Touted as a way to bolster B.C.’s economy and respond rapidly to international trade threats, the BC's Bill 7 also includes unprecedented powers for Cabinet that critics say could undermine democratic checks and balances. Let's talk about it.
British Columbia’s Bill 7 – formally the Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act – has sparked both optimism and alarm in the business community. Touted as a way to bolster B.C.’s economy and respond rapidly to international trade threats, the bill also includes unprecedented powers for Cabinet that critics say could undermine democratic checks and balances. The debate is pitting the bill’s internal trade benefits against its “sweeping powers” controversy, as stakeholders and experts weigh in on how it could shape the province’s business climate.
Premier David Eby and cabinet ministers announce new economic measures in March 2025. Bill 7 is positioned as a tool to defend B.C.’s economy amid U.S. trade threats, but its broad powers have prompted intense debate.
Bill 7 was introduced in March 2025 as a response to escalating U.S. trade actions, with Premier David Eby warning of “escalating attacks on our sovereignty” by the Trump administration. A major positive feature of the legislation is its emphasis on breaking down interprovincial trade barriers. The government asserts that “expanding interprovincial trade” and reducing internal barriers will “encourage greater reliance on goods and services made in Canada” and create more opportunities for B.C. businesses. This focus has been welcomed by many in the business community. Bridgitte Anderson, CEO of the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, praised Bill 7’s emphasis on internal trade, calling the removal of trade barriers “a very welcome step” that will “strengthen our economic security, boost productivity, and generate new revenues for government”. She urged other provinces to follow suit, noting that fully eliminating internal trade barriers nationwide could raise Canada’s GDP by an estimated 3.8% (about $2,130 per person).
The internal trade provisions in Bill 7 build on long-standing calls from businesses to streamline commerce within Canada. By allowing Cabinet to remove or amend barriers that impede interprovincial trade, the bill could address regulatory hurdles that previously limited B.C. companies’ access to other provincial markets. For example, standardizing trucking regulations or recognizing professional certifications across provinces would help B.C. firms expand their reach. Small businesses and exporters stand to gain from a more integrated domestic market, as reduced red tape can lower costs and improve market access. Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) spokesperson Ryan Mitton noted that CFIB “welcomes legislation to lower interprovincial trade barriers” in Bill 7’s Part 1. In addition, the bill’s trade focus aims to make B.C.’s economy more self-reliant amid U.S. uncertainty. Shifting public procurement away from U.S. suppliers toward Canadian sources could boost local manufacturers and contractors, keeping more government spending at home. “Moving procurement away from American vendors” is intended to increase demand for B.C. and Canadian goods, which Premier Eby says will help “strengthen our economy” in the face of U.S. tariff threats. Overall, these provisions are seen as proactive measures to support B.C. businesses and workers by improving internal market access and insulating the local economy from unpredictable foreign trade actions.
Key measures in Bill 7 include
The first measure, reducing internal trade barriers, has received near-universal support. Business advocates believe it will help B.C. companies scale up by accessing broader Canadian markets and will attract investment knowing B.C. is committed to freer internal trade. Even as other parts of Bill 7 drew criticism, there is broad agreement on passing the interprovincial trade sections swiftly. “This will unite the B.C. legislature and allow for the swift passage and progress on internal trade,” wrote the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade in a letter to Premier Eby, urging that Part 1 of the bill be split off and enacted on its own. Stakeholders see clear economic upside in enabling the free flow of goods, services, and labor across provincial lines – a benefit that could support many sectors from agriculture and manufacturing to tech and finance. By improving domestic trade, Bill 7’s economic provisions could bolster B.C.’s growth and resilience, independent of U.S. policies.
While the goals of strengthening trade and economic resilience are widely applauded, Bill 7 has become highly controversial due to other sections that grant extraordinarily broad powers to the provincial Cabinet. In particular, Part 4 of Bill 7 would give the Premier and Cabinet the ability to change or override existing laws by Order in Council for up to two years, without prior approval from the Legislature. This sweeping authority – described by one legal expert as a “Henry VIII clause” – has set off alarm bells among opposition politicians, civil liberties advocates, and business groups alike. A Henry VIII clause “delegates to the executive (here, cabinet) the ability to modify legislative provisions” and bypass the normal law-making process. Lawyer Keith Brown noted that Bill 7’s version of this clause is “especially broad in scope”, allowing Cabinet to “modify anything in the entire provincial statute book” with minimal constraints. In effect, the bill empowers Cabinet to rewrite laws on the fly in the name of economic defense – a step unprecedented in B.C. outside of wartime emergency law.
