sure the government knows what

the response back will be from those other jurisdictions.

There are exemptions, regulatory measures that are not overridden by a division that

defines things in clause 7 and then the regulatory overrides that ministers can have.

And again, we always have the out-clauses that the Lieutenant Governor in Council

can make exceptions and override clauses, which always creates a little bit of worry.

So that’s, fundamentally, the issue.

Then the fact that this act doesn’t come into force until regulation…. People at home

might wonder why that is a big problem or not. With every piece of legislation, various

clauses have a date they come into effect. Some will say “by royal assent.” Some will

say “by this date.” Some will be retroactive.

Under this government, most pieces come forward and say…. Unless it’s something that

they need to fix that they made a mistake on, then it’s retroactive. They’re always

good at doing that to cover their mistakes up.

But this government all too often has a bill coming into effect by regulation, which

means they’ll then go away and they’ll think about things. So they’ll tell us the

rough idea of where they’re going in this place. When we get to committee stage, they’ll

answer with very vague answers, saying: “You’ll have to wait for the regulation,”

“Well, we’ll see what the regulation says,” “We haven’t written the regulation yet.”

In fact, we asked those questions — ironically, they introduced FOI legislation today

— about the previous FOI legislation because, again, this government seems to be amending

all their own homework because they messed up the legislation in the first place when

they brought it forward.

We asked all those questions like that, and that’s the runaround we got on the FOI

legislation — that the fee for filing for an FOI hadn’t been decided yet. It would

be decided by regulation after consultation. And 15 minutes after the debate was over,

lo and behold, I guess they’d finished consulting, and the fee was set. The order

in council was signed in the hallway, and away they went. We had a $10 fee.

[2:20 p.m.]

That’s the track record of this government. So when I see Bill 5 talking about “left

to regulation” when this bill will come into force and effect, it’s worrisome. As

far as I know, the regulations needed in Bill 7, which this is actually essentially

amending, haven’t all been created and signed off on.

Bill 14 that was critically urgent to deal with issues related to the trade war hasn’t

been finished and signed off on. Bill 15, same thing, which brings us now to Bill

5. So track record after nine years in government actually doesn’t matter, because

what this government doesn’t seem to get is every time they point the finger to a

previous government to blame, they’re pointing it at themselves.

So when they bring Bill 5 forward, it’s because they didn’t action Bill 7 properly,

their bill. And they’re now needing to bring forward other legislation. In fact, when

Bill 7 was in, we specifically asked around things like labour mobility and other

issues like that. The government didn’t want to go anywhere near that then. So it

is going to be interesting. And I think by virtue of this bill being left to regulation,

that won’t cut it at committee stage.

There’s too much at stake for our economy right now. You just have to look at the

fiscal plan to realize that, if you actually look at it in an honest lens, if you

actually believe the head of the public service who says our budget and our fiscal

plan is not sustainable. That path is not sustainable. You don’t have to listen to

the opposition. Just listen to your own top bureaucrats telling you that, if you’re

the government.

Known disputes in interprovincial trade barriers are a drag on our economy, which

means we do have to remove them if we’re going to open up our economy to its full

potential. But answers to legitimate questions in this bill that we will have that

fall back on: “Well, we’ll just wait till we do the regulation. You’ll find out then.”

By the way, to the viewers at home, the regulation that I’m talking about…. What happens

is usually at about four o’clock on a Friday afternoon, the regulations that government

doesn’t really want to have to talk about get released. They get released publicly,

but they get released on the website and the orders in council. They get flooded in

there. You really have to dig around and pay attention to what’s going on to see them.

Sometimes they’re benign. Lately with this government, it’s just all been about patronage

hires and promotions while they’re under a so-called hiring freeze. But, you know,

why need a Merit Commissioner?

But that’s the problem when these things wind up in regulation. The regulation does

not get the scrutiny of this House. The regulation gets developed by the insider circle

within the Premier’s office that’s not even sitting at the cabinet table, that won’t

be sitting in here answering questions in budget estimates, that gives their marching

orders to the various cabinet ministers and the cabinet table. Then those ministers

are sent to defend what they’ve been told to defend and developed by the Premier’s

inner circles of partisan hires, of political hires.

I think given the fiscal situation this province is in, given the desperation our

business community is in, to have some hope and some actionable way forward, especially

in relation to interprovincial trade barriers, especially in relation to our lack

of competitiveness….

The same industries that are asking this government to rethink adding $550 million

of extra PST taxation to it this year are the same organizations representing the

same members that this government is trying to tell us that they’re actually looking

out for in Bill 5, while talking about getting rid of interprovincial trade barriers

so we stay competitive with the rest of the country.

[2:25 p.m.]

We already have the most punitive PST system in the country. This government just

layered onto it, and they’re trying to say: “Don’t worry. When we move the interprovincial

trade barriers, we’ll be even more competitive.” No, we won’t. If we’re not legitimately

competitive, those same manufacturers will go to a different province that actually

is competitive. And they will have open access to the B.C. market. We will have lost

the jobs.

This government doesn’t seem to take that seriously. I’ve been saying that since we

first started talking about interprovincial trade barriers and their removal, and

this government has ignored it every step of the way.

Business organizations have been talking about that. There are two sides to this conversation

that have to both be dealt with in a real way, not just with a piece of legislation

that’s going to wait for regulation till god knows when. The business community doesn’t

need performative legislation; they need performance. They’re not getting it from

this government.

Again, we fundamentally agree with Bill 5. We will vote for it at this stage, and

we will reserve our right, based on the answers or lack thereof during committee stage,

as to whether we advance it any further with support.

Again, these are very real, and these are interconnected with the rest of the country,

questions that we have, especially with clause 1, because that is not just the standard

level of safety testing or standard that we have.

