B.C. Greens want answers about New Democrats' emergency powers legislation

B.C. Green Party for West Vancouver-Sea to Sky MLA Jeremy Valeriote answers questions from media after providing a statement in Victoria, Oct. 23, 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chad Hipolito

British Columbia’s Green Party says the NDP government needs to explain why its proposal for broad-reaching emergency cabinet powers is needed before its two members can support the legislation.

Interim Leader Jeremy Valeriote said in a statement that while he understands the “urgency of the situation” given the ongoing trade strife with the United States, the proposed Bill 7 in its current form has “vague wording” and “could allow for sweeping economic decisions without clear limits or transparency.”

“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 bill was tabled last week and would give B.C.‘s cabinet sweeping powers to make regulations that address challenges or anticipated challenges from the actions of a foreign jurisdiction, or for a purpose “supporting the economy of British Columbia and Canada” without requiring a debate in the legislature.

Premier David Eby said the bill — which contains a sunset clause that repeals it by May 28, 2027, at the latest — is needed to respond to what he called the “human-caused disaster” of tariffs and other threats from U.S. President Donald Trump.

The NDP has a one-seat majority in the legislature and could pass the bill without Green assistance, but the two parties last week signed a confidence agreement that includes an NDP “commitment” to consult the Greens “with respect to the shared initiatives as listed in this agreement in relation to the United States Tariffs and Trade Actions.”

Attorney General Niki Sharma said Thursday that she takes “all concerns” with the legislation seriously, but defended the bill’s intent.

“It’s a very unprecedented time that we’re in and we need to make sure that we have (the) ability to respond rapidly in a temporary way to protect our economy and make sure that the guardrails are strong enough,” she said. “I’m always open to discussions about how we do that.”

Sharma said she spoke “pretty regularly” with the Greens and the ruling party was talking to them “all the time.” She said she believed there was a “general consensus” that there needed to be a way to move quickly on trade actions.

She said the legislation is temporary, but needed in response to an “emergency” brought on by an American government seemingly unconstrained by treaty obligations or congress.

Valeriote said the Greens would “closely scrutinize this bill,” and the party expected to “propose substantive amendments to ensure transparency, accountability, and fair economic outcomes.”

“We’ll be pushing for more clarity in committee discussions and expect ministers to explain why they need these powers and what they plan to do with them,” he said.

Eby has said the legislation would give the province the capability to be “nimble” in response to constantly changing tariffs and threats coming from the Trump White House.

“In the face of escalating attacks on our sovereignty that have included threatening to erase the Canada-U. S. border and taking our water, we are not backing down,” Eby said in a statement when the bill was introduced last week.

“We are arming ourselves with the tools we need to respond swiftly, break down trade barriers within Canada and strengthen our economy.”

The Opposition B.C. Conservative Party has been vocal in its objections to the legislation, with members taking to calling it “autocratic” and “undemocratic.”

Transportation critic and Langley-Abbotsford legislative member Harman Bhangu said his office had been “flooded” with emails and phone calls from constituents expressing concern about the cabinet powers the legislation would grant.

“This is really scary,” Bhangu said. “It’s a blatant power grab, and it should really, really concern a lot of people because this could really undermine local municipalities (and) a lot of other provincial jurisdictions, where it gives them the sweeping power to come in and do whatever they want.”

Bhangu said he is surprised the Greens have not rejected the legislation outright.

“I think their base should be very upset,” he said.

Royal Roads University associate Prof. David Black said introducing a bill that would give government emergency powers typically consumes a significant amount of political capital earned during an election win.

Black said that given the narrowness of the New Democrats' victory in last fall’s provincial election, the new legislation “asks too much of the public,” even at a time when people are willing to give governments more leeway to address the threats from the United States.

“Four years is a long time,” Black said, referring to Trump’s term in the White House. “And getting us through this is going to require a lot of public trust in government.

“I think the NDP is … putting at risk what political capital they have and the extra amounts of that the public might well give to government because we are in these difficult times. But again, there are parliamentary ways of expediting legislation that don’t really require something like Bill 7.”

Black also said the issue of government overreach gave the Conservatives a “very big target” to rally around.

He also said the issue will be a test for the Greens in light of the confidence agreement with the NDP.

“It was not what the Greens signed on for,” Black said of Bill 7. “And I think it’ll be an interesting test of the kind of influences this caucus-of-two has over their senior partner with respect to what, if any, significant amendments we see.”

This report by Chuck Chiang, The Canadian Press, was first published March 20, 2025.