Business and community stakeholders who initially backed the tariff-response idea have grown increasingly vocal about these extraordinary powers. Many fear that concentrating so much authority in Cabinet undermines democratic checks and balances and could be misused. As the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade put it, “The other parts of Bill 7 are truly unprecedented in scope, including the sweeping powers that would be conferred to the Cabinet… it is not clear to us that the sweeping powers are required or justified.”. The Business Council of B.C. likewise warned that handing such power to the executive is “a major shift in how we go about making decisions” in the province, one that “undermines confidence in our institutions” and “could deter investment” if businesses feel laws can change arbitrarily. In an unprecedented show of unity, multiple business organizations have urged the government to strip out or significantly amend Parts 2, 3, and 4 of Bill 7, leaving only the internal trade provisions. “We are strongly urging the government to stand down parts two, three and four of the bill — which are completely unnecessary — and only proceed with the free trade provisions in part one,” said CFIB’s Ryan Mitton on behalf of thousands of small businesses.
Critics argue that the justification for emergency powers is weak given the circumstances. Premier Eby has framed Bill 7 as necessary to respond rapidly to U.S. President Donald Trump’s unpredictable trade moves – describing a quasi wartime footing in an “economic war” scenario. But skeptics note that Canada is not in an actual war, and that even during genuine crises, democracies have found ways to act without suspending legislative oversight. “If other countries in the Westminster parliamentary system, like the United Kingdom, can retain their democratic principles during actual wars, then British Columbia should also do so in a trade dispute,” argued BCBC vice-president David Williams. Opponents, including the B.C. Conservative Party, have gone so far as to label the bill “anti-democratic” and a power grab. BC Conservative leader John Rustad warned Bill 7 gives government “a blank cheque to do anything they want, without any oversight”, exceeding even the emergency measures seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. He expressed particular concern that Cabinet could use its new powers in unintended ways – for instance, imposing tolls or fees broadly, a “slippery slope” that might one day affect Canadian drivers if not explicitly limited.
Business groups are especially uneasy that the bill’s broad powers are not tightly confined to trade issues. As drafted, Cabinet can make any law or regulation it deems necessary to (1) respond to foreign threats, (2) reduce interprovincial trade barriers, or (3) support B.C.’s economy. That third criterion – “supporting the economy of British Columbia” – is exceedingly broad, potentially allowing nearly any policy to be pushed through by executive order. Moreover, Bill 7 explicitly states these powers apply “despite any enactment or regulatory measure” in existing law. Accountability provisions in the bill are limited to Cabinet reporting its actions to the Legislature twice a year, with no requirement for legislative approval. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and civil society groups have raised additional concerns about sidelining democratic processes. Even supporters of swift action, such as some labor unions and First Nations who want B.C.’s economy protected, have privately conveyed discomfort with the scope of Bill 7’s powers, noting it is “unlike anything seen since the Second World War”.
Multiple stakeholders have spoken out about these controversial provisions:
The B.C. government has vigorously defended Bill 7’s extraordinary provisions as regrettably necessary in an unpredictable trade war environment. Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon, who chairs the Cabinet committee on the U.S. tariff response, explains that Trump’s rapid-fire tariff changes (sometimes shifting “multiple times a day”) demand an equally agile ability to respond. “We need to be nimble and able to respond quickly… We need to protect workers, we need to protect industries that may be impacted,” Kahlon said, emphasizing that waiting for full legislative process could leave B.C. a step behind fast-moving U.S. actions. Premier Eby argues that without the tools in Bill 7, B.C. would be hamstrung in countering Washington’s moves that threaten Canadian jobs. “The current American administration is unpredictable… We, as a government, need to be ready to respond,” Eby insisted. He has invoked nightmare scenarios – such as the U.S. cutting off electricity exports to Canada – that require the province to react in real time. In Eby’s view, the risk of moving too slowly outweighs the risks of temporarily centralizing power. To reassure the public, the government points out that Bill 7’s authority is time-limited and includes built-in checks. The act “will automatically be repealed by 2027” (a two-year sunset) and cannot override certain processes like environmental permitting or First Nations consultation. Cabinet would also be required to report to the Legislature on any orders made under the act twice annually. “It’s got to come to the legislature to be ratified,” Eby told reporters, stressing that MLAs and the public would be informed of actions taken. He expressed confidence that British Columbians would support his government using such powers in genuine emergencies, saying voters ultimately serve as a “safeguard” against overreach.