DRIPA is whole and in

part completely different than legislation in the rest of this

country, provincial legislation. So not only do we need to actually have a clear line

of sight at committee stage of what that actually does mean for the removal of interprovincial

trade barriers but if this government hasn’t brought forward their DRIPA amendments,

how do we meaningfully ask those questions and get an answer that might actually fundamentally

change, literally a week later, when those amendments come forward?

These are the implications when you have legislation that is performative. This is

what happens when you have photo-op and sound bite legislation. It can look and sound

very impressive, but if the government is unwilling to give that level of detail of

critically important answers to critically important questions, that’s all it is.

It’s performance art.

Now, you can maybe put it on a poster board and sell it to the National Gallery for

$1 million. You never know, sometimes, what they buy for artwork. But that’s not what

our business community is looking for. They’re looking for real, meaningful help.

And we do hope that’s what Bill 5 will provide. We’re a little skeptical, given the

track record of this government, but at this point, it’s all we have to work with.

With that, I thank you for the time, and I do look forward to committee stage, where

we will thoroughly canvass this bill to find out what the government’s true intentions

and

interpretations of the various clauses actually are and how they will actually

function in the real world, not in this chamber.

Paul Choi : I am pleased to speak today in support of the Trade Recognition Act. Bill 5 will

replace

part 1 of the Economic Stabilization Act with a permanent framework to reduce

interprovincial trade barriers in B.C.

As Parliamentary Secretary for Trade, I understand the critical need for Canada to

take significant steps towards breaking down its interprovincial trade barriers. Now,

each province and territory has a part to play in this mission, and B.C. is at the

forefront of the push to make domestic trade simpler.

When I meet with local businesses and partners, one of the top concerns is interprovincial

trade barriers. When I meet with business leaders around the world, they express uncertainty

and sometimes confusion as to why there are barriers to trade within Canada.

[2:30 p.m.]

Well, it’s a tough question to answer, but what it means is that the Canadian economy

is not as integrated as it should be. It means that we are not only dealing with uncertainty

because of our unstable trading partners to the south but also that Canada has historically

been limited in its ability to grow its domestic markets.

In this time of great uncertainty, we need to move with great urgency. This is why

our government has introduced Bill 5. This bill will enable B.C. to align with the

national effort, which B.C. is leading, to allow freer movement of goods across provincial

barriers.

I want to take a moment to explore the impact that the interprovincial trade barriers

have had in B.C.’s businesses, big and small. The OECD reports that most Canadian

businesses, especially small businesses, don’t engage in interprovincial trade. More

than half of businesses that do trade interprovincially reported some kind of obstacle.

It’s clear that interprovincial trade barriers are getting in the way of internal

trade and providing this incentive for businesses to look for domestic opportunities.

This has a wide range of effects in every community. A business in Burnaby or Merritt

or Terrace wants to send their products to Alberta, Manitoba or New Brunswick or any

other province. Right now they often need to spend time and money combing through

the thousands of legislation each jurisdiction maintains just to understand what is

and isn’t allowed. That’s thousands of regulations each across 14 different jurisdictions.

This is the definition of burden. I think it goes without saying that businesses in

B.C. should not need to hire a trade lawyer to send their products over the Rockies.

It should not be easier to trade north to south than it is east to west. At a time

when others may be turning inward, our approach should be to expand opportunity, remove

these unnecessary barriers and lead with confidence in free and fair trade.

Interprovincial trade barriers mean that the movement of goods is slower than it needs

to be, which increases costs for exporters, truckers, railways, warehouses and consumers.

It means that investment potential is diminished because investors do not see the

stability and certainty that they need to make business-critical decisions. This is

a real problem for Canada’s productivity, for our consumer products and for our major

products. The impacts of this are significant, and it’s long overdue that we take

a unified national approach to reducing and eliminating these barriers wherever possible.

As B.C.’s representative to PNWER, the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, I have firsthand

experience in conversations with political, business and community leaders on both

sides of our shared border. Nearly universally, these leaders are condemning tariffs.

They know that these old-fashioned, outdated and harmful trade measures are not beneficial

for businesses or workers. Tariffs are costly, and B.C. needs a deliberate, targeted

response.

Last year our government introduced Bill 7 to do exactly that, and we knew that we

needed to move quickly to provide relief and work to open new markets for B.C. businesses.

The threat of North American trade being so severely interrupted means that we need

to look closer to home. There is a plethora of untapped opportunities in Canada, and

one of those opportunities is interprovincial trade. That’s why we made it provincial

law that B.C. would recognize goods and services sold in other provinces as goods

and services that can be sold in B.C.

Our actions alone are not going to solve the Canada-wide problems of interprovincial

trade barriers though. When we passed Bill 7 in B.C., we set an example for other

provinces to follow. We have indeed seen many provinces follow suit. For B.C.’s leadership,

we have been recognized by the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, the B.C. Chamber

of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and more.

As we set out to find a consensus among provinces and territories to reach an agreement

that will significantly reduce inter-trade barriers, in November, B.C. signed the

Canadian mutual recognition act, as did the federal government and all other provinces

and territories.

[2:35 p.m.]

Under the CMRA, provinces agree that we will recognize each other’s approvals, testing

and certification when it comes to the sale of goods. This was difficult work, and

there is much more work to do at the table among provinces. But because of B.C.’s

leadership, we have broken new ground on reducing interprovincial barriers and simplifying

the flow of goods within Canada.

That brings us to Bill 5. When we passed Bill 7 last year, we didn’t know what the

future held, but we knew we needed to act. But the enabling

section of Bill 7 expires

this May, so B.C. needs a permanent legislative solution for interprovincial barriers,

and Bill 5 is the piece that establishes B.C.’s permanent framework for simpler and

affordable trade within Canada.

Bill 5 will allow B.C. to continue meeting our commitment under the CMRA. In fact,

Bill 5 goes farther than that in the CMRA. This legislation recognizes all goods and

services, and we hope that all other provinces will join us in this broader recognition.

