As British Columbians debate a bill designed to give government flexibility in the face of American tariffs, a legal scholar questions its need.
Meanwhile, a political scientist, sees the bill as beneficial in some areas, but also risky in its opportunity for misuse.
Bill 7, tabled last week but still awaiting additional debate and amendment, gives the provincial government what it calls the tools to quickly respond to American tariffs and broader threats.
"He (U.S. President Donald Trump) continues to threaten our sovereignty as a nation and we know that when a giant throws a punch, you don't fight with one hand behind your back," Ravi Parmar, B.C.'s Forests Minister said Monday in an interview with Black Press Media. "That's is why we are making sure that we have the tools in place to better support our province."
Perhaps the most sweeping aspect of the legislation concerns the ability of cabinet to issue regulations through orders-in-council "addressing challenges, or anticipated challenges, to British Columbia arising from the actions of a foreign jurisdiction; supporting inter-provincial cooperation in reducing trade barriers within Canada; (and) supporting the economy of British Columbia and Canada."
Other sections of the bill give cabinet powers to direct procurement of government organizations to minimize U.S. dependence, and impose tolls, fees and charges for using B.C. roads, bridges, ferries and ferry terminals.
Mark Mancini, assistant professor at Thompson Rivers University's law faculty, said he understand this is a response to the threat of U.S. President Donald Trump, and nobody denies this threat deserves attention.
"The question we must ask ourselves is whether the manner in which the government is proceeding is consistent with our legal traditions and...whether this particular law is necessary to equip the government with the powers it needs to fight the threat," he said. "The (government) has not provided any justification, yet, for this choice."
Mancini was referring to language that allows government to modify almost every law and regulation without formal ratification from the legislation. The legislation carves out exception for matters involving natural resources requiring permits or licences and engagement with First Nations as per the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. The legislation also requires the legislature receive formal notice of any actions after government has taken them.
Mancini said government could have assumed more authority without the power to modify the laws themselves, or it could have created ways for the legislature to approve changes.
"These measures would still allow the government to respond powerfully without undermining the idea that the executive implements 香蕉视频直播� but does not make 香蕉视频直播� the law," he said.
Mancini also pointed to the political context.
"Donald Trump is a president who exercises executive power with no regard for the controls placed upon it," he said. "In fighting fire with fire, we should not become what we are fighting against. Legislative approval of changes to laws is a centrepiece of our constitutional system of parliamentary sovereignty. We should not throw out that important principle for the sake of the guy from The Apprentice."
UBC political science lecturer Stewart Prest, meanwhile, said there some specific instances, where time will really be of the essence.
"So that idea of putting in place new rules regarding imports, exports, transportation and being able to react quickly...that kind of nimbleness would be an advantage rather than having to fundamentally change legislation along those lines," Prest said.
Opponents of the legislation have accused government of seizing sweeping powers. Prest said these voices have a case.
"The executive is aggregating to itself additional powers, essentially saying that if pushes comes to shove, they can enact through cabinet directives, procedures that would supersede existing legislation in various ways. So that is a significant power."
He added that this additional power creates an additional obligation.
"So it is going to be crucial for this to be seen to be legitimate, that the province is absolutely scrupulous in being open and transparent about how this power is used, to what end and why it is doing it in this way and not following the normal course of democratic change," he said.
Government tabled the bill shortly after three Conservative MLAs had departed their caucus to sit as independents. Their departure has raised questions about the cohesion of the party under the leadership of John Rustad. While no Conservative MLAs have joined the original trio since, Prest does not see Rustad out of the woods yet.
"(The) fundamental structure of the dispute hasn't really changed," Prest said. "We are still in the midst of and there is no easy way out of a situation in which there are two distinct conservative factions that have different views about what the priorities for the party and the province ought to be," he said.
That is where Bill 7 could come into play by providing a rallying point for Conservatives, Prest said.
"It's the sort of thing that has the potential to really blow up in the government's face," Prest said. "It's the kind of thing that everybody within that tumultuous conservative movement can agree upon," he said.
