This provincial bill would forbid public bodies from contracting with suppliers that meet specified ties to the People's Republic of China when comparable goods or services are available from suppliers in Canada or countries with which Canada has a free‑trade or economic cooperation agreement. It also builds a transparency regime for higher‑value procurements and gives government broad regulatory power to define the bright‑line tests the law needs to operate.
The measure is designed to steer public‑sector buying toward trusted jurisdictions and to surface Chinese ownership or sourcing in procurement. If enacted, compliance teams and vendors will face new declaration and reporting duties, and procurement officials will need new procedures to assess availability, comparability and delivery timing rather than relying on price alone.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill prohibits procurement from suppliers tied to the People’s Republic of China when comparable alternatives exist in trusted partner jurisdictions and requires vendor disclosure and public reporting tied to higher‑value contracts. It removes price as a permissible factor when deciding whether to exclude a Chinese‑linked supplier.
Who It Affects
Applies to public bodies as defined under provincial access‑to‑information law (and any additional organizations designated by regulation), suppliers bidding on public contracts, and procurement compliance teams who must collect and publish vendor disclosures. It also affects legal and sourcing teams that manage supply‑chain due diligence.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts the trigger for exclusion from national security or ad hoc review to a supplier‑centric rule‑set that procurement officers must operationalize, and it delegates many definitional matters to regulation—so much of the law's practical effect will depend on how the executive fills in the details.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act defines a “Chinese supplier” two ways: a supplier that is incorporated, headquartered, owned or controlled (directly or indirectly) by an entity in the People’s Republic of China, or a supplier that sources more than half of the value of its goods or services from China. Where a public body finds a supplier in Canada or a country with an applicable free‑trade or economic cooperation agreement who can provide comparable goods or services, the public body must not contract with the Chinese supplier.
That availability test hinges on whether the trusted‑partner supplier can meet a delivery period that is “reasonable given the nature of the procurement.”
Crucially, the bill bars public bodies from treating cost as a factor when deciding whether to procure from a Chinese supplier; procurement officers must compare quality, performance and suitability and consider delivery timing, not price. For contracts over a monetary threshold, the Act requires vendors to make a prescribed declaration of Chinese ownership or control and of the proportion of goods or services sourced from China; public bodies must then publish an annual summary showing the aggregate value of contracts with Chinese suppliers and the share of contracts that triggered declaration requirements.The Lieutenant Governor in Council receives broad regulatory authority to define key terms and processes: it can specify which countries count as trusted partners, set the form and content of vendor declarations, prescribe methods for determining comparability, designate additional public bodies, and regulate bidding processes.
The Act also states it comes into force by regulation and explicitly carves the Act out of Section 5 of the Offence Act, leaving open how contraventions will be treated in practice.Operationally, compliance will require new intake and screening steps in procurement cycles: vendor vetting to trace ownership and sourcing, a process to assess whether a trusted‑partner supplier can meet “reasonable” delivery timing, and publication workflows for the annual reports. Because many mechanics are left to regulation, procurement teams should expect further rules that will materially change how the Act functions once the executive issues regulations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines a Chinese supplier as one with Chinese incorporation/headquarters/ownership/control or that sources >50% of the value of its goods or services from China.
Public bodies must decline to procure from a Chinese supplier if a trusted‑partner supplier can provide comparable goods or services within a delivery period that is “reasonable given the nature of the procurement.”, The statute prohibits public bodies from using cost as a factor when deciding whether to procure from a Chinese supplier.
For contracts above the threshold, the bill requires vendors to declare if Chinese ownership or control exceeds 10% and if more than 20% of contract goods or services will be sourced from China.
Each public body must publish an annual report listing aggregate contract value with Chinese suppliers and the share of contracts triggering the vendor‑declaration rules, while the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations to fill in definitions and procedures.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Who counts as a Chinese supplier and what ‘comparable’ means
This section sets the statutory definitions the rest of the Act relies on. It ties Chinese supplier status both to ownership/control and to the sourcing composition of goods and services (a >50% sourcing test). It also adopts a functional definition of comparable goods or services—quality, performance and suitability—leaving granular comparability tests to regulation. Practically, this creates two enforcement pathways (ownership tracing and sourcing accounting) that procurement teams must be ready to document.