While this is unilateral recognition on B.C.’s part, having this legislation in place

permanently will help us qualify as a reciprocal jurisdiction to those provinces whose

legislation is more stringent. And our framework will reduce the administrative burden

on small businesses who are looking for new markets to export to.

We know that right now many businesses would not only prefer to sell to other Canadians

but they are relying on that opportunity to keep their businesses running. This framework

will reduce paperwork and keep products from being held up in the warehouse until

duplicate certifications and approvals have been acquired. It will strengthen competitiveness

for B.C.’s businesses, and it will make it easier for British Columbians to buy Canadian.

This is what B.C.’s leadership looks like. This government is absolutely committed

to doing the hard work to advance the cause of breaking down interprovincial trade

barriers. We will continue to lead, and we will continue to get results for British

Columbians. With B.C.’s leadership, we are protecting the things that are most important

to British Columbians.

While we firmly believe in mutual recognition and the reduction of inter-trade barriers,

we will also firmly defend our strong protections that keep British Columbians healthy,

keep workers safe and keep our environment undisturbed.

Under Bill 5, we retain the full authority to maintain exceptions. We will not jeopardize

health and safety or the environment. B.C.’s standards are the baseline, because a

rising tide lifts all boats.

These exceptions will be clear, and they will be public. In fact, B.C.’s exceptions

under the CMRA are already published online for anyone to access. Under Bill 5, recognition

does not apply to monopolies. This allows us to keep things like Liquor Distribution

Branch and ICBC so that we can continue to provide public car insurance with some

of the lowest rates in the country, and that’s something to be proud of.

As new products enter the market and efforts towards simpler interprovincial trade

unfold, we will continue to monitor the effects. Bill 5 allows to add and remove exceptions

quickly, as necessary. As I have laid out, the Trade Recognition Act is a flexible,

modern piece of legislation that is the right tool to deal with our new reality.

It will allow us to continually evaluate B.C.’s needs while giving us the ability

to respond to the evergreen threat of American tariffs. It means that there will be

greater investment opportunities here in B.C., which will drive economic growth and

help create good jobs for folks in every sector across British Columbia. It means

that folks will be able to buy more Canadian goods at a time when we all want to support

our local businesses. It will mean more B.C. products on shelves in the rest of Canada.

We are going to confront economic hardships head-on, and the Trade Recognition Act

is an absolutely critical tool in our toolbox. I’m very happy to support Bill 5, and

I hope all members will join me in doing so.

[2:40 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens : It is always an honour, of course, to rise on behalf of the people of Prince George–Mackenzie.

Today I’ll be responding to Bill 5, the Trade Recognition Act, and, of course, speaking

for my constituents but also today in my capacity as the opposition critic for Labour.

I know there are a number of labour components about this bill.

I want to start with a principle that I think every member of this House should actually

be united on, and that’s that Canada should function as one economic country, not

ten separate ones divided by unnecessary internal barriers. Too often we make it harder

to trade across Canada and actually easier to trade with our neighbours down south.

That’s what this bill, I think — the topic, overall, of interprovincial trade that

we’ve been talking about for well over a year now — has been all about.

We set up barriers just even here in our own province that hold back job creators.

I’ll use an example. Our building code makes it almost impossible for a company like

East Fraser Fiber in Mackenzie to sell their value-added finger-joint products within

B.C., let alone across other provinces. As a result, they sell their made-in-B.C.

product down south to the U.S. About 98 percent of their product goes down to the

U.S.

Can you imagine if we put in the work to align our rules to support B.C.’s forest

products here at home? Then also imagine if we put in that same time and effort to

make sure that those same products could be sold across Canada. We can do so much

better in our economic resiliency if we get out of our own way, and I think the example

of East Fraser Fiber would be one that would be well served.

Of course, there’s a lot of talk about that orange guy down south with terrible hair,

and he’s going to be doing his thing. I am firmly against his tariffs. I’m against

his attack on institutions. But let’s not worry about him. Let’s actually look after

our fellow Canadians and work together for a change across this country. We had this

conversation a year ago already in this House, and we’re still at it today.

Workers should be able to go where the jobs are. Businesses should be able to sell

Canadian products to Canadian customers, and families should benefit from a strong

national economy built on cooperation from coast to coast to coast. Canadians should

be able to work with Canadians and sell to Canadians without hitting a wall at each

provincial border — full stop. That’s where we need to get to in this country, and

interprovincial trade barriers are still a major factor and a major problem in our

economy.

Reducing interprovincial trade barriers is not just sound economic policy. It strengthens

our resilience in these uncertain economic times. It strengthens our unity as a country,

and it strengthens our independence in a world where global economic conditions are

increasingly unpredictable. At a time when supply chains can be disrupted by events

beyond our control and trade tensions can emerge overnight, Canada’s greatest economic

strength should be Canada itself.

I have to say we’ve heard of this movie on interprovincial trade barriers already

before. We had these conversations last year. The government told us that they didn’t

need stand-alone interprovincial trade legislation. They told us that Bill 7 was what

was needed.

I’ll remind the House, of course, that the original iteration of Bill 7 had a Henry

VIII clause. The Premier wanted, at the time, the power of a king. But Conservatives

and everyday British Columbians pushed back, and the clause was removed.

We went on to debate the rest of Bill 7, including the interprovincial trade components

part 1 of that bill. Well, unfortunately, this government has squandered economic

opportunity. They’ve squandered time for businesses to pivot. We now have to wait

for this bill. Now we have to wait for regulations for businesses to actually get

clarity.

All the while, this government just hit British Columbians with PST increases. They

hit small businesses with PST increases to accounting and professional services, and

this is making B.C. less competitive instead of more.

It’s more important than ever that we get interprovincial trade right because these

businesses need this right now. The global economy has entered into a period of profound

uncertainty. I understand that. I’m willing to look at this bill for its merits because

I want our province to recognize this and actually change how we look at our national

economic resilience.

