Opposition says Premier Eby using tariff fight to give B.C. cabinet ‘unlimited power’

It’s been 800 years since the Magna Carta. Governments everywhere now aspire to tear down the concept that it helped establish: the rule of law. Last week, British Columbia’s NDP government introduced the Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act, also known as Bill 7, which would allow Premier David Eby and his cabinet the power to take the law into their own hands without going through the elected legislature.

In this case, the justification is President Donald Trump’s tariffs. But the bill would authorize any action taken for the vague purpose of supporting the economy of B.C. or Canada, or responding to the actions of any foreign government, even if the actions haven’t happened yet. But according to Eby, “These are not sweeping powers.”

The project of concentrating power in the executive branch (i.e. cabinet) and usurping the role of legislators has a long pedigree. In theory, no office or officers are above the law or are empowered to make it up as they go. In practise, that theory counts for less and less. Governments, including in Canada, don’t like the rule of law.

But what, exactly, does “the rule of law” mean? Legal theorists say it’s complicated. It need not be. To see it clearly, compare it to the alternative: the rule of persons. When King Solomon decreed that a baby claimed by two women should be split in half, he had absolute power to decide what to do. When Henry VIII ordered that Anne Boleyn should lose her head, that was absolute power, too. In each case, tyrants exercised their personal rule for good or bad.

The “rule of law” is the opposite idea. No single authority has free reign to decide how the state will use its force. The rule of law limits the powers of those who govern.

It does so in part by separating powers between three branches of the state. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that the “separation of powers” is a fundamental feature of the Canadian Constitution. Legislatures legislate. The executive executes. Judges adjudicate. In principle, no single office or officer can alone decide what should be done.

But not in practise. Exceptions are so common today as to be ubiquitous. The Human Rights Commission, not the legislature, declares what constitutes discrimination. The police decide whether to enforce court orders. Environment ministry officials determine when environmental impacts are permissible. Cabinet decides when pipelines will be built.

But in these cases, decision-makers at least must keep themselves within the boundaries of their authorizing statute, which was passed by elected legislatures. Under Bill 7, the Eby government will take delegation to the next level. Its cabinet will have the power not just to exercise broad discretion in accordance with legislation, but to override legislation itself. The bill will allow cabinet to make exceptions to the law, modify the law’s requirements, limit the law’s application, or establish powers or duties in place of the law. And not just a specific law, but any enactment on the books. The cabinet’s edicts will be valid for more than two years, until May 2027.

In 1539, the Statute of Proclamations conferred on King Henry VIII the power to rule by decree, directing that the King’s proclamations should be obeyed as though they were legislation. Such provisions, since known as “Henry VIII clauses,” are controversial because they eviscerate limits on executive power. Yet they may be constitutionally permissible in Canada. Parliament cannot abdicate its functions, the Supreme Court of Canada wrote in 1918, in a case considering the government’s conscription orders under the broad powers of the War Measures Act of 1914. But Parliament can pass legislation that delegates its powers to the executive as it sees fit. As long as the legislature retains the power to reverse the delegation, the theory goes, then separation of powers remains intact.

The rule of law is inconvenient. It gets in the way of governments and officials crafting solutions to problems they perceive as important. That’s not its downside but its purpose. Even when government efforts are well-intentioned, the power of officials to solve problems can pose a more serious threat to citizens than the problem itself. As the late Alan Borovoy, former general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, once put it, “The source of the most insidious peril is not evil wrongdoers seeking to do harm, but parochial bureaucrats seeking to do good.” If the modern administrative state is incompatible with the rule of law, then the state should be required to adapt. For decades, the current has flowed strongly in the other direction.

Crises are an ideal time for the state to advance into territory from which it will not wish to retreat. COVID-19 was the previous excuse. Now the threat of American tariffs is the latest justification to declare an emergency and discard the limitations of the rule of law. Even impending calamity does not justify the tyranny of unfettered discretion. Boundless authority to respond to circumstances is an unbearable licence to dictate.

This commentary is based on previous commentaries.

Bruce Pardy

Professor of Law, Queen’s University

Related Topics:#BrucePardy #FraserInstitute BCBill7 BCPremierUnlimitedPower BCTariffResponse DavidEby TrumpTariffs

Up Next

Trump rescinds Biden’s autopen pardons: “He knew nothing about them”

Don't Miss

Carney… how he got the top job is a national scandal

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

The “No Kings” Protest Is Pure Fantasy

Business / 10 hours ago

Senator wants to torpedo Canada’s oil and gas industry

Automotive / 11 hours ago

Opposition Conservatives fail in attempt to “Pull the Plug” on Carney’s Electric Vehicle Mandate

Business

Senator wants to torpedo Canada’s oil and gas industry

Published on June 19, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Recently, without much fanfare, Senator Rosa Galvez re-pitched a piece of legislation that died on the vine when former prime minister Justin Trudeau prorogued Parliament in January. Her “Climate-Aligned Finance Act” (CAFA), which would basically bring a form of BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) to Canada’s oil and gas sector, would much better be left in its current legislative oblivion.

