Authoritarian Drift: How the BC and Federal NDP Are Reshaping Canadian Governance
Reviewing the executive overreach of the NDP and democratic restraint in Canada.
The centralization of political power often begins quietly—not with declarations, but through incremental policy shifts that hollow out oversight, disempower local institutions, and disrupt democratic balances. Across Victoria and Ottawa, the New Democratic Party, both provincially and federally, has pursued a course that raises significant questions about the future of Canadian federalism, parliamentary accountability, and local autonomy.
Executive Overreach in Motion
Major Canadian media—from CBC to the Globe and Mail—have spotlighted Premier David Eby’s Bill 7, widely characterized as a substantial consolidation of provincial power. Headlines frame it as an "indefensible power grab" and draw parallels to emergency governance mechanisms.
Yet beneath these headlines lies a broader structural trend.
Bill 7 enables the BC cabinet to override municipal zoning, authorize land expropriation, and issue binding “development orders” with limited opportunity for municipal appeal or public input. The result is the sidelining of local councils and a decisive shift away from shared governance between provincial and municipal institutions.
The Pattern Behind the Policy: A Doctrine of Centralization
Bill 7 is part of a sustained pattern within NDP-led governments to shift control to the executive, weakening intermediary institutions.
Speculation & Vacancy Tax (2018, BC): Allowed the provincial government to impose taxes without local government consent.
COVID-19 Ministerial Orders (2020–2022, BC): Maintained emergency powers well beyond timelines adopted in most peer provinces.
Reduced Auditor General access (BC): Limited oversight capabilities regarding cabinet-level decision-making.
Federal NDP’s parliamentary support for the Emergencies Act (2022): Facilitated the federal government's use of extraordinary powers, intensifying debates about the erosion of civil liberties.
Federal NDP support for increased regulatory centralization: Encouraged Ottawa to intervene in provincial jurisdictions, particularly in energy and environmental policy.
Consolidating Executive Control: A Consistent Approach
The trendline extends beyond Bill 7, spanning multiple administrations:
Bill 44 (BC, 2023): Mandated upzoning across municipalities, diminishing local planning discretion.
Bill 17 (BC, 2022): Shortened Indigenous consultation periods for major project approvals.
Federal NDP advocacy: Persistent support for centralized regulatory frameworks that expand Ottawa’s authority.
Prolonged emergency governance endorsement: Advocated for extended use of emergency frameworks both provincially and federally.
Echoes from Canada’s Past
This centralizing trajectory mirrors moments in Canadian history where governments leveraged crises to consolidate power:
War Measures Act (1970): Suspended civil liberties during the October Crisis.
Emergencies Act (2022): Enacted with federal NDP backing, raising national debates about proportionality.
National Energy Program (1980): Deepened federal-provincial tensions by overriding provincial control over natural resources.
Bill 22 (BC NDP, 2012): Challenged in court for infringing on collective bargaining rights.
BC’s extended pandemic emergency orders: Outlasted those in most other provinces, keeping key decisions centralized.
A Divergence from Canadian Federalism
The BC and federal NDP’s approach increasingly challenges Canada's constitutional commitment to subsidiarity and responsible government as enshrined in the Constitution Act, 1867.
Bill 7’s override powers marginalize municipal authority, centralizing zoning decisions within provincial executive structures.
The Emergencies Act’s invocation and normalization reflect shifting federal attitudes toward extraordinary executive measures.
BC’s housing mandates, such as Bill 44, stand in stark contrast to frameworks in Alberta and Quebec, where municipal authority is protected under acts like Alberta’s Municipal Government Act.
Prolonged pandemic powers in BC concentrated decision-making power at the executive level far longer than in most other provinces.
The Pragmatism Narrative
While framed as pragmatic responses to urgent issues—housing shortages, public protests, or public health emergencies—the cumulative effect has been the steady expansion of executive discretion. Premier Eby articulated this perspective in 2024: “We cannot let municipal dysfunction stand in the way of the province’s housing agenda” (CHEK News). This approach, while positioned as necessary leadership, underscores a governing philosophy that deprioritizes democratic deliberation and consultation.
Conclusion: A Governance Shift with Long-Term Implications
From local councils in British Columbia to parliamentary processes in Ottawa, these developments reflect a significant governance shift, one that privileges administrative efficiency over deliberative democracy.
As these trends continue, Canadians must confront an essential question: To what extent should executive bodies consolidate authority at the expense of institutions rooted closer to the people they serve?