Countries around the world are adopting protectionist policies, and the tariffs that

contributed to the Great Depression in the 1930s, of course, are back, despite the

U.S. Congress’s recent efforts to overturn them. Strategic competition between major

powers is reshaping trade relationships. Supply chains that once seemed stable now

look very fragile.

[2:45 p.m.]

I’ll use, again, that example of East Fraser Fiber in Mackenzie. They rely on a supply

chain with the U.S. If we had a path for interprovincial trade barriers and our own

economic resilience for made-in-B.C., made-in-Canada solutions, then they would be

much better off.

In this environment that we’re in right now, Canada can’t afford this past approach

that the government has taken on, and that includes opposing nation-building projects

like interprovincial pipelines. The government, unfortunately, has been a barrier

to Team Canada on that subject. In interprovincial trade, I want to see the government

doing more to support Team Canada overall.

Given that we’ve been in this discussion for over a year now, and I said the same

thing last year, Canada can’t afford to weaken itself with internal barriers that

make it harder to trade with our own country than it is with foreign partners. The

easiest trade barriers for Canada to remove are the ones that we put up against ourselves.

Again, during debate on last year’s legislation as part of Bill 7, I talked quite

a bit about interprovincial trade barriers because I thought that was the only important

factor within that legislation. I referenced a report from the C.D. Howe Institute

titled Eyes on the Prize: A Game Plan to Speed Up Removal of Internal Trade Barriers Within

Canada.

That report estimated that eliminating internal trade barriers could increase Canada’s

GDP by up to $200 billion annually, simply by allowing Canadians to trade more freely

with one another. That’s $200 billion — not from new taxes, not from new resource

discoveries, not from foreign markets — from unlocking the potential of our own national

economy.

The report also highlighted how internal barriers contribute to some of the most pressing

challenges Canadians face: housing shortages, labour shortages, productivity gaps

and supply chain inefficiencies. These are real, potential benefits that can affect

affordability, job opportunities and economic security for families across the country.

Families in British Columbia, in the uncertain time that we are in right now, need

more economic security.

For the people I represent in Prince George–Mackenzie and for communities across northern

B.C., in particular, interprovincial trade barriers and trade in general is an important

topic. It’s a region that is export-dependent — global exports. But it could be an

area where our region can open up, with more trade immediately to the east of us with

our neighbouring provinces.

Our resources are the foundation of our economy in the North. Our region produces

lumber that builds homes across Canada, energy that powers industries, agricultural

products that feed families and equipment and services that support major projects

nationwide. We produce for the country, not just for local consumption.

When barriers exist, those goods become less competitive, and that’s when projects

stall, investment flows elsewhere and jobs disappear, as we’ve seen in the forest

sector. Small and medium-sized businesses feel these impacts most acutely.

A contractor in Prince George does not have a compliance department to navigate ten

different regulatory regimes across the country, just like a trucking company can’t

afford delays caused by inconsistent rules between provinces. A manufacturer cannot

redesign products to meet slightly different standards in each provincial jurisdiction.

Red tape doesn’t just slow down paperwork. It slows down paycheques for families in

communities like Prince George and Mackenzie. With the downturn in our forest sector,

people and businesses are really struggling. Much of this problem is stemming from

a lack of access to fibre and unsustainable policy from our own government. For rural

and northern communities, smoother interprovincial trade is important for our economic

survival and long-term prosperity.

I had a contractor in my office in January who was seriously considering moving his

business to Grande Prairie because they already worked in both provinces, in B.C.

and Alberta. He talked about the ease of doing business in that province compared

to B.C., with lower taxes and with less red tape.

I told him simply that I didn’t want that to happen. I didn’t want him to pack up

and move. I wanted him to trust in staying with B.C. B.C. should be a more competitive

jurisdiction, and he should be able to work across these artificial borders freely

while raising his family in Prince George. We have to do better for people like this.

[2:50 p.m.]

Canadians encounter internal trade barriers in many aspects of their daily life. Perhaps

the most widely recognized example involves alcohol. Beer, wine and spirits is a common

example that the media cites every time this topic does come up. Canadians are often

surprised to learn that it can be easier to import wine from Europe than to ship wine

directly from Ontario to B.C. and vice versa.

Craft breweries, wineries and distilleries face complex provincial distribution systems

that limit their ability to sell in Canada. Obviously, this is the type of example

that I think people will be wondering about in discussions of this bill. These restrictions

hurt small producers. They limit consumer choice and prevent Canadian businesses from

reaching their full potential within their own country.

One of those producers is in my riding. Pacific Western Brewing has been employing

people in Prince George and brewing their great beer for 69 years now, but it’s challenging

for them. So I ask: will this bill make it easier for PWB to send their products across

Canada? That’s something that I hope the government has some clear answers for. I’d

like the government to just provide businesses like PWB with certainty.

One of their biggest issues is the requirement to send many of their products to the

Liquor Distribution Branch warehouses in Kamloops or the Fraser Valley before the

product can be sold, even within B.C. I’d like to break down the barriers that make

that liquor distribution system such a barrier to trade both within B.C. and across

Canada.

Transportation is another example. Trucking companies operating across provincial

lines have to comply with different rules regarding vehicle weights, dimensions, permits

and safety standards. These inconsistencies increase costs; cause delays; and, ultimately,

raise prices for consumers.

Construction is another sector greatly affected, with differences in building codes.

I talked about that one already in the case of those finger-joint products from East

Fraser Fiber. Material standards are different across provinces. These can complicate

projects that span provinces. They can increase costs for housing and infrastructure,

at a time when affordability is already a major concern. Individually, these differences

seem technical, but collectively, I think, they represent significant barriers to

economic growth.

As Labour critic, one of my focus areas with this legislation — which I’ll be continuing

to dive into, hopefully, when we get to committee stage as well — is really about

what this legislation means for workers. A unified Canadian economy requires the movement

of people and not just goods.

Across Canada, we face labour shortages in some regions and unemployment in others.

