First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Thursday, February 27, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 12

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Rob Botterell

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert

Hon. Garry Begg

Amna Shah

Hon. Christine Boyle

Hon. Brittny Anderson

Dallas Brodie

Steve Morissette

Gavin Dew

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Peter Milobar

On the amendment

Peter Milobar

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson

Peter Milobar

On the main motion

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson

George Anderson

Hon. Rick Glumac

Susie Chant

Thursday, February 27, 2025

The House met at 1:03 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : I would like to call continued second reading of Bill 4, Business Practices and Consumer

Protection Amendment Act.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Business Practices and

Consumer Protection

Amendment Act, 2025

(continued)

Rob Botterell : I rise to offer observations and response regarding Bill 4, the Business Practices

and Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 2025.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

I offer a view from this side of the House that may differ from the official opposition

critics’ view. I just want to note that this side of the House does not always have

that same view. We are encouraged by this legislation. It strengthens consumer protection.

It clarifies information for businesses.

This bill, when passed, will help protect vulnerable communities from predatory business

practices and contracts. Seniors, new Canadians, those with language barriers or disabilities

and many others will benefit from the clarity that this act provides.

[1:05 p.m.]

This bill did not come out of thin air. There was public engagement in 2022, and there

has been engagement with key stakeholders, as we heard earlier today. These changes

are consistent with recent consumer protection changes in Ontario, New Brunswick,

Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador. This is the way in which we can act as legislatures

to ensure modern and up-to-date protection for consumers and also clarity for businesses

and clear rules over prohibited contract terms; contract requirements; contract cancellation;

renewing contracts; and unilateral amendments, refunds and returns.

These are good things, and they really help create an environment for consumers and

businesses where everybody knows exactly what’s expected of them. We’re particularly

supportive of the door-to-door sales provisions. We are supportive of this bill and

look forward to the committee stage.

We wish to note that clear and successful communication and implementation of a bill

like this, with the changes, will strengthen the marketplace and will deal with suppliers

or retailers that don’t abide by the rules in a much more fair and equitable way and

will protect consumers.

We look forward to committee stage. We believe that the implementation of this bill,

once passed, can be successfully achieved and that there will be broad-based support

for this legislation.

Deputy Speaker : Recognizing the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : I am happy to stand, as I recognize that when you stand, you get recognized, so thank

you, hon. Speaker.

I’m keen to support Bill 4. I think it’s good legislation. It’s consumer protection

legislation, and I’ve looked at the issues of consumer protection quite closely. I

work very closely with the West End Seniors Network in my community, an incredible

organization that has been working on issues of support for seniors in the West End

since the 1970s, if not earlier. I’m an honorary member, which is an honour more to

me than it is to them, I’m sure.

It’s a great organization that advocates for the voices of seniors who, in many cases,

have been taken advantage of. They stand up against elder abuse. They stand up against

manipulation, extortion and those kinds of phone calls that some seniors get where

people pretend to be a loved one in order to get bank information or quick money.

I know the seniors advocate has spoken in support of this legislation, very specifically,

because he knows and his team knows — as well as, I hope, most of us understand —

that for seniors in particular, if they have been manipulated and extorted or cheated

out of their money, it’s very difficult to get that back. They may not know who to

talk to. They may be afraid. They may not know that they indeed have been manipulated.

This legislation takes good, strong action. I think for the first time in quite a

few years, we’re seeing a strengthening in this level of consumer protection legislation,

and I’m glad for it.

Just as Dan Levitt, our seniors advocate, has heard these stories, I’m sure many of

us have. I think of a senior who was given a cell phone so she could connect with

her children and her grandchildren, a great way so that they could do FaceTime together

and could send messages. She described to me how important it was for her, in particular,

during the challenges of COVID and being afraid to go out and not sure what she could

do and wanting to make sure she was safe, to protect herself and her community around

her.

[1:10 p.m.]

She used that phone a lot. Slowly, over time, she said, she wasn’t sure why, but she

was paying more. Then she was finding that at the end of the month, there was even

less money to go around. It wasn’t that she’d increased her spending — she was very

focused on it — but, for whatever reason, her credit card kept adding more expenses.

What had happened, I think, as she described, is her grandchild was over, was playing

with the phone with her. They’d had one of those moments when the restrictions were

lifted a little bit. They had time together. The kid was playing with the phone, and

I guess they signed her up for a bunch of apps, fun games.

You know, it looks fun. You search this…. Anyone who has looked themselves…. I know

some members of this House love playing those online games or offline games on their

phones sometimes. But I know kids, in many cases, love it even more.

So they signed them up. It wasn’t really clear when the kid signed it, I suppose,

what the costs were. There was no clear direction around what the contract was, but

I guess it was linked through to her phone and through to her credit card. The costs

kept adding on, and then the next year came by, and the costs were still there.

Now, as she described it, the cost kept increasing, but the kid wasn’t even playing

with the apps anymore. She didn’t even know the apps were on the phone. She wasn’t

notified in any real way that she was being charged these amounts. She wasn’t being

notified that it was going to automatically roll over and, at the time of rollover,

was going to increase. That’s the kind of story that…. Unless you’re really going

through with a fine-tooth comb, sometimes those things get missed.

Now, over time, folks were able to sit down with her and look through. “Okay, let’s

take a look at that credit card statement. Let’s take a look at what your banking

information is telling us.” Over time, we were able to work with her to be able to

look at that information.

Now, she was embarrassed. She was a bit ashamed because she is very focused on making

sure she can pay her bills. She is a proud woman, and to understand that it had gotten

away from her was hard to take. Through no fault of her own, in a way — she was just

trying to be a good grandma — she ended up having to spend more on apps that were

never used, and that was taking out of her food budget. That was making it harder

for her to pay her rent.

This legislation, I believe, will go some distance to making it harder for that situation

to happen because notification of automatic rollovers of contracts will have to happen.

