BC’s Bill 7 Sparks Backlash Over Sweeping Cabinet Powers
(Image: CBC)
The BC government is facing intensifying scrutiny over Bill 7, a proposed law that would grant the provincial cabinet sweeping emergency powers in response to escalating trade threats from the United States. Critics from across the political spectrum, legal experts, and civil society groups are raising alarm over what they describe as an unjustified and dangerous consolidation of executive authority.
Introduced on March 13 and currently awaiting second reading, the Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act would allow the Lieutenant Governor in Council to override existing BC laws through regulation, bypassing the legislature entirely. The government says the measure is necessary to respond swiftly to anticipated economic threats stemming from tariffs and other hostile trade actions under the current administration of US President Donald Trump.
‘Human-caused disaster’
Premier David Eby has called the situation a “human-caused disaster” and said the province is “arming ourselves with the tools we need to respond swiftly, break down trade barriers within Canada and strengthen our economy.” The legislation includes a sunset clause that would repeal it by May 28, 2027.
But opponents say the bill’s language is too vague, its powers too broad, and its justification unconvincing.
Green Party interim leader Jeremy Valeriote told the CBC that the legislation “could allow for sweeping economic decisions without clear limits or transparency.” The Greens, who signed a confidence agreement with the NDP, are expected to push for amendments, including greater legislative oversight and reporting requirements. “There’s no need for secrecy,” Valeriote said. “Decisions should be made openly, not behind closed doors, and the legislature should receive regular reporting on what decisions are being made.”
The Conservative Party of BC has taken a far more combative approach. MLA Harman Bhangu called the bill a “blatant power grab” and warned it would allow cabinet to “come in and do whatever they want.” Party leader John Rustad compared the bill to the War Measures Act. “I’ve never seen anything like this,” he said.
Outside the legislature, legal and civil liberties groups have echoed these concerns. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms sent a warning letter to all MLAs, arguing the bill effectively collapses the separation of powers by giving cabinet the ability to legislate without oversight.
“The Legislature may enact Henry VIII clauses so long as it ‘does not abdicate its legislative role.’ In our view, that is precisely what Bill 7 does,” the letter states.
A “Henry VIII clause” is a legal provision that allows cabinet to unilaterally amend or override primary legislation without going through the legislature.
The bill permits cabinet to override most provincial statutes and regulations without prior legislative approval, acting through closed-door cabinet orders. These powers can be exercised unilaterally, so long as the action is taken to address challenges—or even anticipated challenges—arising from the actions of a foreign jurisdiction, or to support the economy of BC or Canada. In a conflict with existing laws, Bill 7 would prevail, allowing cabinet to unilaterally rewrite legislation without prior legislative approval.
‘Such a power grab is all the more remarkable given Mr. Eby’s past’
Gary Mason, a columnist with The Globe and Mail, noted that Eby has made misleading claims about the bill. While the Premier said cabinet orders under Bill 7 would be subject to legislative approval, his office was unable to identify any such provision when pressed.
“Such a power grab is all the more remarkable given Mr. Eby’s past fighting against such government overreach in his roles as a social justice lawyer and executive director of the BC Civil Liberties Association,” Mason wrote.
The bill’s defenders, including Attorney General Niki Sharma, maintain that the legislation is proportionate to the threat. “We need to make sure that we have [the] ability to respond rapidly... and make sure that the guardrails are strong enough,” Sharma said.
However, critics disagree on whether those guardrails actually exist. Mark Mancini, a law professor at Thompson Rivers University, took to social media, describing the bill as containing “the broadest Henry VIII clause I’ve seen in some time,” adding that he sees “absolutely no justification for it.”
Despite the growing backlash, the government has given no indication it will pause or significantly alter the bill. Premier Eby has even suggested he is willing to make the legislation a confidence matter, telling reporters he would take it to an election if necessary.