In response to the backlash, the NDP government appears willing to amend or add “guardrails” to the bill, without abandoning it altogether. Minister Kahlon noted that Attorney General Niki Sharma has been “listening to folks… sending suggestions” on how to improve the legislation. “If there are some adjustments to the bill, we’ll certainly be making that public,” Kahlon said, acknowledging the outcry from stakeholders. Over the week following Bill 7’s introduction, government officials met with business leaders, Indigenous representatives, and labor groups to explain the bill’s intent and hear concerns. Some critics came away with a “better understanding” of why the powers are being sought, according to Kahlon, though discussions continue about additional safeguards that could be added. Possible amendments floated include tighter definitions of when Cabinet can use the powers, more robust legislative oversight of orders, or even carving out the non-controversial parts into a separate bill as business groups suggest. The government’s challenge is to maintain the core capability to act quickly in a crisis, while convincing the public that it is not “suspending democracy” in the process. Eby has indicated he is open to clarifying the limits – for example, he denied any intent to toll Canadian drivers or use the law beyond its U.S.-focused purpose – but he refuses to “back down” from obtaining the emergency tools outright. The coming debate in the Legislature (scheduled to resume on March 31, 2025 for second reading) will determine how far the NDP will go in amending Bill 7 to address the firestorm of criticism.
Depending on its final form, Bill 7 stands to have significant impacts – both positive and negative – on business owners throughout British Columbia. On the upside, if the internal trade and procurement provisions are enacted, B.C. businesses could see new opportunities and cost savings. Reducing interprovincial trade barriers would make it easier for a B.C. producer to sell goods and services across Canada, effectively enlarging the home market. Sectors like manufacturing, food and beverage, and technology could expand customer bases without facing as many provincial regulatory hurdles. Firms might also benefit from reciprocal access – other provinces could lower barriers to B.C. products if B.C. leads by example. Meanwhile, B.C. companies that supply government or infrastructure projects may get a boost from the Buy Canadian tilt in public procurement. For instance, a local construction firm might win contracts that previously went to a U.S. bidder, or a B.C. manufacturer could see increased orders as ministries favor Canadian-made goods. These advantages would support local employment and keep more money circulating in the provincial economy. Even the threat of retaliatory tools like highway tolls on U.S. trucks could give B.C. some leverage to discourage hostile U.S. trade actions, potentially helping industries such as forestry, mining, or agriculture by deterring punitive tariffs on B.C. exports. In theory, the mere existence of Bill 7’s powers could strengthen B.C.’s negotiating hand, thereby protecting sectors vulnerable to trade sanctions.
However, businesses also face risks and uncertainties if Bill 7 passes in its current sweeping form. The most immediate concern is the cloud of unpredictability – with Cabinet able to alter regulations or create new rules overnight, companies may find it difficult to plan ahead. Long-term investors could be hesitant to commit capital if any law affecting their project (from labor rules to environmental permits or tax policy) might be changed with little notice under the broad rubric of “supporting B.C.’s economy”. The Business Council of B.C. has warned that this uncertainty “could deter investment at a time we can least afford it”. Smaller businesses worry about being caught off guard by sudden regulatory shifts. For example, a new fee or restriction introduced via Cabinet order could hit a sector without the usual consultation or warning that accompanies the legislative process. “Particularly for business, it undermines confidence in our institutions,” David Williams of BCBC noted, reflecting a fear that rule of law could yield to ad hoc rule-making. There is also the specter of retaliation in a trade war. If B.C. were to impose tolls on American trucks or ban U.S. suppliers, stakeholders caution that the U.S. might retaliate in kind – potentially harming B.C. exporters or raising costs for import-reliant industries. The B.C. Trucking Association, for instance, opposes the tolling measure, noting it puts the “free movement of goods” at risk and could invite U.S. countermeasures. “Anything that puts [trade] at risk, be it a barrier, time, fee, tax… that’s always a very serious concern,” said BCTA President Dave Earle, who pointed out that far more Canadian goods travel through the U.S. (between Canada and Mexico) than U.S. goods through B.C. to Alaska. His concern is that B.C. might lose more than it gains if a symbolic toll provokes broader fallout in continental trade. Echoing that worry, political science professor Hamish Telford notes that “trade wars tend to escalate”, and once tit-for-tat measures begin, “a lot of people are going to get hurt” on all sides.