Skilled trades are urgently needed for infrastructure, housing, energy development

and resource projects, yet workers face barriers to employment because credentials

recognized in one province are not automatically recognized in another.

A welder does not become less skilled at a provincial border. A nurse does not lose

their training when they move west. A heavy-equipment operator doesn’t forget how

to run machinery because paperwork differs in different provinces. A skilled worker

doesn’t become unskilled just because they cross a provincial border. That’s a fact

that we need to recognize and we need to try to harmonize across Canada.

Bill 5 doesn’t override occupational licensing systems. Those matters fall under the

Labour Mobility Act. I think that is an important point just to reference here. Worker

safety, training standards, apprenticeship systems and professional regulations exist

for very, very good reasons, but I do wonder if this bill could do more to align with

labour mobility. It’s a topic we shouldn’t forget about when we’re talking about trade

and the world of work across Canada.

Another issue directly connected to my critic portfolio is occupational health and

safety. Workplace safety rules are essential, and we should always be striving for

improvement each and every day. Every worker deserves to go home safe at the end of

every single day. That’s something that we can certainly all agree on. However, inconsistent

safety regulations across provinces can create unnecessary complexity for companies

and workers operating interprovincially.

[2:55 p.m.]

That can hurt safety as well, when employers and workers struggle to navigate the

different rules across Canada. A construction company working in multiple provinces

may need to comply with different training requirements, reporting procedures, equipment

standards or certification processes, depending on where the work occurs.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

These differences do not necessarily improve safety, and often they create duplication,

confusion and administrative burden. Safety rules should work to protect workers,

not trap them in paperwork. Greater harmonization of occupational health and safety

frameworks across Canada could maintain high standards while reducing unnecessary

differences that impede mobility and project delivery. I hope that is an area that

we can explore more in committee stage as well with this bill.

Harmonization must not become a race to the bottom at the same time as we talk about

these standards as well. Mobility, I think, should raise opportunity, not lower standards.

Worker protections have to remain strong, and safety requirements must remain robust.

Fair wages should also not be undermined through what we’re looking at here.

What we’re looking at in what this means for British Columbia’s workers…. We’re talking

about reciprocity. If British Columbia recognizes goods and services from other provinces,

we must ensure that B.C. workers and businesses receive equal treatment elsewhere.

Free trade within Canada has to work both ways, and B.C. workers deserve the same

opportunities across the country that others will have here.

From Bill 7 debate last year, I recall the work that the Attorney General referenced

in meeting with other provinces. I’d like to believe that some of those discussions

can be enacted into action. In their answers, I haven’t heard it clearly yet but I

hope the government can speak a bit more in detail about that in their responses,

of how this work has been happening across Canada with other provinces right now and

if we can actually do this in a meaningful and speedy way.

The bill also references Indigenous Peoples and exempts matters relating to Indigenous

Peoples from automatic recognition provisions. Economic development, of course, I

firmly believe, should include Indigenous communities, and implementation must respect

rights while creating opportunity for shared prosperity, but I think it’s fair to

ask how this affects our trade across provinces.

We want to make sure that Indigenous communities and non-Indigenous communities alike

can benefit from trade and not be left behind, and we want to ensure that the public

understands the need for this particular reference. I think the government will have

to talk about this a little bit more during committee or perhaps in the second reading

responses.

Other provinces have moved ahead. While British Columbia has been debating this issue

over the past year, other provinces have taken concrete action. Nova Scotia introduced

landmark legislation at this time last year, designed to remove interprovincial trade

barriers through mutual recognition. Ontario has taken steps to improve labour mobility

and streamline regulatory differences. Manitoba has also moved forward with initiatives

to facilitate trade and mobility with other provinces.

These jurisdictions recognize that strengthening internal trade is one of the most

practical ways to support economic growth and resilience. Other provinces, from what

I’ve seen, are opening doors, but B.C. has been left behind, I think. We’re behind

the times. We need to speed up what we’re doing here. We shouldn’t be at a disadvantage

compared to workers and businesses in provinces that have been moving more decisively

because we looked at tariff legislation that didn’t tackle this properly the first

time.

This bill, of course, replaces provisions from Bill 7, the Economic Stabilization

Act, that were supposed to address trade barriers through regulation. No meaningful

action has been taken under those powers. We haven’t seen the regulations for them.

And we didn’t just lose time in that; we lost opportunity. We should be leading, not

playing catch-up.

I’m glad to be talking about interprovincial trade in the context of this bill, but

we have to do this better. We have to be better as a province. This was an issue which

didn’t suddenly emerge last year.

[3:00 p.m.]

Interprovincial trade, we firmly said, should have had stand-alone legislation, and

members of the opposition introduced stand-alone legislation last year, specifically

aimed at reducing interprovincial trade barriers.

The member for Nechako Lakes introduced Bill M203, Free Trade and Mobility within

Canada Act. That proposal, of course, was not advanced by the government. They could

have called that bill. It was modelled after the other provinces that we’re actually

trying to trade with here.

Instead, we had a charade around Bill 7 that, unfortunately, wasted precious time

that businesses needed, that British Columbians needed to actually get ahead. If action

had been taken earlier, British Columbia could be leading nationally on internal trade

reform. We could be…. At this point, we are catching up, and it’s unfortunate.

Bill 5 establishes a framework based on mutual recognition. We’re going back to what

was in the member for Nechako Lakes’ bill. A lot of this is stand-alone legislation

pulled out of Bill 7, but it does have exclusions and regulatory-making powers, and

that is important.

The legislation alone doesn’t remove the barriers. The implementation of it actually

does. Success of this bill will actually depend on how these regulations are developed,

how quickly they’re enacted and whether they address real obstacles faced by workers

and businesses.

The problem is that we’re now going to have to wait an unforeseen amount of time for

those regulations. That’s why it’s more important that we find out what the government

intends to do with regulations. We can’t afford to have this delay. Our businesses

are already falling behind, with PST now being applied to professional services.