Now, of course, there is always, sometimes, a missed email or a missed letter and

so on, so you can never completely account for this 100 percent.

But we have to give the people the chance to know where their money is going. We have

to give them a chance that if it’s going up, if the costs are increasing, they have

some notice of it. In her case, it could have meant the difference that she would

be able to ask her daughter, “Oh, what does this cost?” or ask somebody: “What is

this name?”

On bills, sometimes when you look at them, you’re not really clear where that cost

came from because the vendor name does not always match the name of the product. It

doesn’t always match to make it clear what you’re actually spending on. Sometimes

it’s a numbered company, and unless you know how to google and how to search and try

and check out corporate registries and other stuff, it’s not always understandable

where that charge came from.

I’m thankful to the Attorney General for listening to the voices of seniors, for listening

to the seniors advocate, for listening to the voices of children — the adult children,

in some cases, of seniors.

I should be clear it’s not just seniors this impacts. I noticed a charge on my own

credit card the other day, and I went: “Oh, okay, this isn’t correct. This is not

something….” We thought it was a one-time thing, but it automatically rolled over.

Now, after some sleuthing, after some work back and forth, we could figure out what

this company is and who they are charging and why, and we were able to get it reversed.

But it was one of those things where….

People live busy lives, and they assume that they’ve paid things, that they understand

it, and they continue forth. Then a few months later, if they look, sometimes it feels

like it’s too late to get that money returned because: “Oh, you’re back in for a whole

other year, but we have increased the amount that you have to spend.”

I haven’t heard it so much in my community in terms of door-to-door sales, but I have

heard it a little bit in terms of high-pressure tactics where people show up at your

door and really, basically refuse to leave.

[1:15 p.m.]

“Well, this is a great product. You want it. Sign here. Don’t worry. No money down.

No cost.” It sounds too good to be true. Of course, it usually is. But when you’re

a high-pressure salesperson, sometimes you know the buttons to press. You know how

to get your foot in the door, sometimes quite literally. You’re there. You’re big.

You’re maybe not big; maybe you’re just very charming.

There are ways that things sound good, and you think: “Oh, I’ve got a trial period

to think about that. Well, if I sign here, sure, I can actually in a month’s time

change my mind or talk to somebody.” Then you find you are a few months in, and well,

too late down the road, you’ve ended up buying something that you can’t afford that

was not actually as advertised. The price was a lot more than you thought, and you

have very little ability to turn that around.

Now, I understand there may be some who go: “Well, this is just added burden on business.”

Most business people will tell you that they don’t like these kinds of operators.

Most business people tell me, and I think are very clear, that they want to support

good regulation, smart regulation. They want to support legislation that targets the

bad folks, leaving room for the good folks, those that are actually following the

rules. Most business people do not want to see seniors or anybody targeted through

manipulation, through coercion, through tricks of the trade, through hiding what the

actual contract terms are.

Being able to address legislation that requires greater clarity gives greater freedom

to the consumer, gives greater freedom to make choices in your own best interest.

I think that’s something we all should support. When you have knowledge, you can have

more power, more power as a consumer and more power as a businessperson as well. Then

you know what your expectation is, and you plan for it so that there aren’t surprises

through the courts, where all of a sudden something has now changed. You thought you

were running it this way, but the court rules that, actually, it’s a manipulative

practice.

Well, maybe you were just doing it because somebody else has always operated that

way. Well, no. We’ve got to have clarity that protects the consumer, that protects

our people, that protects our constituents, the vulnerable, the marginalized, sometimes

those that may feel pressured because they do not have the financial resources to

hire a lawyer and to ask them to assess this contract.

I don’t know how many of you in this House or at home look at a thing on a phone,

look at a travel contract, look at a contract to buy a new car. You get these huge,

long lists of paperwork that you have to read through. I know sometimes I hear from

constituents that just go: “Oh, yeah. I just signed it.” I go, “Really? You haven’t

read through it,” and they say: “Well, it’s legalese. I’m sure if it was bad that

somebody would tell me, so I assume it’s all good.”

How many people have read through their Apple contract or their iPhone contract or

the app contract that you sign when you download a weather app or something like that?

A lot of people don’t. That’s why it’s our obligation as government.

Sometimes the language is very hard to understand. The typeface is about as small

as you can read it, and it’s challenging to actually get a sense of what you’re signing

on to. I think it’s incumbent upon us to make sure when you have a contract, when

you have a requirement, that it be clear, that it be in language that people can understand,

that you understand how to dispute it.

I think lately there’s a real trend of people buying online, more and more things

online. They’ll purchase a product online. Certainly, you see some of these videos

now where people buy something like a rice cooker, and they go: “Oh, my goodness.

This is a great deal on a rice cooker.”

They buy it online, and they make a contracted purchase. Then it arrives, and it’s

about this small. It’s a miniature rice cooker that you would put on your fridge as

a magnet. It’s actually not a rice cooker at all. It looks like a rice cooker, but

you could not cook one grain of rice in it, let alone a whole meal. Then people go:

“Well, how do I return it?” Well, this company doesn’t really exist.

Now, I don’t know. Obviously, there is a challenge with international commerce and

trade internationally as well. We want to make sure people purchase from credible

organizations. Of course, we’re urging people to buy local with people that you actually

can have some sort of a relationship with, as much as that’s possible, because the

money stays in our province, stays in our country.

But not everything is for sale in only our province or our country, so we have to

make sure, as much as we can within our own realm, and I know there are certainly

international trade agreements and obligations that we also have to work with, that

people do have that level of comfort that they can return an object. Of course, sometimes

there are mailing fees. Sometimes there are those kinds of charges and costs.

[1:20 p.m.]

