
Necessary tool or 'power grab'? B.C. NDP seeks to give itself new powers to fight U.S. threats
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.
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."
Interim Green 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."
Sweeping powers
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.
WATCH | Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives calls new bill 'political theatre':
What is B.C.'s Economic Stabilization Tariff Response Act?
2 days ago
Duration 6:59
Marc Lee, a senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, talks about the Economic Stabilization Tariff Response Act, which, if passed, would allow the government to respond without having to go through the legislature for debate. B.C. Premier David Eby has said the response is necessary to protect jobs and businesses amid tariff threats. However, opposition parties are not convinced.
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."
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.
NDP defends legislation. Conservatives call it 'power grab'
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 was surprised that the Greens did not reject the legislation outright.
"I think their base should be very upset," he said.
Bill is a 'very big target': prof
The bill has received mixed reviews from analysts, as well. Marc Lee of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives characterized it as "political theatre," noting that with its majority, the B.C. NDP already has the power to pass legislation it feels is necessary without the support of other parties.
"It doesn't fundamentally change the already high concentration of power that we see in the B.C. government," he said.
Hamish Telford, an assistant professor of political science at the University of the Fraser Valley, said he understood the concerns of potential overreach but said the proposed legislation seemed to have reasonable safeguards built in.
"We're in unprecedented times," he said. "It doesn't seem to me to be out of line to have legislation that gives our executive the nimbleness to respond more quickly to the actions the president of the United States may take against us."
But Royal Roads University associate Prof. David 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.
"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."
Black also said the issue of government overreach gave the Conservatives a "very big target" to rally around.
He 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."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Global News
29 minutes ago
- Global News
Pakistani national from Ontario extradited to U.S. on terror charges
A Pakistani national from Ontario wanted by the U.S. on terror-related charges for allegedly targeting Jewish institutions in New York City has been extradited. The extradition Tuesday came four months after Muhammad Shahzeb Khan, 20, consented during a Superior Court hearing in Montreal to be sent to the U.S. to stand trial. He had been jailed since his arrest on Sept. 4, 2024, in Ormstown, Que., at the behest of U.S. authorities. 'The foreign terrorist organization ISIS remains a clear and present danger to the American people, and our Jewish citizens are especially targeted by evil groups like these,' U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement. 'The Department of Justice is proud to help secure this extradition, and we will prosecute this man to the fullest extent of the law.' Story continues below advertisement 1:54 How did ISIS suspect gain entry to Canada? U.S. officials have charged Khan with one count of attempting to provide material support and resources to a terrorist organization, and one count of attempting to commit acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy If convicted, Khan faces a maximum life sentence, with a federal judge determining any sentence after considering U.S. sentencing guidelines and other statutory factors. Authorities have alleged Khan, prior to his arrest, was on his way to carry out a mass shooting at a Brooklyn Jewish centre around Oct. 7 to mark the one-year anniversary of the Hamas attack on Israel that occurred in 2023. Khan was provisionally arrested in Canada on Sept. 4, 2024, based on a complaint filed in the Southern District of New York, according to a press release by the U.S. Department of Justice. Story continues below advertisement The department says on or about Sept. 4, Khan attempted to reach the U.S.-Canada border in connection with the allegedly planned attack. 'To do so, Khan used three separate cars to travel across Canada towards the United States, before he was stopped by Canadian authorities in or around Ormstown, Canada, approximately 12 miles (19 kilometres) from the U.S.-Canada border,' the release reads. The FBI's New York, Chicago and Los Angeles field offices are investigating the case. —with files from The Canadian Press


Toronto Sun
41 minutes ago
- Toronto Sun
Trump says China deal ‘done,' subject to leaders approval
Published Jun 11, 2025 • 1 minute read This file combination of pictures created on June 5, 2025 shows, L/R, Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Kremlin in Moscow on May 8, 2025 and US President Donald Trump at US Steel - Irvin Works in West Mifflin, Pennsylvania, May 30, 2025. Photo by EVGENIA NOVOZHENINA / POOL/AFP/AFP via Getty Images (Bloomberg) — U.S. President Donald Trump said a trade framework with China was completed that included an agreement for Beijing to supply rare earths 'UP FRONT' as well as access for Chinese students at American universities. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account 'OUR DEAL WITH CHINA IS DONE, SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL WITH PRESIDENT XI AND ME,' Trump posted on social media, referring to Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Trump's comments on Wednesday come a day after the U.S. and China reached an agreement in London on implementing the terms of their tariff truce. His remarks, however, included terms negotiators did not lay out, such as the immediate supply of critical minerals by China. He also said the US tariff rate would be a 'total' of 55% — though the precise rate was not clear. That figure includes a 10% baseline duty, a 20% charge tied to fentanyl trafficking and roughly 25% from preexisting levies from Trump's first term as well as most favoured nation rates, according to a White House official. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Markets reacted with uncertainty to the president's post. US futures briefly erased losses before moving lower again. 'FULL MAGNETS, AND ANY NECESSARY RARE EARTHS, WILL BE SUPPLIED, UP FRONT, BY CHINA,' Trump said in his post. 'LIKEWISE, WE WILL PROVIDE TO CHINA WHAT WAS AGREED TO, INCLUDING CHINESE STUDENTS USING OUR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (WHICH HAS ALWAYS BEEN GOOD WITH ME!). WE ARE GETTING A TOTAL OF 55% TARIFFS, CHINA IS GETTING 10%. RELATIONSHIP IS EXCELLENT!' China's Ministry of Commerce did not immediately respond to requests for comment. American and Chinese officials concluded marathon negotiations on Tuesday, agreeing to revive the flow of sensitive goods, such as critical minerals, and implement the terms of last month's deal in Geneva, which saw both sides lower tariffs. That deal included a 90-day pause on very high tariffs both nations implemented on each others' imports that amounted to a de facto trade embargo. It's unclear whether that deadline, which expires in August, remains in effect. —With assistance from James Mayger. NHL Sunshine Girls Sunshine Girls Columnists News


