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 IEA’s Peak Oil Fever Dream Looks To Be In Full Collapse

Crime / 7 hours ago

Transgender Roomate of Alleged Charlie Kirk Assassin Cooperating with Investigation

Energy / 8 hours ago

Trump Admin Torpedoing Biden’s Oil And Gas Crackdown

Censorship Industrial Complex

Freedom of speech under threat on university campuses in Canada

Published on September 13, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Michael Zwaagstra and Matthew D. Mitchell

Obviously, when students feel that their grades are at risk, they will be far less likely to express their genuine opinions or even ask questions during class discussions. Not only does this make classes less interesting, it also undermines the entire purpose of a university education.

Universities should be places where all ideas are welcomed and explored. In many Canadian university classrooms, however, only the “correct” viewpoint is heard.

According to a new survey (conducted by Leger and published by the Fraser Institute) of 1,200 Canadian university students and recent graduates, politically left-of-centre students were far more likely than their right-of-centre classmates to report that their views were welcomed and encouraged in class.

For example, 83 per cent of right-leaning students believe that professors advocate a left-of-centre view—and 45 per cent of left-leaning students agree with them.

Forty-two per cent of right-leaning students say they experienced a university classroom environment that limited discussion and questions on controversial topics to only one side of the argument. In contrast, only 29 per cent of left-leaning students felt the same way.

To make matters worse, 50 per cent of right-leaning students said they sometimes felt uncomfortable expressing their opinions due to the views of the professors leading the class. Only 36 per cent of left-leaning students reported the same experience.

Interestingly, when asked whether there was a “safe” point of view on controversial topics in university classes, a majority from both groups answered “yes” with little difference between right-leaning students (58 per cent) and left-leaning students (51 per cent).

A significant number of right-leaning students (37 per cent) also said they feared formal consequences for expressing honest thoughts, opinions or even asking questions in their classes. Among right-leaning students who expressed this concern, 74 per cent feared their professors would lower their grades for expressing the “wrong” opinion in class.

Obviously, when students feel that their grades are at risk, they will be far less likely to express their genuine opinions or even ask questions during class discussions. Not only does this make classes less interesting, it also undermines the entire purpose of a university education.

Other studies also reveal the politically one-sided nature of university campuses. For example, a 2022 survey published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute found that 88 per cent of Canadian university professors vote for parties of the left and only 9 per cent support parties on the right. No wonder students feel their class discussions are consistently one-sided.

Similarly, a 2024 survey published by Heterodox Academy and College Plus found that more than half of students were reluctant to discuss certain issues such as the current Israel/Hamas conflict and transgender identity, and nearly half were reluctant to even broach the subject of politics. More alarmingly, a majority of students favoured limiting free expression on campus.

While many university professors are quick to describe themselves as strong supporters of diversity, this does not seem to include diversity of thought. A truly diverse campus would welcome a variety of intellectual perspectives in the spirit of open and scholarly debate. A campus where everyone looks different but thinks the same is not meaningfully diverse. As economist and philosopher John Stuart Mill argued many years ago, we are all impoverished when we silence one perspective.

It’s concerning that most students feel there’s a “safe” political view on controversial topics, particularly when students who hold a minority viewpoint feel the least safe expressing their views.

Of course, things won’t change overnight. But the first step to dealing with a problem is to admit that you have one. In that light, university administrators, professors and politicians should acknowledge that the current lack of viewpoint diversity on campus is a serious problem for all Canadians. Democracies function best when people freely express, and vigorously debate, competing ideas. As institutions of higher learning, universities should exemplify what free and open discussion looks like.

While there’s nothing wrong with professors holding political views and sharing those views with their students, they should not restrict free and open debate in their classrooms. This means ensuring that all students, including those whose opinions are in the minority, are guaranteed the right to share their views without fear of reprisal.

Michael Zwaagstra

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Matthew D. Mitchell

Senior Fellow in the Centre for Human Freedom, Fraser Institute

Business

Carney engaging in Orwellian doublethink with federal budget rhetoric

Published on September 13, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss

In George Orwell’s classic 1984, he describes a dystopian world dominated by “doublethink”—instances whereby people hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously while accepting them both. In recent comments about the upcoming October federal budget, Prime Minister Carney unfortunately offered a prime example of doublethink in action.

During a press conference, Carney was critical of his predecessor’s mismanagement of federal finances, specifically unsustainable increases in spending year after year, and stated his 2025 budget will instead focus on “both austerity and investments.” This should strike Canadians as an obvious contradiction. Austerity involves lowering government spending while investing refers to the exact opposite.

Such doublethink may make for good political rhetoric, but it only muddies the waters on the actual direction of fiscal policy in Ottawa. The government can either cut overall spending to try to get a handle on federal finances and reduce the role of Ottawa in the economy, or it can increase spending (but call it “investment”) to continue the spending policies of the Trudeau government. It can’t do both. It must pick a lane when it comes to mutually exclusive policies.

Despite the smoke and mirrors on display during his press junket, the prime minister appears poised to be a bigger spender and borrower than Trudeau. Late last year, the Trudeau government indicated it planned to grow program spending from $504.1 billion in 2025/26 to $547.8 billion by 2028/29.

After becoming the Liberal Party leader earlier this year, Carney delivered a party platform that pledged to increase spending to roughly $533.3 billion this year, well above what the Trudeau government planned last fall, and then to $566.4 billion by 2028/29. Following the election, he then announced plans to significantly increase military spending.

While the prime minister has touted a plan to find “ambitious savings” in the operating budget through a so-called “comprehensive expenditure review,” his government is excluding more than half of all federal spending including transfers to individuals such as Old Age Security and transfers to the provinces for health care and other social programs. Even with the savings anticipated following the review, the Carney government will likely not reduce overall spending but rather simply slow the pace of annual spending increases.

Moreover, the Liberal Party platform shows the government expects to borrow $224.8 billion—$93.4 billion more than Trudeau planned to borrow. And that’s before the new military spending. That’s not austerity—even if Prime Minister Carney truly believes it to be.

Actual austerity would require a decrease in year-over-year expenses, smaller deficits than what the Trudeau government planned, and a path back to a true balanced budget in a reasonable timeframe. Instead, Carney will almost certainly hike overall spending each year, raise the deficits compared to his predecessor, and could even fall short of his tepid goal of balancing the operating budget within three years (which would still involve tens of billions more borrowed in a separate capital budget).

While budgets normally provide clarity on a government’s spending, taxing, and borrowing expect more doublethink from the October budget that will tout the government’s austerity measures while increasing spending and borrowing via “investments.”