You’ve got to be clear of those up front, as well, so that if there is an issue, you

know who to call or who to email or where to send it and what the actual process is

to do that. People like to purchase online now, and I certainly know in some communities

that’s easier than a long-distance trip somewhere to purchase objects.

We also know that of course, people should be protected when they do that, just as

they would be if they went into their regular brick-and-mortar store, so to speak,

and bought some clothing. They know they can go back to that store and return it if

it wasn’t properly stitched or sewn or put together or whatever the reasons are that

you would have to return something like that.

Strengthening consumer protection laws is really one of the jobs of government. It’s

making sure we do protect our citizens so that when they are making a purchase…. Money

is tight for a lot of our citizens. When they make a purchase, they should know what

the expectation is of the person who is selling it and what the responsibility is

of them, to them and to standing behind that purchase. I think that’s something that

most shopkeepers will tell you they want to do. They want to be clear.

But even business people will tell you that some of the contracts they have to negotiate

are challenging. They too are purchasers of goods and products and want to make sure

that their contracts with their sellers are legitimate and do not have hidden clauses

that all of a sudden jack up costs for them without any protections or any place to

go, because businesses often are consumers in that sense too.

I don’t have a lot more to add to the conversation on this one. I think there are

a number of MLAs, I’m sure, who want to talk about some specific issues that might

have happened to their constituents, as I have.

I think this legislation…. I didn’t even get into the question of cell phones and

telecom. That’s certainly an area that I’ve heard about from constituents, as well,

and the clarity on those kinds of contracts. There’s been some work done over time

to make those improvements, but things change too. You add in the internet, you add

in your Wi-Fi and you add in your data charges and other questions, roaming charges….

The list goes on about different charges, and they add up.

I think, of course, one of the examples cited is the question of tickets and drip

pricing. You buy a ticket, and you’re connected through purchasing a ticket to go

to see a show. Then there’s a surprise avalanche of all these other little prices

and fees that you were not aware of. For some folks, that makes the difference between,

well, if they would have actually bought the ticket if they knew about all the other

pricing or not, and what you advertise versus what the final cost is.

I’m supportive of this legislation. I think contract transparency is important. I

think coercive activities, obviously, are not supported. We want to make sure we protect

our constituents.

I thank the seniors advocate for their work to improve this legislation. I thank consumers,

the public, for speaking out and raising challenges they see for increased support.

I’m always interested in other ways we can support consumers, support our public,

our people, to be treated fairly in the marketplace. I’m proud to support this legislation.

Deputy Speaker : Recognizing the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Hon. Garry Begg : Thank you, Madam Speaker. Welcome to the chair. It’s nice to see you elevated to

that lofty position.

That’s a joke.

As the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General for this province, ensuring

that people have a sense of safety and security in their daily lives is very important

to me. This also includes ensuring that people know their rights as consumers and

that they are protected from unfair business practices.

I am pleased that the key amendments to British Columbia’s Business Practice and Consumer

Protection Act, introduced by my colleague the Attorney General, ensure a fairer,

more transparent and accountable marketplace for all British Columbians. B.C.’s protective

consumer laws were last updated in 2004, and the marketplace has evolved significantly

since then.

[1:25 p.m.]

British Columbians have been hit with hidden fees and unclear contracts for far too

long. They have faced unfair contract terms and predatory sales practices on everyday

items. That’s why we’re taking action to better protect people from unfair business

practices in an increasingly complex marketplace. They will give us the tools to crack

down on any business which chooses to flout the law and give the people more power

over the purchases they make for various products and services.

With these proposed amendments, businesses will be required to provide clear contract

terms up front, including renewal, cancellation and refund policies so consumers fully

understand, at the outset, their agreements before signing any contract. Additionally,

through their contracts, businesses can no longer prevent consumers from leaving reviews,

joining class action lawsuits or needing access to costly private arbitration when

there is a dispute.

We are prohibiting door-to-door sales of high-cost household products, such as furnaces

or heat pumps, or the offering of credit for a direct sale. We’ve heard, for example,

in my own riding, of stories where door-to-door salespeople use high-pressure contracts

to influence senior citizens into buying furnace contracts that cost them far more

than the actual value of the furnace. This will not happen anymore.

These changes reflect the evolving marketplace and bring B.C. into line with leading

consumer protection laws across the country. It will give consumers in this province

the ability to use the Civil Resolution Tribunal to adjudicate disputes. The amendments

will ensure greater clarity and fairness for consumers while helping businesses create

an environment of trust and accountability. For consumers, this means greater clarity,

stronger protections and fairer business practices. For businesses, these amendments

create a level playing field that rewards ethical practice.

Some of these changes, as has been announced, will take effect immediately on royal

assent. Other changes in this bill will require businesses to take steps to prepare

for implementation, and we will bring these in later by regulation.

British Columbians deserve a marketplace that is fair, transparent and works in their

best interests. With these changes, we are strengthening consumer rights, holding

businesses accountable and ensuring that people have more information they need to

make informed financial decisions.

As Solicitor General, I know that people are looking to our government to ensure public

safety and to protect people’s rights in our rapidly changing world. Rest assured;

we are going to keep working hard to implement real solutions so people can build

a good life in a safe community.

Amna Shah : I am pleased to rise today and speak in support of this bill, the proposed amendments.

I want to thank the Attorney General and her team for taking on this important work.

Frankly, when I think about this bill and what it means, it reminds me of what government

is actually meant for. It’s meant to have a positive impact on our communities. It’s

meant to protect, to uphold standards so that people can be protected. As I listened

to the members prior, it solidified in my mind now that these proposed amendments,

they don’t just protect consumers; they actually protect businesses as well. I’ll

discuss the latter in just a little while.

I want to start by saying that these proposed amendments to the act…. At its core,

of course, consumers are at the heart of these changes. It allows them to be provided

with accurate information when they buy goods and services, honest pricing. Without

such protections, consumers — they’re vulnerable. Exploitation.