Bridgitte Anderson from the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade said this could be the

final straw for many businesses. Let’s not keep letting them down. Let’s hear what

these regulations actually are now so that businesses can have that certainty. I would

have liked to see the government’s full plan aligned with other provinces rather than

wait longer for these regulations to happen. I think it’s incumbent upon the government

to explain more about that, and I’d like to see that very soon here.

We also don’t want to see that those regulations create unnecessary carve-outs or

exemptions. That’s something that we’re only going to find out, by the looks of this

bill and how it’s written, from the regulations. It could really water down this bill.

What do those regulations mean for businesses like Pacific Western Brewing, which

I’ve already mentioned? These are legitimate questions, and I think they would help

with overall enthusiasm for support for this bill.

Of course, we’re debating the principle of the bill, and we’ll get into whether it

will actually work in committee. As Labour critic, I’m going to be looking closely

in that committee stage on that reciprocity. I’m going to ask about worker protections,

labour market impacts, safety standards, Indigenous engagement and measurable outcomes.

That’s what, unfortunately, we haven’t seen enough of from this government — outcomes.

We want results for British Columbians and to not see them suffering and really moving

behind economically.

Canadians believe in this country, its workers, its resources, its innovation and

its future, but we must remove the barriers we have placed in our own path. When Canadians

trade with other Canadians, I think everyone benefits.

Canada is one country. Our workers built it, power it, harvest its resources and keep

communities running from coast to coast. They should not be held back by unnecessary

barriers between provinces. If we trust Canadians to build this country, we should

also trust them to work anywhere in it. Workers and businesses cannot afford another

year of inaction that we’ve, unfortunately, seen.

I look forward to examining this legislation in detail at committee stage and working

to ensure it delivers meaningful results for British Columbians and for Canadians

as a whole.

George Anderson : I’m pleased to speak in support of Bill 5, the Trade Recognition Act.

In November, British Columbia brought together 13 provinces and territories and the

federal government in an unprecedented collaboration. Together, we approved the Canadian

mutual recognition agreement on the sale of goods, mutually recognizing regulatory

measures to reduce barriers to the free movement of many goods across provinces.

[3:05 p.m.]

This agreement makes it easier for B.C. businesses to sell products across Canada

and for people to buy Canadian-made goods. We are now building on that momentum.

This bill seeks to modernize British Columbia’s internal trade framework and advances

British Columbia’s leadership in trade reform. I want to be clear. If you can build

it, make it or provide it somewhere else in Canada, you should be able to do it here

in British Columbia.

Internal trade barriers don’t protect British Columbians. They slow us down. They

raise costs. They hold back opportunity. In the world we are living in today, we cannot

afford to hold ourselves back. That’s the moment we’re in.

These are not normal economic times. Global supply chains are uncertain. Protectionism

is rising. Economic nationalism is back. Everyday British Columbians are asking a

simple question: is our economy strong enough to stand on its own? That’s what this

bill is about.

When uncertainty rises outside our borders, our strength must come from inside them

— inside our province, inside our country. Let me say this clearly. British Columbia’s

future will be built in Canada and not negotiated away somewhere else.

The B.C. Conservatives might want us to be the 51st state, but we will never be the

51st state. We are not an economic branch for another country, and we will never build

our prosperity by waiting for permission from somebody else.

Let’s talk about what this legislation does. Right now businesses are facing unnecessary

duplication. They’re facing different approvals, different certifications, different

administrative hoops. What are the results? The results are higher costs, slower timelines,

less competitiveness.

This bill replaces temporary measures with a permanent framework that says that if

a good or service is approved elsewhere in Canada, it can be recognized here. That

means lower compliance costs, faster time to market, more consumer choice and stronger

competitiveness for British Columbia businesses.

Critically, it does all of this without lowering our standards. There is no race to

the bottom. Our environmental protections remain the same. Our health and safety standards

remain. Our consumer protections remain. Economic strength and public protection are

not opposites; they are partners.

This act replaces ESTRA

part 1 with a permanent framework to reduce trade barriers

in B.C. Businesses and consumers need certainty, and this legislation provides it.

I know that the member for Prince George–Mackenzie has been talking about certainty.

I’m glad that this legislation does exactly that, because it reduces unnecessary duplication.

If a good may be sold or used elsewhere in Canada, it may be sold or used here in

British Columbia. If a service may be supplied in another province, it can be supplied

in British Columbia.

Bill 5 proposes to ensure that businesses will no longer need to do retesting, approvals

or certification for goods and services that may be sold, used or provided in another

province. Again, this lowers compliance costs, speeds up the time to market and ultimately

provides lower prices and more choice for consumers.

B.C. proposed and chaired negotiations to conclude the CMRA. The parties may seek

to extend the agreement to cover services, as this is a major component of Canada’s

economy. If the CMRA were to cover services, the bill would help to immediately bring

those elements of the agreement into force, as British Columbia will have a legislative

regime in place to recognize services that may be supplied in other provinces.

[3:10 p.m.]

This approach aligns with national commitments, complementing the Canadian mutual

recognition agreement and the Canadian free trade agreement, and demonstrates British

Columbia’s leadership in modernizing internal trade.

This legislation maintains the ability for British Columbia to regulate health, safety,

the environment and consumer protection, ensuring our standards remain strong while

reducing unnecessary barriers.

Our friends on the other side like to bring up the Canadian Federation of Independent

Business and the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade. Well, let me tell you. The work

that our government is doing directly responds to what business organizations like

the Canadian Federation of Independent Business have spoken about, what the Greater

Vancouver Board of Trade have spoken about — who support mutual recognition across

the country.

We are committed to continuing the work with our partners to support the free movement

of labour, alcohol, financial services and other services to make it easier to trade

within Canada. This work also aligns with our Look West strategy and its goals of

diversifying trade, expanding markets and ensuring British Columbia remains a leader

in Canada’s economic future.