Blocks procurement from Chinese‑linked suppliers when trusted alternatives exist
This provision requires public bodies to avoid contracts with Chinese suppliers when comparable alternatives exist in Canada or in countries covered by Canada’s free‑trade/economic cooperation agreements. It anchors availability on a delivery‑time standard—suppliers in trusted jurisdictions must be able to meet a delivery period judged reasonable for the procurement. The clause forbidding consideration of cost forces procurement decisions to be made on comparability and timing, not price, which will change standard value‑for‑money calculations.
Pre‑contract vendor declarations and annual public reporting
Before awarding contracts above the designated monetary threshold, public bodies must collect a prescribed declaration from potential vendors about Chinese ownership/control and the share of sourcing from China. The section sets two declaration triggers (ownership/control and sourcing) but leaves the declaration’s format to regulation. It also requires public bodies to publish an annual summary of aggregate contract values involving Chinese suppliers and to express certain contract values as a percentage of total procurement spend, creating a new public‑facing accountability metric.
Carves this Act out of Section 5 of the Offence Act
The Act expressly states that Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply. The bill does not enumerate offences, penalties or enforcement mechanics within its text; rather, that carve‑out alters how the province’s general offence framework interacts with this statute. Since the Act is otherwise silent on specific penalties, the exclusion raises practical questions about enforcement pathways and how noncompliance will be addressed.
Delegates key definitions and operational rules to the Lieutenant Governor in Council
This section grants broad regulatory authority to establish what counts as a trusted partner jurisdiction, define declaration content and comparability methods, designate additional public bodies, and regulate bidding processes. The breadth of this delegation means the Act’s operational detail will largely be supplied by regulation, which centralizes discretion in the executive and makes the eventual rules the real determinants of compliance burden and scope.
Entry into force by regulation
The Act does not commence on royal assent or a fixed date; it comes into force by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. That gives the executive control over timing and allows regulations to be in place before the statute takes effect, but it also means businesses and public bodies will need to monitor the regulatory space to understand when obligations begin.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Suppliers located in Canada and in countries with Canada free‑trade or economic cooperation agreements — they gain preferential access to public contracts when they can demonstrate comparability and delivery capability.
- Procurement auditors and oversight bodies — the required annual reports produce data that facilitates oversight, trend analysis and public accountability of public‑sector supply choices.
- Sourcing and compliance teams within public bodies — the law gives procurement officials a statutory basis to prioritize trusted‑partner sources, simplifying decisions where national‑security concerns might otherwise be raised ad hoc.
Who Bears the Cost
- Suppliers with Chinese ownership, control or heavy sourcing from China — they face exclusion from public contracts wherever comparable trusted‑partner alternatives exist and will need to invest in disclosure and supply‑chain reconfiguration to qualify.
- Public bodies and procurement teams — they must build vendor‑vetting processes, collect and publish disclosures, assess comparability and delivery timelines, and absorb administrative costs associated with those duties.
- Smaller suppliers and complex supply chains — firms that source components from China or have opaque ownership structures will incur legal and accounting costs to trace beneficial ownership and to quantify sourcing shares to meet declaration requirements.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between reducing strategic risk by steering purchases to trusted‑partner suppliers and preserving traditional procurement goals of value for money and predictable, administrable rules; the bill solves for security and supplier origin but shifts ambiguity and administrative burden onto procurement officials and vendors, with enforcement mechanics left unclear.
The Act trades a relatively simple supplier‑centric rule for a set of practical difficulties. The sourcing‑share threshold (>50% for Chinese sourcing and smaller percentage triggers for disclosure) requires accurate upstream accounting, which is often hard to obtain and verify for complex global supply chains.
Similarly, the ownership/control tests will push bidders to produce corporate‑structure evidence that can be opaque, indirect or purposefully obfuscated through intermediate entities.
Key operational concepts—“comparable,” “reasonable delivery period,” and which countries qualify as trusted partners—are left to regulation. That delegation concentrates power in the executive but also creates regulatory risk: the law’s effects will hinge on choices that can vary widely in technical detail (for example, how comparability is measured or how delivery windows are set).
The explicit carve‑out of Section 5 of the Offence Act signals that the usual provincial offence framework does not apply here, yet the statute itself does not specify alternative enforcement or penalty mechanisms, which leaves a gap between the new duties and the means to enforce them.
Finally, the ban’s blunt rule that cost cannot be considered when deciding whether to exclude a Chinese‑linked supplier creates a tension with standard public procurement principles that prioritize value for money. That tension will force procurement teams to document non‑price factors carefully and may produce disputes if suppliers argue that comparability or delivery standards were applied inconsistently or arbitrarily.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.