[1:30 p.m.]

I’ll give you an example, because I know of lots of people, actually, who’ve been

affected by such practices, myself included. I remember buying onto a streaming service,

and really, it was very attractive to me, just like it would be attractive to other

people. Well, the reality of it was, yes, I could request to cancel at any time, but

processing the cancellation in itself would not happen for another three months after

I wanted to cancel. That meant paying another three months for a service that I no

longer required, that I did not want.

The effects of that…. Of course, there’s a financial burden. There are those who are

doing with a lot less nowadays, and that’s not a cost that they can bear. Thinking

about the frustrations that it had caused me…. It may have been a bit of a minor charge

for me, but that’s not the same for other people. It’s also the sense of betrayal

that you feel when you buy a service or a product and you realize that all is not

as it seems.

When we require companies to disclose this type of critical information about their

products and their services, consumers are actually empowered. They’re empowered to

make better choices, avoiding situations where they can be taken advantage of. Without

these types of amendments, we’re really going in a direction which has already hurt

a lot of people. This is an effort to really safeguard that trust that businesses

should be able to develop with their customers and with consumers all across the province.

Speaking on that trust, it impacts lots of things downstream. When consumers feel

secure that their interests are being safeguarded in their contracts — they’re getting

the service; everything is laid out for them — they are, in the future, much more

likely to engage in such transactions and have confidence in businesses. On the other

hand, if they’re experiencing deceit, fraud, they’re much less likely to purchase

products and services.

Members in this House have probably heard about the story of a gentleman, maybe not

in this province, who had purchased what he thought was a very expensive toolkit —

we know tools, especially power tools, are very expensive — and thought he knew what

he was getting, had a picture of it and all the specifics and details. But what arrived

in the mail was a picture of the toolbox.

Yeah, you’d think I’m joking here, but that’s what happened. He got a picture of the

toolbox along with a couple of drill bits in there. We’re talking about hundreds of

dollars that this consumer had spent. It sounds outrageous, but that is the reality

of what’s actually happening in our communities.

The question really is: how do we protect consumers and, at the same time, instil

confidence in our market here in this province? What we find is that when consumers

have access to clear policies, to clear language around how their contract is going

to be treated by the business or the company, it actually fosters a sense of loyalty

between the consumer and the business. I know that businesses across this province

want to have customer loyalty. Who doesn’t?

[1:35 p.m.]

Businesses want sound regulations which will help instil consumer confidence in their

business and in their practices. That is especially evident for small businesses —

small businesses that really build up their reputations on the quality of their product

and the quality of the service, the relationship that they build with the customer

over many, many years.

I’ll give you an example. There’s an older couple out in Salmon Arm that produces

fine leather good products at fairly reasonable prices. They’ve been doing that for

many, many years. They’re fully transparent with their customers — I’ve purchased

from them — about the process that they use to build their goods, the types of warranties

that are involved, so that if you’re unhappy….

What happens if you’re unhappy with the way that a product looks, or you want to return

it? I can tell you that they’ve been operating for about 50 years. They operate because

of the merit of the work that they do and the trust that they’ve established with

their consumers.

One of the other things that these amendments can do is encourage fair competition

in our market. When companies and businesses set clear rules and do not engage in

anti-competitive practices like price fixing or false advertising or that fine print

that really gets consumers…. When they are forced to compete fairly, I personally

think that they are really incentivized, at that point, to innovate and to improve

product quality and to reduce prices for consumers because they’re in a much healthier

marketplace.

I find it perplexing, actually, I’ve heard members prior to me speak about how this

impacts businesses negatively. I firmly believe that businesses want to compete fairly.

They want to provide an honest product and an honest service. I’ve really not met

any, especially small, business owners who think otherwise. I know there has been

extensive public consultation and consultation with stakeholders prior to the recommendation

of these amendments. I know that in my home riding, there are lots of small businesses

that would so much appreciate a bill such as this.

The other vital element of this bill is that it gives consumers the ability to use

the Civil Resolution Tribunal to adjudicate disputes under the BPCPA. That’s really

important.

I will give you another example, of somebody I know who went through a very lengthy

complaint process with a business that was not forthcoming about the price increases

in the contract. We’re talking about an individual, and a family, who is not rich.

They live a very humble life and were feeling so shackled for two years.

For two years, they were going back and forth with this business. It would have been

longer than two years had they not decided: “You know what? That’s it. I give up.”

The sunk costs, the frustrations, the headaches that come along with that and just

the general mistrust that is created as a result…. What was the use of that?

[1:40 p.m.]

Sometimes it’s heartbreaking to see that some of these individuals are actually some

of the most vulnerable in our communities. I’m talking about seniors in our communities

— seniors who, when they meet a young, charming person at their door who claims to

sell a very-high-expense product, then realize that nothing was as it seems. Really,

forget about the ethical portion of it and think about the emotional component. It’s

heartbreaking to see that somebody who has given so much to this province and their

community would be taken advantage of in that way.

When we allow there to be an easier way for consumers to address their grievances

or complaints with an authority, you’re instilling that confidence in consumers, not

just that they would be protected but also that there is justice down the line that

they can count on, that they can rely on.

Going back to some of those high-cost household products that are sometimes sold at

the doors, sometimes some of these companies are very hard to reach once something

happens. You’re unable to get to the right person. You’re constantly in this circular

discussion with, let’s say, a sales representative who can’t help you because maybe

the decision does not lie with them, and accessing a manager can be even more difficult.

Understanding the importance of this is the beginning and a small component of why

we need to do something about this.

I firmly believe that this bill is actually going to foster some great economic growth

and stability in our province. That, as we all know, is something that we regularly

are chasing. Members of this House are always trying to find ways for how we can encourage

and facilitate success in our business community. So I am very, very glad that this

bill is here for us to debate.