Japan Forward
an hour ago
- Japan Forward
Trump vs Harvard: The Battle Beyond the Headlines
Harvard University, a leading American research institution, has lately been making headlines for less-than-glamorous reasons. President Donald Trump and his team have unleashed a barrage of allegations against the school, from racial discrimination to anti-Semitism, and its alleged dubious ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Among the moves are efforts to curtail Harvard's intake of international students altogether. Faced with external pressures, Harvard is fighting back. Unlike some schools, the university is mounting legal challenges to block federal funding cuts and immigration restrictions, and has even notched some victories. But beneath the daily drama and media theatrics looms a bigger question: What's really driving this showdown? Perhaps the most contentious aspect of Trump's policies involves drastically reducing the number of international students beyond Harvard. Proposals under consideration include capping foreign student enrollment, revoking existing visas, and ending work authorization after graduation. While these measures have invited considerable criticism, they are resonating with a growing segment of the American population. "MAGA voters who supported Trump are largely those who did not attend these elite, leftist universities," said one professor at a top American university, speaking on condition of anonymity. "But it's the lower and middle class and even upper middle class who can't get their children into these universities who are subsidizing them (including international students) through their tax dollars." Supporters posing after a rally for US President-elect Donald Trump, January 19, Washington. (©Kyodo) At a recent Financial Times forum, former White House strategist Steve Bannon argued that curbing foreign competition was essential to give American graduates a fair shot at jobs. "To protect African Americans, Hispanics, working-class and middle-class people, we ought to halt all visas into the country, at least temporarily," he said. Reinforcing Bannon's stance, another professor at an Ivy League University said, "Foreign students should be required to return home immediately after graduation and face tighter restrictions on political activism while in the US." "Working Americans should be educating the sons and daughters of American citizens, not of foreigners," the academic added, also speaking on condition of anonymity. Another key issue driving the administration's crackdown is Beijing's growing influence in American academe. Federal investigators have flagged undisclosed payments, covert research ties, and intellectual property theft linked to Chinese institutions and individuals. A recent article in The Wall Street Journal provides an account of Harvard's extensive relationship with the CCP. With Chinese students constituting a significant portion of its international cohort, Harvard has emerged as a central figure in the debate over foreign influence on American campuses. Campus of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in April. (©Reuters via Kyodo) South Korean attorney and Harvard Law alumnus, Kang Yong-suk, shares these concerns. "Beijing's infiltration of academic institutions is a global problem," he said. "The risks to national security and technological competitiveness are very real." Kang pointed to a June 2024 incident in which South Korean authorities arrested three Chinese students closely tied to the CCP for secretly recording military sites at Busan port. Lawmaker Kim Min-jeon shares a photo of an alleged Chinese student wearing a Tsinghua University jacket participating in an anti-Yoon rally in South Korea. (©Kim Min-jeon FB) Chinese nationals and students were also reported to have participated in political rallies during President Yoon Suk-yeol's impeachment, prompting the Chinese embassy to issue a formal warning. This came as Yoon took a notably hawkish stance toward Beijing during his tenure, aligning his country closely with the West. "Such incidents reflect a broader trend, with countries uncovering similar cases of covert surveillance involving Chinese students," Kang added. "Given China's deep-seated sway at institutions like Harvard, Trump's policies appear inevitable." For years, critics have accused elite American universities of veering sharply to the left and stifling intellectual diversity on campus. Even Harvard's own president, Alan Garber, recently acknowledged his school's noticeable ideological tilt. The Harvard Crimson's 2023 survey is a telling indicator. In its annual poll of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, 77% of respondents identified as either liberal or very liberal, while fewer than 3% identified as conservative. J. Mark Ramseyer, a tenured Harvard Law professor, attests to this imbalance. "The humanities and some social sciences have become extremely intolerant," he said. "A few of us are trying to strengthen intellectual freedom, but progress remains slow." Ramseyer himself faced backlash in 2021 after publishing an 8-page hot-button paper on Japanese history. Hundreds of students and faculty at his university and beyond signed petitions demanding an apology and calling for the withdrawal of his work. The article ultimately survived the controversy. Part of the Trump administration's strategy is to rein in universities perceived as ideologically rigid and academically unaccountable. "University activities, even in science and medicine, have become so corrupted by 'woke' ideology that meaningful change is unlikely without decisive action," said the same Ivy League professor, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Given the iron grip of far left faculty and administrators, the only real hope is to use the leverage of withdrawing government funding." By cutting federal funding, the Trump administration seeks to course correct institutions increasingly viewed as out of touch with the larger American public and core academic principles. So, can Trump prevail over Harvard? Perhaps not in the immediate term. Harvard, like many of its elite peers, is fortified by massive endowments, legal autonomy, and institutional inertia. That said, the cultural tide seems to be shifting. Already, some top-tier universities are questioning sacred cows and rethinking their entrenched practices and norms. Even if Trump's policies fall short of remaking the ivory tower, some academics and experts agree they have succeeded in forcing long-suppressed debates into the global limelight. Among them, of course, are equity in admissions, national interest, and the core mission of higher education. Author: Kenji Yoshida