The B.C. Chamber of Commerce fears that provincial legislation designed to give government flexibility in responding to U.S. tariffs undermines democratic norms.
Fiona Famulak, president and chief executive officer, said in a letter dated March 26 that her organization's membership has "strong reservations about the broad reach and scope of the powers" that government is seeking through Bill 7, titled the Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act.
"While we accept there is a common threat to our economic prosperity that lies outside our national borders, we are not at war," Famulak said in a letter released by the chamber. It represents 100 chambers of commerce and boards of trade, amounting to 36,000 businesses of every size. She said that the bill in its current form gives government "unwarranted sweeping powers" with little to no guardrails and without accountability through the legislature.
Famulak said the bill gives government the power to change nearly every provincial law with the stroke of a pen. "This is a step in the wrong direction for democratic institutions," she said.
She added that Canadians have universally decried the "progression towards authoritarian rule" through the use of executive decrees without mentioning U.S. President Donald Trump directly.
"There is no justification for taking similar steps here in British Columbia or Canada," she said. "By not being accountable to the (legislature), government is requiring that we move forward on faith and trust alone. This is neither sufficient nor acceptable."
In fact, she warned that the "controversial nature" of the bill will have negative economic effects. "The (bill), despite its title, risks creating uncertainty for businesses and British Columbians and undermining B.C.鈥檚 ability to stabilize and grow the economy, attract investment and create jobs, all of which fund the public services we rely on."
The chamber's letter comes as government is considering changes to Bill 7 in the midst of ongoing discussions with various interest groups and the B.C. Greens. B.C. Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon, who chairs the cabinet committee focused on tariff response, said Tuesday (March 25) that government is considering changes, but neither offered details about the substance nor the timing of any future changes.
"I can say at this point, we are listening to feedback from folks," Kahlon said. "What we have asked for is specifics ... what specific concerns do they have, especially in light that the entire purpose of this (legislation) is to be able to support businesses and workers that are impacted by tariffs."
Kahlon also used the occasion to warn of unintended consequences. If government were to make substantial changes to the bill, then it does not want to hear from people who say government is slow, when it had the ability to respond, he said.
The chamber's letter echoes comparable criticisms from the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, whose president and CEO Bridgitte Anderson also penned a letter.
Like the chamber's letter, Anderson's letter praised those parts of the bill designed to reduce inter-provincial trade barriers. Anderson also called on government to separate sections dealing with internal trade from the rest of the bill.
"The other parts of Bill 7 are truly unprecedented in scope, including the sweeping powers that would be conferred to the (cabinet)," Anderson wrote in a letter dated March 14. "While it is clear Trump鈥檚 trade war has spurred an economic emergency, it is not clear to us that the sweeping powers are required or justified."
The Business Council of British Columbia has also called for the splitting of the bill. Kahlon said Tuesday that he could not speculate about government might split the bill into two parts.
These critiques from the business community have joined criticisms from the political and legal world. Former B.C. premier Gordon Campbell recently penned an opinion piece in which he accuses Premier David Eby of "trying to set aside democracy for more than half his term" in pointing to the sunset clause of the bill, May 28, 2027.
"We live in troubling times," Campbell wrote. "People are frightened and feel vulnerable. Taking advantage of that, Premier David Eby鈥檚 Bill 7 tries to establish autocratic rule for the next two years in B.C. It鈥檚 the move of an aspiring autocrat."
The law firm Aird & Berlis, meanwhile, published an article on March 17 that looked at two aspects of the bill among others: the bill's so-called Henry VIII clause named after the power-hungry 16th-century English king and the bill's impact on Indigenous relations and natural resource projects.
While the article acknowledges uncertainty about the constitutionality of Henry VIII clauses allowing cabinet to bypass democratic processes, it also points to a long list of rulings that have condemned such clauses.
The article noted that this particular 'Henry VIII' clause appears 鈥渆specially broad鈥� in scope. Unlike recent Canadian examples, Bill 7 goes beyond particular aspects of a specific legislation.
"As noted, it allows cabinet to modify anything in the entire provincial statute book," it read.
The article acknowledged Bill 7's language exempting Indigenous and resource projects from cabinet orders, but predicted that the bill would create far more "problems, delays, inefficiencies and legal challenges than it solves" if cabinet were to use the bill to marginalize First Nations.
"These exceptions may seem to address concerns that the 'Henry VIII' clause will be used to trample over Aboriginal rights in the name of efficiency and streamlining permitting processes for natural resource projects," it read. "However, they are not as broad as they seem at first blush."
Speaking with Black Press Media before Kahlon's announcement of potential changes, Meghan McDermott, policy director with the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, warned of abuse, especially the part of the bill that gives cabinet to power to override laws and regulations.
McDermott's critique also has the side angle of Eby once having served as BCCLA's executive director.
So what would Eby, the civil rights lawyer, say about this legislation from Premier Eby?
"I'm pretty sure that the premier would have been really disappointed and skeptical of any government in the day trying to give themselves such broad powers," McDermott said.