I really encourage the speakers after me, the members after me, to think about not

just the protections that this has for consumers but the overall health of our communities,

when we’re talking about the spending of money that occurs for businesses and for

consumers as well.

In conclusion, I’m so pleased to support this bill. I really want to thank the Attorney

General and her team for taking this on, because the impact of this is a practical

benefit to everybody’s lives. That is the important part of being an elected member:

really trying to find those ways in which you can affect people’s lives positively

every single day. This is exactly one of the ways in which you can do that.

Hon. Christine Boyle : I, too, am grateful to have this time and honour to speak in support of Bill 4, the

Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 2025.

I am so proud of my colleague the Attorney General for her work on this bill, which

contains the first meaningful amendments to the Business Practices and Consumer Protection

Act since 2004. It will ensure stronger protections for consumers in B.C. and a fairer

marketplace.

[1:45 p.m.]

Bill 4 proposes amendments that will positively impact how British Columbians interact

with the very businesses we rely on daily, whether it’s through television, cell phones

or streaming, and ensure more accountability for us as consumers.

Many of us have been victims of poor business practices, even to this day. Members

of this House, I am sure, have been caught off guard by phantom charges and terms

that aren’t apparent until it’s already too late. These changes proposed are necessary.

That’s why our government is proposing to require businesses to provide important

contract terms up front; introduce notification requirements for subscription renewals;

restrict significant contract changes without consent; and, prohibit contract terms

that restrict participation in class action lawsuits, consumer reviews or private

arbitration requirements for dispute resolution; and reduce the risk of predatory

sales tactics.

These changes will provide clarity for the consumer and remove the unnecessary red

tape that often catches us off guard. Ensuring that British Columbians have the tools

they need and the necessary information to make informed and secure purchases is essential.

Predatory practices also must be held accountable. That’s why, through this proposed

amendment, British Columbians will be empowered to use the Civil Resolution Tribunal

to adjudicate disputes.

Now, much has changed since 2004, the last time that this legislation was updated.

Since 2004, the iPhone has been created. In 2004, some members of this House may remember

Shrek 2 was the No. 1 movie — a hit, I will tell you. The No. 1 song: “Yeah!” by Usher, featuring

Lil Jon and Ludacris.

Some members of this House may….

Interjection.

Hon. Christine Boyle : I’m not singing it. I did consider it. I’m not going to sing it.

It was an early innovation in what was then referred to as “crunk music,” which I

am also not going to define or explain in this room, but we can all feel old looking

it up on the internet later. I look forward to another colleague standing up next

and singing this song.

Now, I also want to add that in 2004, the Minister of Infrastructure and the MLA for

Kelowna-Mission and I were all students at UBC together, engaging in politics in various

ways, occasionally also across the aisle, so to speak, from one another, debating

the finer points of student politics. Not everything has changed a lot since 2004,

admittedly, but many important things have.

So 2004 was a long time ago, and in terms of technology and consumer protections,

important things have changed, and this legislation needs to keep up to protect consumers

across this province.

I remember when nothing was more expensive than a teenager’s cell phone bill. I remember

hearing horror stories of teenagers or young adults who would receive their monthly

bill containing hundreds or even thousands of dollars in hidden or additional fees.

not stated clearly, or the penalties were unreasonably unfair.

in detail, and I am even more sure that those of us who have teenagers can relate

of a young adult now.

[1:50 p.m.]

It was then, and continues to be, truly a burden on young individuals who are just

starting to navigate the world of financial responsibility. Today, whether you’re

a teen getting your first cell phone or a senior signing up for a plan to stay in

touch with your loved ones, having a mobile device is crucial.

For seniors, it’s not just a matter of convenience but a matter of safety. They need

to be able to reach out for help whenever they need it. There’s a seniors club in

my riding, run by a volunteer senior who offers training to other seniors in the community

on how to use an iPhone.

I can tell you, you have never been to a more wholesome workshop than this workshop,

offered regularly, where seniors bring their own technology and sit around a table

talking through how to access emails and how to make a video call to their children

or grandchildren — the very basics of these devices, which provide not just critically

important social connections for an increasingly isolated demographic of our communities

but also important access to health services or other community supports.

These cell phones can be lifelines for seniors. Ensuring that they are protected from

predatory behaviour or unfair contracts is an important responsibility that this government

is stepping up to. The cost of living should not be unfairly impacted by hidden fees

that could put seniors living on a fixed income at risk.

For teenagers and young adults entering into these contracts, sometimes the first

They should not have to worry about hidden fees or unclear terms that could lead to

financial hardship.

Entering a contract is a relationship. A company providing a service should want to

keep their customers as informed as possible. Good relationships are built on trust,

respect and openness. I would hope any company that wants your business doesn’t want

it by tricking you into it. That’s why good consumer protection laws are so important.

They ensure that there is a safeguard for everyone, especially our most vulnerable.

As a mom, I know these challenges all too well. I can tell you: my older kid got her

first cell phone at age 12. She was taking the bus to school, and she had been lobbying

us for it. At that point, we also wanted it for her own safety and for our ability

to get hold of her.

At age 12, these contracts are complicated, as are the various ways that apps and

service providers attempt to trick young people into more fees than they intended,

more fees than their family members, in our case, were helping pay for. We had more

than one occasion where that was the case in our own family. I am lucky to have many,

many young people in my life. They’re all getting a bit older. I have seen waves of

kids hit this moment, where they’re getting their first cell phone.

Parents are wrestling really deeply, not just with a whole bunch of questions about

screen time and safety online but also with these pieces around financial expectations,

predictability and avoiding excess costs. I have heard far too many stories of massive

overage fees that they didn’t know about and that had a huge and unexpected financial

impact on a family trying to get by.