So why does this matter to everyday British Columbians? It matters because this bill

isn’t just about paperwork. It’s about people. It’s about the small manufacturer in

Nanaimo trying to ensure that goods can actually reach Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba

and the other provinces within our country. It’s about the tradesperson who wants

to work where opportunity exists.

I’ve gone and I’ve lived in other provinces, and let me tell you, this bill will make

it much easier for the next generation to be able to thrive within our country.

It’s about the entrepreneur who doesn’t have a compliance department. It’s very easy

to often talk about the big company, but what I care about are the small businesses

within all of our communities that actually drive our economy.

Every unnecessary barrier is a hidden tax on ambition. When we remove those barriers,

we don’t just improve efficiency. We actually unlock potential for our small businesses.

I want to address the debate we often hear because when it comes to the economy, there

are two approaches. One approach is to talk about growth. The other is to actually

remove the barriers to it. One approach is slogans, and the other is solutions.

If I might say, the opposition tells us they support businesses, yet they don’t always

support the work required to make that business easier for those small businesses.

They call for growth, but then they oppose the actual tools that are going to make

it possible for those businesses to be successful.

I think we’ve heard it today. They call for competitiveness but then resist that modernization.

And, Mr. Speaker, you’ll know this, and I’d say for some of the people who are choosing

to watch Hansard today…. They’ll call for leadership. The opposition will call for leadership, but

you know what they’ll do? They prefer a press conference rather than progress.

Economic growth doesn’t come from press releases. It just doesn’t. I know that my

friends on the other side are having a good laugh because they are thinking about

the next slogan that they’re actually going to put out next in a press release. But

what I can tell you is the great thing is that we’re focused on actual policy that’s

going to deliver results for British Columbians.

[3:15 p.m.]

I’ve been listening carefully to what the Conservatives have been talking about, and

as I mentioned already, the member for Prince George–Mackenzie talked about creating

certainty. They’ll say they want less red tape, but here we are actually bringing

solutions that are going to make it better for everyday British Columbians, that are

going to make it better for small businesses, that are going to make it easier for

us to do the work that we need to in this province and across the country.

Then all of a sudden, they’ll have concerns, talking about how we should actually

delay things. Suddenly, they have concerns about change.

They say they want a stronger economy. Here we are, streamlining internal trade. Guess

what happens next. Delay.

Some people have actually heard me say this before, especially when I’ve talked about

construction. The most expensive material in construction today is delay.

That’s what we are experiencing from the Conservatives right now. They delay the work

that British Columbians are asking for, which is to stand up for our country and to

stand up in a way that makes sure that British Columbia is the most prosperous place

in our country. Every moment that we have had the opportunity to advance good work

on behalf of British Columbians, unfortunately, the opposition chooses to hesitate.

At some point….

Interjection.

George Anderson : Oh, are you trying out a new slogan? I’m looking forward to the new slogan you’re

trying out. That’s great. I’m looking forward to the press release you’ll put out.

But anyway….

Deputy Speaker : Members, thanks very much for your input, but I’d like to hear the comments from

Nanaimo-Lantzville.

George Anderson : That being said, at some point you actually have to decide about what you want to

achieve and accomplish. Do you want less red tape, or do you just want to talk about

less red tape? Cutting a ribbon is easy, but cutting red tape is actually leadership.

That’s what we’re seeing under this minister, the Minister for Jobs and Economic Growth

— real leadership that is going to ensure that British Columbia leads Canada and is

the economic engine for our country.

I want to talk about something bigger. I want to talk about how national strength

is important for our province. It shouldn’t be easier for us to trade north to south.

We should be able to trade easily from east to west. It’s something that I’ve talked

about in looking at our ports and how we can ensure that the infrastructure that exists

within our country actually allows us to build across the country.

I give the example of the 2021 Coquihalla shutdown, which actually stopped trade from

occurring across Canada. I’m glad you’ve recognized that it is partly your fault.

Our prosperity should not depend on how open someone else’s markets feel this week.

Our prosperity in British Columbia should depend on how well Canada works for Canadians

and how it works for British Columbians. This is what this legislation supports: a

strong internal economy; a more integrated country; a Canada that trades with itself

first and, confidently, with the world second.

This legislation creates practical implementation tools. If a regulator maintains

a measure that doesn’t align, the responsible minister can require it to be amended

or repealed. That matters, because good policy without accountability is just good

intentions. British Columbians don’t just want good intentions. They want results.

I agree with the member for Prince George–Mackenzie that we need to be delivering

results for everyday British Columbians.

Let’s look at what the goal is for our province overall. Let’s take that step back.

What kind of province do we want to be? A place where opportunity gets stuck in the

process, or a place where talent can move, ideas can scale and businesses can grow?

I know which province I’d like. For some of the people on the other side, I’m not

too sure if they’re aware.

[3:20 p.m.]

The future economy will move fast, and the jurisdictions that will win will be the

ones that are faster, the ones that are simpler, the ones that are more predictable

and the ones that are more confident. This bill is about building that kind of province.

I’ve said this before, but I want to say it again clearly and directly. Leadership

is not about saying yes to everything. Leadership is about removing what no longer

makes sense. Leadership is about making the system work for people, not the other

way around. And leadership is preparing for the economy we are heading into, not the

one we remember.

In uncertain times, some voices look outward and ask: “What will the United States

do?” But our question should be different. What will Canada do? Our future will not

be decided in Washington. It will be built in communities like Nanaimo-Lantzville.

It’ll be built in communities like Prince George–Mackenzie. It’ll be built in Surrey,

Kelowna and in every community where people are ready to work, build and grow.

We are not the 51st state. We are a country of provinces working together, and the

stronger our internal economy is, the better our country will be. Bill 5 is a necessary

and practical step forward as we look to modernize our internal trade rules.

The Trade Recognition Act provides new opportunities for B.C. businesses by opening

up new markets inside of Canada. It means there will be greater investment opportunities

here in B.C., which will drive economic growth and help create good jobs for people

in every sector across our province.

