BC Bill 7 (2025)

I encourage people to fully read the draft bill (First Reading). I have, and I have a lot of qualms:

Firstly I think it should be split into multiple bills so it can be properly debated and amended. It is (thankfully) not a massive omnibus bill, but it definitely has multiple distinct sections. 

In theory, reducing inter-provincial trade barriers is good, but has potential for problems. International free-trade treaties specify many rules to mitigate those problems. For example, harmonizing health and safety standards between provinces.

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

(2) Subsection (1) applies despite any enactment or regulatory measure that applies to the good, including, without limitation, any requirement in an enactment or regulatory measure that relates to the composition, performance, production, quality, marketing, labelling, testing, certification or inspection of the good.

The legislation also includes basically identical wording regarding services. Working with other provinces to harmonize regulations would make way more sense to me. I very much don't want to have regulations in another province that I have zero ability to vote in set the minimum health standard that apply to products sold in BC. As written, this incentivizes corporate capture of one province in Canada, dropping standards to unsafe levels and then exporting from there to the province of BC.  I'm extremely not keen on this.

Amending regulatory provisions
3

(1)
...
"regulatory provision" means a bylaw, rule, resolution, practice, policy, standard, procedure, measure or other record that

(a) is made under an authorizing enactment, and

(b) affects or may affect the trade in goods or supply of services into British Columbia.

This means that Cabinet will be given vast authority to void or alter bylaws and regulations without legislature debate or normal timelines . For example, municipal bylaws banning cosmetic pesticide use could be eliminated. If the BC government wants to overrule municipalities, it should have to be debated in the legislature not instituted by ministerial fiat. For example, Bill 44 (2023) which imposed huge obligations on municipalities was debated and amended before being passed by the majority government.

Power to make regulations

5 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows: [long list]

For those that don't know, "Lieutenant Governor in Council" means the Executive Council (Cabinet) tells the LG to do something. With the current consolidation of power in the office of the Premier and whipped parties, this legislation gives significantly more power to the Premier with no immediate oversight. While courts can get involved that takes significant time and resources. So I am strongly against this.

Part 2 sure doesn't start out great. 

Procurement directives

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

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

Combined with further lines, effectively this gives 100% control of all government procurement in BC - both provincial and devolved powers (schools and municipalities) - to the Cabinet. If they decide to exercise that power. To me this is extreme overreach and should never be even considered.

I presume most BC Conservative supporters are imagining potential negative impacts already. For anyone who hasn't followed the potentials here, lets do a hyperbolic example.

Say you have 100% trust in the current government. Interesting choice, personally I have 100% trust in very few individuals and zero organizations but that's beside the point. Fantastic, you trust this power with very minimal limitations. We have a minority government currently. Let's say in a month the NDP government falls and we get a conservative majority. The new cabinet likes this power and wants to extend it. Pretty small change to just remove the expiration date of this bill. They decide to ban any corporation that engages in climate change mitigation or DEI hiring practices. So it doesn't matter whether you think the current government won't mis-use this power, this power does not have sufficient checks and balances. 

Part 3 is more of the same although slightly better scoped. Full power to cabinet - specifically to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure - to do an extremely broad range of actions with no debate, in this case applying tolls, fees or charges to the highway system including ferries.

Again, some of these actions could be good for the province under some circumstances but none should be done without the possibility of legislative debate. Toll for all gas vehicles? Toll for bikes? Toll for Fords? All of these options are totally within the bounds of the legislation.

The above was broad "thanks I hate it" criticism of the proposed legislation. However, Part 4 makes the first three sections of it look reasonable, hard to misuse and friendly.

Purposes for which powers may be exercised

19 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make a regulation under this Part for one or more of the following purposes:

(a) addressing challenges, or anticipated challenges, to British Columbia arising from the actions of a foreign jurisdiction;

(b) supporting interprovincial cooperation in reducing trade barriers within Canada;

(c) supporting the economy of British Columbia and Canada.

Modifying enactments and authorizations

20 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, do one or more of the following:

(a) make an exemption from one or more requirements under an enactment;

(b) modify a requirement set under an enactment;

(c) establish limits on the application of an enactment;

(d) establish powers or duties that apply in place of or in addition to an enactment;

(e) establish terms and conditions in relation to anything done under paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d);

(f) authorize issuers of licences, permits or other authorizations issued under enactments to modify, add or remove limits or conditions, or the term, of the licences, permits or other authorizations.

(2) A regulation may not be made under subsection (1) in relation to the following:

(a) a requirement to obtain a licence, permit or other authorization for, or the assessment or consideration of the environmental effects of, a project relating to a natural resource;

(b) provisions of an enactment respecting engagement with Indigenous peoples, as defined in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

So effectively, if cabinet claims that an action supports the economy of BC, the Cabinet can do anything they want with no public debate - unless it impacts engagement with indigenous peoples, or it is related to the environmental review of a resource extraction process. 

But... don't worry (ahaha)! A yearly report has to be made to the legislature of what Cabinet has decided and implemented unilaterally in the past year­ and within 90 days of the repeal of sections 20/21.

Finally, most sections of the bill are automatically repealed in May 2027. 2 years of extreme powers, in a time when we have phones and internet. The stated intent of urgently responding to economic threats could be achieved with emergency sessions of the legislature even if it wasn't sitting at the time. Theoretically, an all parties committee to speed run review but have some oversight would be another option. Not actually keen on that option because the whole thing is flawed, but if I was looking for possible improvements that would definitely be on the list.

Fundamentally, if this was 1950 and we didn't have internet/cell phones we could pretend that it was a good idea. 25 years into the 21st century that is absolutely not the case and this bill should be fought against with all our ability.

I encourage everyone to reach out to their MLA and any MLAs they may personally know to encourage voting against it and fighting this bill however they can. For those in the Juan de Fuca Malahat Riding, our MLA is Dana Lajeunesse. Additionally, emailing the Premier's office and the introducing minister, Hon. Niki Sharma might have some impact.