Many of my constituents in Vancouver–Little Mountain will see these proposed amendments

as their government looking out for them. Significantly reducing financial vulnerability

and supporting people with the growing global inflation and uncertainty in our economy

could not be more important, especially in respect of the threats from our southern

border.

[1:55 p.m.]

These amendments will also force businesses to be more fair. Whether you are buying

a new cell phone, signing up for a free trial or ordering the next biggest thing online,

these changes will improve day-to-day lives for every person who interacts with our

economy.

Let’s face it: so much of our economy has touchpoints to each of the pieces outlined

in this bill. For far too long, people have experienced these challenges. They have

experienced being taken advantage of. People who use these services have too many

stories of being tricked or taken for granted. That’s why we remain focused on people

and on supporting them in their everyday lives.

In closing, I want to highlight that these changes are very significant and much needed.

I hope this House is united in ensuring British Columbians are protected from the

predatory practices of businesses and better informed before entering some of the

most significant contracts of their lives.

I continue to be proud of the work this government is doing to better protect people

across B.C. and to create a fairer, more transparent market in our future.

Deputy Speaker : Recognizing the Minister of State for Local Governments and Rural Communities.

Hon. Brittny Anderson : Hon. Speaker, it is wonderful to see you in the chair.

I am really grateful for the opportunity to be able to speak today in favour of Bill

4, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act.

Before I dive into the importance of this bill, I do want to recognize that we have

three visitors in the House today. I have Ridhee Gupta, Jane Zhang and Rik Logtenberg.

We were having a meeting in my office earlier when I was requested to come and speak.

I apologize to them for having to cut the meeting short.

They are working on a really incredible program that, I believe, is going to change

the future. It is all about resilience, whether that is resilience in the face of

climate change or in the face of tariffs. It will be available for communities, whether

that is a physical community, like the city of Nelson where I grew up and where I

am MLA for, Kootenay Central, or whether it’s for a community, for instance, like

the forestry industry.

There is so much potential here that they are unlocking through this technology, and

I am so grateful that they are here today.

Can the House please make them feel very welcome.

I also just want to say a special shout out to Rik. Rik and I served on Nelson city

council together. He was instrumental in helping me get elected here, not the first

time but the second time.

I so appreciate your confidence, Rik, and everything that you have done for our community

of Nelson. You’ve been a true leader on climate — whether that’s at the council table,

working with higher levels of government or in your role here today with CanAdapt.

Not only a colleague but a dear friend. I always appreciate getting to walk in the

woods with you and getting to strategize about making this world a better place. It

is really wonderful to have you here in the audience today.

Now back to the bill, which I know the members on both sides are very eager to hear

about, the B.C. Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act. These proposed

changes are going to modernize legislation to ensure stronger protection for consumers

and a fairer marketplace, which is incredibly important.

We all feel how incredibly important certainty is today more than ever, as we are

faced — not only as individuals, not only as a province, not only as a country but

the world — with threats of tariffs. The world order has been disrupted with these

threats, and we feel this on a really deep level. Our government is doing everything

that we can do to act and to prepare ourselves to diversify our markets in the face

of these threats.

[2:00 p.m.]

We also know that individual certainty on contracts, when you’re purchasing products,

is absolutely necessary. We know that most business owners and operators are doing

the best they can for their customers, but of course there is, at times, predatory

behaviour out there.

One of the things I was really grateful to see in this bill was the banning of direct

sales of high-cost household products at the doorstep. I know in Kootenay Central

— I believe it was this summer, if not the summer before — there were people that

felt that…. Someone had come to the door, they were providing them with a product

and a service, and they felt high pressure in order to sign that contract. Then the

service that was provided was subpar, and they weren’t actually able to contact the

company after or be able to get that money.

I know all of us in this room have likely faced high-pressure sales at the doorstep.

I do want to be clear that not all high-pressured sales at the doorstep are going

to be covered. For lower priced items…. I know if you’ve ever opened the door and

you see some young people in front of you and they’re selling you Girl Guide cookies,

nothing, nothing could be a higher-pressure sales tactic than buying…. I can see members

on both sides agreeing with me.

You know you’re not going to get out of there. You’re not going to be able to just

buy one. No, you’re going to end up buying multiple. Are there different flavours

available? Are you going to potentially end up giving them as gifts? Now for up to

$999, those Girl Guides will be able to sell their cookies, but not a dollar more.

We do appreciate all of the work and the leadership training that Girl Guides do,

whether it’s at the doorstep or learning how to camp or serving their communities.

But I’m just wanting everyone to know that they won’t be able to sell above $1,000

per sale at the doorstep. So that’s, I believe, important for all of us. I can see

some nods on both sides. We do really….

This is to say thank you so much for all of the volunteers that do run the Girl Guides.

It’s an incredibly important organization that I was a part of for years. I was definitely

one of those young people on the doorstep with high-pressure sales tactics. Certainly,

I felt like it made me more capable in order to be able to knock on those doors during

election time and also between election times. So those high-pressure sales tactics,

some of us have learned them very young.

I was actually speaking with someone yesterday and they brought up this bill to me.

They had heard the announcement that our Attorney General had made, and they were

really excited about it. Now, it’s not every day that I’m at the Pacific Salmon Foundation

event and someone wants to talk about consumer protection. That, I believe, is because

all of us have faced challenges around it at different phases of our lives.

This has been 20 years, since 2004, when it was last updated. The member who was previously

speaking, the minister, was talking about different things in her life that were happening

in 2004. For me, in 2004, I was in high school, in grade 12, and getting prepared

to graduate.

I was the prime minister of the school at that time, a role that I was really honoured

to have, but I didn’t realize how well it would set me up for this role. It was a

different level of politics, but high school politics can also be very fierce. I appreciate

what I was able to do in Grade 12 at the local government level and here as MLA and

the Minister of State for Local Governments and Rural Communities.