The Trade Recognition Act is forward-looking and sets the stage for B.C. to continue

its national leadership on breaking down internal and interprovincial trade barriers.

We just need to look at Bill 5 and know that it is balanced, it’s practical, it’s

forward-looking. And it does exactly what good economic policy should do. It removes

barriers. It protects standards. It strengthens competitiveness and supports British

Columbians, like my friend right here.

The choice before this House is simple. Do we keep talking about growth, or do we

actually make it easier to grow? Do we keep defending the status quo, or do we build

the economy British Columbians need for the future? I have four nephews and a niece,

and my hope is that we do everything possible to ensure that British Columbia is there

for them.

There’s a book that I read a couple of years ago. It’s called If Science is to Save Us , and the premise of that book is whether or not we have a duty to be a good ancestor.

I think all of us in this building, regardless of where we sit, on the opposition

benches or on government benches, want to achieve that goal, achieving the goal of

where we lead in British Columbia, where we are ensuring that our young people, our

seniors — everyone — have the opportunity to be successful.

When we look at the next century of prosperity, it’s not going to be built just by

being cautious. It’s going to be built through confidence. I feel grateful every single

day to be working in a government where we recognize that our people are the strongest

economic policy that we have.

[3:25 p.m.]

Confidence in our workers. Confidence in our businesses. Confidence in our province

and in our country. Confidence that when Canadians trade with Canadians, there is

no limit to what we can achieve. What I know about that is that it’s going to be British

Columbians who lead that charge that says: “Our best days are ahead of us.”

We know that when we try to get something from Newfoundland, when we try to get something

from Ontario, when people try to live across this province, that’s what makes us stronger

as a country. It’s not continuing to look at the old days of where we just said, “No,

I would much rather get something from a different country in the world,” despite

being able to get something from Ontario, whatever that good might be.

On that note, I’ll just begin to conclude, because it’s important that many other

members in this House have the opportunity to debate this bill and talk about how

we can actually build a better province, rather than just listening to me talk about

what I think is great for this province.

I’ve said it before. I’ll say it again. We need to reduce duplication. We need to

reduce the barriers that make it difficult for consumers to be successful and to give

the businesses and consumers the certainty in legislation that they want. Certainty

is important. What I will tell you is that we need to make sure that we advance economic

growth in this province.

As I conclude, the Trade Recognition Act is forward-looking, and it’ll put British

Columbia on the necessary stage to be a leader nationally by breaking down these internal

provincial barriers. I hope that every single member of this House will recognize

why it’s important to move ahead in this direction and vote in support of this bill.

Ian Paton : I appreciate the opportunity to get up today and speak to Bill 5, the Trade Recognition

Act.

I think we’ve proven it here this afternoon on this side of the House that we’re actually

in favour of getting moving with recognizing that we have too many trade barriers

across the provinces and British Columbia. Rather than throw out grade 5 derogatory

comments to the other side of the House about a bill that we actually all are probably

going to agree that it’s important we move forward on, and taking Bill 7 and making

it into Bill 7-lite….

As to Bill 5, I think it’s time that we move on with getting this done, rather than

standing here for another term and talking about how we can remove interprovincial

trade barriers.

As the critic for Agriculture for my party and as a farmer myself living on our family

farm in Delta, I find it extremely important to the agricultural trade business in

Canada and British Columbia to move forward with removing barriers to trade for such

things as vegetables, fruit; vegetable and fruit packaging; meat, inconsistent meat

inspection regulations; the wine industry; moving equipment and farm equipment across

provinces in this country; moving livestock; the trucking industry and the regulations

about trucking going back and forth between our provinces; and also safety regulations

and weights when it comes to agriculture; and to health and safety when it comes to

agriculture and livestock.

[3:30 p.m.]

This is costing Canada $1.7 billion a year in agricultural trade by not being able

to open up trade between provinces for agricultural products.

Let me begin. Clearly, the B.C. Conservative caucus supports removing interprovincial

trade barriers. We support making it easier for goods and services to move across

Canada. We support economic growth, competition and lower costs for British Columbians.

Hot off the press, just this morning, from the Business in Vancouver

article “B.C. Wineries Press Premiers to Allow Direct Wine Sales Across Our Country”:

“Christa-Lee McWatters is among B.C. winery executives lobbying to be able to sell

wine directly to consumers across Canada. They want provincial governments to remove

interprovincial trade barriers and allow direct-to-consumer wine sales from out-of-province

wineries.

“‘We’re always looking for other markets and to be able to increase sales,’ said McWatters,

vice-president of Osoyoos’ Adega on 45th Winery and Surrey’s Gate 22 Winery. ‘To not

be able to ship within our own country, really, is ludicrous.’

“Being able to sell direct-to-consumer wine across the country would enable her wineries

to sell more wine and have a larger slice of overall sales, being in the more profitable

DTC sales channel.

“Wine Growers B.C. CEO Jeff Guignard was among wine industry leaders who recently

signed a letter to the Premiers on January 27, demanding that they act on their commitment

to reduce interprovincial trade barriers.”

This bill is a response to the federal government and all provinces and territories

signing a new Canadian mutual recognition agreement designed to break down internal

trade barriers so that goods legally sold in one province can be sold in another.

The agreement is intended to help businesses market their products across Canada more

easily and give Canadians greater access to Canadian-made goods without facing redundant

standards or approvals.

This all seems reasonable, but when we look closely at Bill 5, B.C.’s response to

this larger federal agreement, we still see a lot of protection, provincial red tape,

prohibitive tax structures and protection of monopolies that make this bill less effective.

Of course, we can’t ignore just how long it’s taken to get here.

This bill requires serious scrutiny to ensure that it’s actually effective and not

just a promise, like last year’s Bill 7. Members will remember last year’s Economic

Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act, commonly known as Bill 7.

Part 1 of that act

granted government the authority to create