The ultimate impact of Bill 7 on businesses will depend on what version of the bill becomes law. If the government heeds the calls of the business community and strips the bill down to its internal trade components, B.C. companies can expect a straightforward win: easier trade within Canada, without the controversy. This would likely be met with relief from entrepreneurs and investors, who could pursue opportunities across provinces without fearing any anti-democratic machinations in Victoria. “Part one of Bill 7” on free trade “without any sunset clause” is the portion everyone can agree on, as CFIB and others have emphasized. On the other hand, if Bill 7 passes fully intact (or only lightly amended), B.C. business owners will enter an unusual two-year experiment. In that scenario, they would need to stay vigilant to new Orders in Council and emergency regulations that could emerge as the government responds to U.S. developments. Some sectors might benefit from quick government action (for example, rapid financial aid or protective rules issued to counter a sudden U.S. tariff), but others might find themselves collateral damage if Cabinet’s countermeasures raise costs or restrict trade in unforeseen ways. The balance of risk and reward for each business will vary by sector. A forestry company might cheer if Cabinet rapidly slaps a surcharge on U.S. logs, leveling the playing field, whereas a tourism operator could suffer if an escalating dispute leads to fewer American visitors. Import-heavy retailers might face higher costs if sourcing shifts away from U.S. suppliers, yet domestic producers could capture a larger share of the market.
From a governance perspective, business leaders worry that any short-term gains from Bill 7’s extraordinary powers could be undone by longer-term damage to investor confidence and political stability. Memories of broad emergency powers used during the pandemic – and the subsequent erosion of public trust – are fresh in many minds. The hindsight from COVID-19 suggests governments must exercise caution when bypassing normal accountability, or risk backlash and instability that ultimately hurt the economy. As one legal analysis put it, “fear has too often been used by governments to justify undemocratic action,” drawing a parallel between Trump’s heavy-handed tactics and the temptation for B.C. to do the same. If Bill 7 were implemented without sufficient oversight, and the government made controversial unilateral decisions, it could alienate the very businesses and investors whose confidence is needed for economic growth. On the flip side, if a genuine trade emergency hits (such as a major tariff on B.C.’s lumber or wine exports), having the agile powers in Bill 7 could allow the province to intervene swiftly to assist affected industries – potentially saving jobs or companies that might not survive a lengthy political debate. This is the trade-off at the heart of Bill 7: agility vs. accountability, short-term responsiveness vs. long-term certainty.
Bill 7 has put British Columbia at the crossroads of two compelling priorities: protecting and growing the economy in turbulent times, and preserving the democratic framework that underpins investor and public trust. The bill’s provisions to knock down interprovincial trade barriers and rally a “Team Canada” approach to economic resilience have been greeted with strong approval – a rare point of consensus uniting government and business in the promise of new opportunities for B.C. enterprises. Yet, tied to those laudable measures are sweeping executive powers that strike many as a step too far. The prospect of a Cabinet effectively governing by decree for two years has triggered a broad backlash, from trade boardrooms to opposition benches, over the risks of concentrating power and sidelining the normal legislative process. The Eby government’s challenge now is to find a path forward that retains the confidence of B.C. businesses and the public. This could mean amending Bill 7 to narrow its scope or time frame, bolstering oversight, and clearly justifying each extraordinary provision. The coming days will likely see negotiations and revisions aimed at striking a balance. “If you think there are guardrails that need to be put in place, give us concrete ideas,” Minister Kahlon urged stakeholders, indicating the door is open to constructive changes.
For B.C. business owners, the outcome will be closely watched. A version of Bill 7 that focuses on internal trade and measured tariff responses could usher in a welcome era of growth and interprovincial cooperation, with minimal downside. Conversely, a heavy-handed version could introduce new uncertainties, even as it arms the province for external economic battles. As the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade noted in its letter, the ideal scenario may be to “unite the B.C. legislature” around the trade-enhancing elements, while peeling away the contentious powers that prompted such alarm. In any case, the intense debate over Bill 7 has underscored that B.C.’s business community values both economic unity and good governance. However the legislation is resolved, it has already succeeded in one respect: sparking a province-wide conversation about how to safeguard prosperity without sacrificing democracy in the process.
Sources:
Let’s Keep Talking:
Jenny is a business insurance broker with Waypoint Insurance. She is also a business development consultant with Impresario Partners, helping Canadian Business expand overseas. She can be reached at 604-317-6755 or jhansen@waypoint.ca. Connect with Jenny on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/jenny-holly-hansen-365b691b/. Connect with Jenny at BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/jennyhollyhansen.bsky.social
Let’s Meet Up:
Jenny Holly Hansen is a cohost with Chris Sturges of the Langley Impact Networking Group. You are welcome to join us on Thursday’s from 4pm to 6pm at: Sidebar Bar and Grill: 100b - 20018 83A Avenue, Langley, BC V2Y 3R4
Tags: #Jenny Holly Hansen #B.C.'s Bill 7 #Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act #Rapid Response #International Trade Threats #Sweeping Power