The proposed changes to the legislation will require businesses to provide important

contract terms up front, including improved remedies for consumers around renewal,

cancellation, returns and refund policies, particularly for online orders, bringing

more transparency to pre-purchase contracts.

It will also introduce notification requirements for automatic subscription renewals

and restrict significant contract changes without the consumer’s consent. I know we

have heard stories where folks…. I believe it was an internet contract…. All of a

sudden, they were locked in for a term and then that provider was actually charging

them. They had changed the rate and were charging them more and more.

[2:05 p.m.]

With this legislation, when it moves forward, they won’t be able to do that. So this

is really about protecting the consumer. One of the former members was speaking about

young people. I know the first contract I signed was a cell phone bill contract. My

parents had always taught me to read everything before you sign it, and I had never

read a legal document like a cell phone contract before. Although I had my parents

beside me, when you’re in that store and trying to make a determination and really

trying to understand the contract, that can be quite challenging.

We have also heard, in terms of seniors, how sometimes there are people that look

specifically to predate on seniors. This legislation will really try to make sure

that whether you’re young or you’re old or you’re just busy, you have rights, and

we’re protecting British Columbians.

I look forward to hearing other folks and how they feel about this bill, because it

will also prohibit contract terms that restrict participation in class action lawsuits,

restrict consumer reviews or require private arbitration for disputes.

Now, if you have had a negative experience with a company, it should be your right….

You should not be contractually prohibited from providing a negative review if that

was your experience. Many of us read reviews before we purchase products or before

we stay at a place to determine: “Are we going to get good value for our money?” If

a company wants to prohibit that, that is unfair. So we’re making sure that you are

now going to be able to leave customer reviews once you’ve purchased products.

We’re also providing clear pathways for consumers to cancel contracts under specified

conditions and give consumers the ability to use the Civil Resolution Tribunal to

adjudicate disputes under B.C. Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act.

These new changes aim to raise consumer awareness. I believe that consumer awareness

is already happening, considering I had someone come up to me and talk about how much

this bill meant to them when they heard about the details about what we’re proposing

to change. I’m glad that awareness is already starting to happen, and I think that’s

going to happen on a real grassroots level, as well, as government provides information

to people.

We are going to strengthen consumer protection laws that reflect our government’s

commitment to affordability and fairness, ensuring British Columbians have tools and

information needed to make informed purchases.

Some people might ask why these changes are necessary. B.C.’s consumer protection

laws were last updated in 2004, and the marketplace has evolved significantly since

then. Consumers are facing increasing risks of fraud, and vulnerable populations such

as seniors; newcomers; young people, like I spoke about before; individuals with disabilities;

and those with lower incomes are often targeted by predatory business practices. These

amendments address these issues by improving consumer rights, protections and transparency.

With that, I just want to clearly state my support for this bill. I would like to

thank our Attorney General and her entire team that worked really hard to put this

legislation together.

The public service does such an incredible job for all of us, and I just want to thank

them for the work they’re doing to protect British Columbians.

Dallas Brodie : I rise today to speak on Bill 4, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment

Act, 2025. Our caucus supports the principle of consumer protection, ensuring fair

treatment for individuals purchasing goods and services. We also support the importance

of a fair playing field for businesses.

[2:10 p.m.]

We have some concerns about this bill. There are some really good things in it, but

there are some places where I feel that it places an unfair burden on businesses and

brings in a bit of uncertainty for businesses. I’ll go over just a few of those briefly.

My comments won’t be extensive.

I’m going to start with the portions of this…. My overall comment is that, first of

all, balance must be paramount when we’re dealing with business transactions. We know

that there can be unscrupulous businesses, but there can also be unscrupulous consumers.

The duty can’t only be on the business. Not all businesses should automatically be

presumed to be acting in a predatory or unscrupulous manner. I worry when I hear language

like that.

I will start with what I really like in this bill.

Section 25.1, I think, is excellent.

It’s the provision that deals with the subscription contracts that we’re all dealing

with these days on our apps and so on. You can find that you’ve been automatically

renewed for years on things that you’ve never even used for a long time.

They’re making it very difficult to find the way to cancel that contract. They draw

you in to signing up for these by saying it’s free for the first couple of months.

When you go to cancel it after that…. There’s no announcement that it’s time to cancel

it, and before you know it, you’re paying $16 or $20 or $50 a month for this. So I

think it’s very good that it says that there has to be not less than 30 days’ notice

before the renewal date that says the details on how to cancel it. Excellent.

The subscription contract,

section 25.2, dealing with the unilateral amendments to

the contracts…. I think it’s very good that this is no longer permitted. From a contract

standpoint, it’s really been shocking to me over the years to watch how one party

to the contract thinks they can just change the terms, and it’s forced on the other

person, and they have no recourse to get out of it. That’s not contract law. So this

is very good.

Coming to the things I wanted to express some concern about…. I am concerned that

this hasn’t been updated since 2004, so it’s excellent we’re moving in this direction.

There’s a prohibition now on online reviews. The proposed

section 14.2 says the contract

must not prohibit review by the consumer. I’m thinking about the small business that’s

trying to operate. This kind of thing might not affect a major clothing corporation

that’s selling things online, and they get reviews saying: “I didn’t like the sweater.

It’s loose. It’s flimsy. It pilled. It’s terrible. Don’t buy it.”

Then the small business that’s maybe just serving sandwiches — a small boutique that

doesn’t have a lot of inventory, even. Maybe there’s been some beef between the owner

and the customer, and they decided to get back at them by writing a really cruel review.

These reviews can be devastating for small businesses, and I’m wondering if there

might be some consideration about some balance in here. There must be a reason why

companies are starting to ask for these terms in their contracts, because businesses

don’t just ask for things for no reason. There must be a lot of this happening, where

you’ve eaten the food at a restaurant and you had a bad experience and you just destroy

or go on a campaign to really rip them apart. So this concerns me a little bit.

