Premier claws back part of Bill 7 following stakeholder anxiety
Despite his decision to remove Part 4 from Bill 7, the Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act, British Columbia Premier David Eby is adamant that government needs to be able to act quickly to respond to threats from the United States.
At a press conference held on March 28 to announce the claw-back, Eby attempted to justify his need for what is seen by many as unprecedented, sweeping powers which skirt the oversight of the Legislature, by drawing parallels between tariffs and natural disasters.
When there’s a natural disaster, Eby explained, generally there’s authorities within the law for government to be able to respond, but when there’s an economic threat from a foreign government, there aren’t those authorities to enable a quick response.
“It’s an authority that I think we need, to be able to respond quickly, [because] there’s a president who, by executive order, can act to harm us very quickly and we do need to be able to respond quickly,” Eby said.
He says that BC needs protecting because President Trump is clear in his intent to “destroy specific industries in our country,” including the softwood lumber industry in British Columbia.
The same industry whose hard-won Softwood Lumber Agreement with the United States expired in 2015 – well before Trump returned to office and threatened tariffs - and has not yet been renegotiated.
This is the same industry that Eby’s NDP government has managed, through its policies, to decimate to the point where Canadian Forest Products, a major player in the once thriving forest industry throughout the province, no longer has any pulp mills, lumber mills or pellet plants north of Prince George.
The blame for the economic hardship caused by those closures has nothing to do with Donald Trump. But David Eby would have us believe he did.
Peace River North MLA, Jordan Kealy said in a Facebook post that constituents, business groups, former premiers and “numerous other critics have called it [Bill 7] an undemocratic power grab to bypass the legislature for two years.”
Following what Eby described as anxiety from “key” stakeholders, he announced that the BC government would be removing the fourth part of the bill. This part would allow the provincial government, for a two-year period ending May 28, 2027, to impose laws and regulations without approval of the Legislature. Eby said that there would be legislative oversight, but the bill only provides for twice-yearly reporting to the legislature.
Part 4 of the bill says that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make a regulation for the purposes of (Section 19):
(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.
While at the same time Section 20 says:
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.
In other words, under the guise of perceived threats from Trump’s tariffs, Eby and his cabinet would have the power to amend laws, overwrite policy, change regulations, and levy fees at will.
In a recent Fraser Institute article, Queens University law professor Bruce Pardy wrote that Bill 7 would give Eby and his cabinet the power to take the law into their own hands without going through the legislature.
The provincial cabinet “will have the power not just to exercise broad discretion in accordance with legislation, but to override legislation itself,” Pardy wrote.
“The rule of law is inconvenient. It gets in the way of governments and officials crafting solutions to problems they perceive as important.”
Giving this type of power to officials, no matter how well-intended, could end up being a more serious threat than the actual problem, according to Pardy.
We saw this during the Covid-19 response with the four-year long State of Emergency. Now US President Donald Trump’s tariffs are the justification to declare an emergency and discard the limitations of the rule of law, Pardy notes.
Pardy wasn’t the only one speaking out against the unchecked powers included in Bill 7.
John Rustad’s BC Conservative opposition has been outspoken on the matter from the day the bill was introduced into the legislature, calling it the “most undemocratic, power-grabbing legislation in BC history,” and even launching a petition against the bill.
Comparing Bill 7 to the War Measures Act, in terms of the power it would grant the government, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms sent a legal warning letter to all British Columbia MLA’s urging them to vote against Bill 7. The letter called on the legislature not to “abdicate its legislative role” and pointed out that the powers covered by the bill are unnecessary as “BC’s elected representatives are capable of responding to urgent matters when necessary.”
Former BC Premier Gordon Campbell also wrote an article, published in the Western Standard on March 22, in which he describes Bill 7 as an attempt “to establish autocratic rule for the next two years in BC.”
Campbell says Eby wants to rule the people of British Columbia, not serve them. He wrote that Eby’s claim that his plan to set aside democracy for two years is necessary to deal with issues raised by Trump’s tariffs is “nonsense.”
“This is the same premier who reneged on his commitment to call the legislature back right after the election. The election was October 19,2024. He did not call the legislature back until February 17, 2025, well after President Trump declared his intentions regarding Canada. Eby delayed when it fit his political needs. Now, he introduces Bill 7 not to meet the province’s or Canada’s needs, but to serve his political wishes,” Campbell wrote.
As the former premier, Campbell knows well how the province’s legislature works. His article confirmed the JCCF’s assertions about the legislature’s ability to respond in times of crisis. Campbell says in his article that the legislature can be called back within 24 hours any time “to properly debate, scrutinize and decide on any actions Mr. Eby dares propose.”
“All members of BC’s legislature are obliged to stand for Canadian democracy and due process, not to bow to autocracy.”
In response to all this criticism and concern, Eby said that it was only the anxiety expressed by “key” stakeholders that prompted the decision to remove Section 4 of the Bill.
“We believe strongly that we need the ability to move quickly, but we’ve also heard from a number of key stakeholders, including our Tariff Economic Response Committee, Indigenous leaders, trade organizations, there are anxieties that I didn’t get the balance right, in terms of the ability to move quickly and necessary safeguards,” Eby said.
“But we do need this authority, we do need the ability to respond quickly, and we’ll work with those key stakeholders that we committed to work with at the beginning of this process, to get it right and ensure they’re comfortable with these provisions going forward.”
When pressed by reporters in the press conference, Eby reiterated this need for authority to “respond quickly”, eventually admitting that this section of Bill 7, the section that provides for cabinet to operate without the timely oversight and input of legislature, will return.
However, Eby noted that it’s unlikely that Part 4 of Bill 7 will be brought back to the legislature before the end of the session.
“My intent is to take the bill away, work with key stakeholders, find a version that addresses the safeguards that they would like to see, but still addresses that ability to move very quickly to protect British Columbians,” Eby said.
“He admitted this is wrong, but is looking for other options,” Kealy said. “This happened because of everyone voicing their concerns about NDP government overreach.”
“I will be keeping a close eye on this when it comes into the House, because it should be scrapped becasuse it could be detrimental to our region.”