British Columbia Premier David Eby’s government is walking back a key portion of its controversial tariff response law, admitting the proposed legislation “didn’t get the balance right.”
Eby said Friday that the legislation known as Bill 7 needs appropriate “safeguards” after a wave of criticism about potential overreach.
“My interest in being able to move quickly to respond to the threat that British Columbia is facing got the better of … my understanding that the safeguards that people are calling for need to be there as well.”
He said the province has emergency authority to respond to natural disasters, and he wanted to be able to have a similar response for actions by U.S. President Donald Trump.
But he said a key portion of the law is being “pulled,” which would originally have given the cabinet sweeping powers to make regulations to address challenges “arising from the actions of a foreign jurisdiction.”
The reversal comes on the same day Prime Minster Mark Carney briefed premiers on his conversation with Trump.
Related Stories
Eby expressed his skepticism about the president’s intentions, saying Trump varies from being insulting to complimentary to Canada, depending on the day.
“And I think that what we’re going to see over the next four years—and this isn’t a great insight, this is common sense to British Columbians and Canadians—is any number of versions of the president,” he said.
Eby said Trump is “not true to his word” after signing a trade agreement with Canada that he’s now “obviously abandoned” with tariffs that violate it, and the intent of Bill 7 was to respond to potentially harmful executive orders signed by Trump on his unpredictable whims.
But the premier said stakeholders on the province’s Tariff and Economic Response Committee, indigenous leaders and trade organizations, expressed a higher level of “anxiety” about the bill’s scope than he and Attorney General Niki Sharma anticipated.
“I will continue to ensure that we have the ability to respond quickly, but if there’s a chance for us to retool this and ensure that the safeguards are in place to make people feel comfortable, that there’s democratic and legislative oversight of these incredibly important provisions, then we will do so,” he said.
The premier said his government will also reconsider the section of Bill 7 that set a two-year expiry clause.
“I understand the objection that the 24-month horizon was too long for people. It’s a legitimate concern that’s been raised, and it’s one that we’re looking at addressing in terms of other safeguards we can put in place,” Eby told a news conference.
However, Eby says he still believes the government needs to be able to respond swiftly to further “economic attacks” from the United States.
The bill came under fire from legal circles, the Opposition B.C. Conservatives, the BC Green Party and the BC Chamber of Commerce, which wrote to Eby and Sharma earlier this week calling Bill 7 a “step in the wrong direction for democratic institutions.”
In the day before the bill was introduced, the BC Greens had signed an agreement with the NDP to work together to support the government’s one-seat majority in the legislature.
Interim BC Green Leader Jeremy Valeriote said after the bill was introduced that it “could allow for sweeping economic decisions without clear limits or transparency.”
Valeriote said in a statement Friday that the party is “working in good faith with the government to ensure this bill has the best outcomes for British Columbians, but it’s not there yet. The work continues.”
Opposition B.C. Conservative Leader John Rustad said Friday that “the whole bill really should be scrapped.”
He said the legislation is asking for unclear authority for the government without having to go to the legislature, such as bringing in tolls and taxation and unspecified use of people’s personal information.
“I don’t understand what it is he’s trying to salvage out of it,” Rustad said of Eby. “No other province is asking for this type of authority.”
Rustad said he’d rather see the bill scrapped altogether and replaced with “clear and transparent legislation” that goes beyond punitive actions and focuses on fixing the province’s vulnerabilities by breaking B.C.’s reliance on the United States.
Sharma had previously defended the purpose of the legislation, saying it would allow the province to “move nimbly” in the face of Trump’s “random, erratic threats.”
“We need to make sure that we have ability to respond rapidly in a temporary way to protect our economy,” she said last week.