CAFA would essentially treat Canada’s oil and gas sector like an enemy of the state—a state, in Senator Galvez’ view, where all values are subordinate to greenhouse gas emission control. Think I’m kidding? Per CAFA, alignment with national climate commitments means that everyone engaged in federal investment in “emission intensive activities [read, the entire oil and gas sector] must give precedence to that duty over all other duties and obligations of office, and, for that purpose, ensuring the entity is in alignment with climate commitments is deemed to be a superseding matter of public interest.”

In plain English, CAFA would require anyone involved in federal financing (or federally-regulated financing) of the oil and gas sector to divest their Canadian federal investments in the oil and gas sector. And the government would sanction those who argue against it.

There’s another disturbing component to CAFA—in short, it stacks investment decision-making boards. CAFA requires at least one board member of every federally-regulated financial institution to have “climate expertise.” How is “climate expertise” defined? CAFA says it includes people with experience in climate science, social science, Indgineuous “ways of knowing,” and people who have “acute lived experience related to the physical or economic damages of climate change.” (Stacking advisory boards like this, by the way, is a great way to build public distrust in governmental advisory boards, which, in our post-COVID world, is probably not all that high. Might want to rethink this, senator.)

Clearly, Senator Galvez’ CAFA is draconian public policy dressed up in drab finance-speak camouflage. But here’s what it would do. By making federal investment off-limits to oil and gas companies, it would quickly put negative pressure on investment from both national and international investors, effectively starving the sector for capital. After all, if a company’s activities are anathema to its own federal regulators or investment organs, and are statutorily prohibited from even verbally defending such investments, who in their right minds would want to invest?

And that is the BDS of CAFA. In so many words, it calls on the Canadian federal government to boycott, divest from, and sanction Canada’s oil and gas sector—which powers our country, produces a huge share of our exports, and employs people from coast to coast. Senator Galvez would like to see her Climate-Aligned Finance Act (CAFA) resurrected by the Carney government, whose energy policy to-date has been less than crystal clear. But for the sake of Canadians, it should stay dead.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Economy

Ottawa’s muddy energy policy leaves more questions than answers

Published on June 18, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Based on the recent throne speech (delivered by a King, no less) and subsequent periodic statements from Prime Minister Carney, the new federal government seems stuck in an ambiguous and ill-defined state of energy policy, leaving much open to question.

After meeting with the premiers earlier this month, the prime minister talked about “decarbonized barrels” of oil, which didn’t clarify matters much. We also have a stated goal of making Canada the world’s “leading energy superpower” in both clean and conventional energy. If “conventional energy” includes oil and gas (although we’re not sure), this could represent a reversal of the Trudeau government’s plan to phase-out fossil fuel use in Canada over the next few decades. Of course, if it only refers to hydro and nuclear (also forms of conventional energy) it might not.

According to the throne speech, the Carney government will work “closely with provinces, territories, and Indigenous Peoples to identify and catalyse projects of national significance. Projects that will connect Canada, that will deepen Canada’s ties with the world, and that will create high-paying jobs for generations.” That could mean more oil and gas pipelines, but then again, it might not—it might only refer to power transmission infrastructure for wind and solar power. Again, the government hasn’t been specific.

The throne speech was a bit more specific on the topic of regulatory reform and the federal impact assessment process for energy projects. Per the speech, a new “Major Federal Project Office” will ensure the time needed to approve projects will be reduced from the currently statutory limit of five years to two. Also, the government will strike cooperation agreements with interested provinces and territories within six months to establish a review standard of “one project, one review.” All of this, of course, is to take place while “upholding Canada’s world-leading environmental standards and its constitutional obligations to Indigenous Peoples.” However, what types of projects are likely to be approved is not discussed. Could be oil and gas, could be only wind and solar.

Potentially good stuff, but ill-defined, and without reference to the hard roadblocks the Trudeau government erected over the last decade that might thwart this vision.

For example, in 2019 the Trudeau government enacted Bill C-48 (a.k.a. the “Tanker Ban Bill”), which changed regulations for large oil transports coming and going from ports on British Columbia’s northern coast, effectively banning such shipments and limiting the ability of Canadian firms to export to non-U.S. markets. Scrapping C-48 would remove one obstacle from the government’s agenda.

In 2023, the Trudeau government introduced a cap on Canadian oil and gas-related greenhouse gas emissions, and in 2024, adopted major new regulations for methane emissions in the oil and gas sector, which will almost inevitably raise costs and curtail production. Removing these regulatory burdens from Canada’s energy sector would also help Canada achieve energy superpower status.

Finally, in 2024, the Trudeau government instituted new electricity regulations that will likely drive electricity rates through the roof, while ushering in an age of less-reliable electricity supply: a two-handed slap to Canadian energy consumers. Remember, the throne speech also called for building a more “affordable” Canada—eliminating these onerous regulations would help.

In summation, while the waters remain somewhat muddy, the Carney government appears to have some good ideas for Canadian energy policy. But it must act and enact some hard legislative and regulatory reforms to realize the positive promises of good policy.