FIONA FAMULAK
BRITISH COLUMBIA – In response to the Government’s recent introduction of Bill 7 – Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act, 2025, our President and CEO, Fiona Famulak, penned a letter to Premier Eby and Attorney General Niki Sharma, outlining the collective concerns of both the provincial association and its members regarding the Bill. The content of the letter is set out below.
Dear Premier Eby and Attorney General Sharma,
Through our representation of local chambers of commerce and boards of trade and 36,000 businesses of every size, and from every sector and region of the province, the BC Chamber of Commerce is a key voice for private-sector job creators in British Columbia and uniquely positioned to understand the needs and challenges of the province’s business community.
For years, we have been advocating for the removal of unnecessary inter-provincial trade barriers in our province and across the country. These trade irritants stifle our economy, aggravate business growth and negatively impact our province’s prosperity. We wholeheartedly endorse their prompt removal and appreciate the Government’s plans to dismantle the barriers as part of its response to the unjustified and counterproductive tariffs imposed by the United States.
That said, our members have strong reservations about the broad reach and scope of the powers being sought by the Government through Bill 7, the Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act, 2025. While we accept there is a common threat to our economic prosperity that lies outside our national borders, we are not at war. Bill 7, as written, provides the Government with unwarranted sweeping powers with little/no guardrails and without accountability to British Columbians through the Legislative Assembly.
Our members are concerned that the sweeping powers Bill 7 will grant to the Government will negatively impact their operations, present and future. As we have stressed many times, businesses need certainty to operate, plan and invest.
One of our greatest concerns with Bill 7 is the lack of guardrails to limit the Government’s ability to amend enactments. Specific examples of where the lack of guardrails is of concern include:
Section 19, which articulates the purposes for which the Government is authorized to make regulations. Sub-section (a) references the actions of a “foreign jurisdiction”, however, sub-section (c) does not have a similar limiting factor. Under Section 19(c) the Government has permission to modify enactments or authorizations if the action is deemed simply to “support the economy of British Columbia and Canada”. With this as the only justification, the Government could change nearly any provincial law it desires if it can make a connection to the economy.
Section 20, which provides the scope of what the Government is able to do through a cabinet order. Essentially, there are little/no limits. As an example, sub-section 20(1)(f) allows the Government to remove or impose new conditions on existing licences, permits or other authorizations. Should the Cabinet decide a change would “support the economy”, as per sub-section 19(c) above, a business’s operations could be thrown into flux and its current and/or future viability impacted negatively.
Section 29, which specifies the powers and regulations made under the authority of Bill 7 will expire in two years. However, once Bill 7 is passed, the Government could invoke Clause 20 of the bill to amend Clause 29 to extend regulations or legislative changes that have been made or, of greater concern, extend the time the Government holds these powers. Hypothetically, the Cabinet could indefinitely extend its powers in this Bill to by-pass the Legislature and claim it is doing so under the legal authority it has granted itself.
Our concern regarding the lack of accountability stems from the Government’s ability, under Bill 7, to make nearly any change it wants to provincial laws with the stroke of a pen. This is a step in the wrong direction for democratic institutions. As a nation, we universally decry the progression towards authoritarian rule through decree by the executive branch of the United States. There is no justification for taking similar steps here in British Columbia or Canada. By not being accountable to the Legislature, government is requiring that we move forward on faith and trust alone. This is neither sufficient nor acceptable.
Furthermore, while we understand your Government’s desire to move swiftly in the face of threats from a foreign jurisdiction, it has not articulated why the current rules governing the operations of the Legislature preclude it from seeking the support of elected officials in a timely way. The Legislature can be recalled in short order and the passage of new laws can be made in a matter of days. One only needs to look at the 41st Parliament’s collaborative handling of the COVID-19 pandemic to see expedited decision making and authorizations work successfully.
In closing, we believe Bill 7, as written, goes too far and that the controversial nature of the legislation will delay timely progress on the substantive and important issue of dismantling inter-provincial trade barriers. The Bill, despite its title, risks creating uncertainty for businesses and British Columbians and undermining BC’s ability to stabilize and grow the economy, attract investment and create jobs, all of which fund the public services we rely on.
We urge the Government to find a new path.
Regards,
Fiona Famulak, President and CEO of the BC Chamber of Commerce