If a consumer signs a contract saying they agree not to do an online review, perhaps

that’s okay. As long as it’s highlighted, and they’ve initialed it, and they know

that they’re signing that, then maybe that’s okay. Just a thought on that point.

The dispute resolution and class proceeding term or acknowledgement prohibited…. This

is an interesting one, because usually these are put in contracts to reduce the cost

of conflict resolution, not to increase it.

[2:15 p.m.]

I’m not absolutely certain that requiring parties to go to the CRT is necessarily

a cheaper or more speedy way to go. I’m not certain about that, but perhaps that could

be looked at in terms of…. Could there be a choice in the contract that says you can

do either-or instead of just saying that it’s going to be void?

The class action lawsuits — that’s an interesting one too. I think some more thought

should go into that a little bit, to not strip people of their rights to pursue conflict

resolution through different modes. Class action lawsuits can be important, but they

can also be the end of a small business. There’s a lot of balancing in this, for sure.

In general, I want to make sure…. In a time right now where small businesses are particularly

suffering, when a lot of people are buying things online from big organizations, it

makes it hard for small businesses to do work, the more burden we put on them to abide

by specific requirements. A lot of these small companies may not have the legal team

to draft the contracts they need to get this done to be in compliance with this new

act. So that’s also something to consider.

We don’t want to overly burden small business right now, or ever really, because at

the end of the day, the small businesses are also consumers. It’s not just us and

them. Businesses are also people who consume, and they’re also trying to survive.

We all want businesses, and we don’t want everybody going out of business because

they just can’t keep up with the paperwork.

I think I have already made the point that this may disproportionately impact small

operators, so perhaps some thought could be going into how to make sure it doesn’t

do that.

Also, I’d like to ask whether the small business advocacy groups, such as the Canadian

Federation of Independent Business or the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, have been consulted

about these changes. It would be wise to get some input from the people who represent

small businesses. My understanding is that they may not have been, but it would be

wise. I have also raised this in committee, that there should be some discussion with

those organizations, because they’re much more suited to know the specific problems

that small businesses are facing right now.

Having run a small business myself, I know it’s the paperwork and the constant…. You’re

running your business during the day, and then the store closes or the business closes.

Then you’re stuck with all this paperwork, and it really detracts from the joy of

running the business. I don’t think most people in business are looking to just be

mean to their customers and to cheat them. I think they do their best to serve, and

I think that we should keep that in mind when we’re working on things like this.

For sure there are some things in here…. The high-pressure sales on the front doorstep

is terrible. Nobody likes to be sold a vacuum at the front door. This is the old case

we used to read about in law school, just terrible stuff. These poor ladies…. Then

the husband used to come home and find out they’ve got a $5,000 vacuum cleaner that’s

the size of their stove, and they’re paying for it for the next ten years, and there

was no way to get out of it. That’s why a lot of these consumer protection things

came in, in the first place.

Anyway, I think those are really all my comments for today.

Steve Morissette : I’m speaking in support of Bill 4. The bill is good news for British Columbia consumers.

Every protection we can give to our consumers is very welcome. This is one of our

key roles as government, to protect British Columbians, to keep them safe in all manner

of areas. Consumer protection is so very important, particularly in the current climate.

[2:20 p.m.]

Across Canada, people are struggling with the cost of living, particularly the vulnerable

and seniors who we have all seen targeted by scammers as well as predatory business

practices. Unscrupulous businesses are, as the member across from me mentioned, a

minority. They’re very few, and typically, if you deal locally, you’ll find very scrupulous

and honourable businesses. But more often than not, online or elsewhere, unscrupulous

businesses craft more complex agreements, complicated so that people struggle to understand

them and will simply sign an agreement in order to receive the product or service.

I’ll throw a story in here that this doesn’t deal with, but it’s a personal story

of a trip home from here in December. Minister of State Anderson and I were travelling

back to the Kootenays, and we got to the gate in Vancouver and were informed that

we weren’t going to make it to Castlegar — not a big surprise. So we were rebooked

to Kelowna.

Minister Anderson was running around doing some things. She said: “Oh, book us a car.”

So I went on my phone and found the Budget Rent A Car site, called them and booked

a car. Well, when we got to Kelowna, there was no car. I said, “Well, I called and

booked it,” and the fellow said: “We’ve had no call. We haven’t booked. We don’t book

over the phone.” Oh no.

I showed him the number. He said: “That’s not even our number.” So I called BMO and

cancelled the card, and so on. But in the end, there was $4,200 charged on the card

in the hour we were in the air. That’s not related to these specific amendments, but

it shows how even someone astute and careful can get caught, so any protection we

can provide is good.

These changes are sorely needed. British Columbia’s consumer protection laws were

last amended in 2004, as previously mentioned, and the marketplace has changed significantly

since 2004 and got more challenging for individuals.

The proposed amendments to the existing consumer protection laws in British Columbia

will ensure that people are better informed, that they know what kind of contract

they are entering into prior to signing on the dotted line and committing to something

they cannot afford. The key things that this legislation will address are as follows.

It will require businesses to provide contract terms up front, which will include

fixes for consumers around renewals, cancellations, and return and refund policies,

particularly for online orders, bringing more transparency to pre-purchase contracts

and leaving less grey area for consumers.

It will also add notification requirements for automatic subscription renewals and

restrict significant contract changes without the customer’s consent.

These amendments will prohibit contract terms that restrict participation in class

action lawsuits, restrict consumer reviews or require private arbitration for disputes.

The legislation will also ban direct sales of high-cost household products — such

as furnaces, air conditioners, heat pumps and other large household purchases beyond

$1,000 — and prohibit the offer of credit as a part of a direct sale, reducing the

risk of predatory sales tactics. We’ve all heard of them, of seniors being taken advantage

of at the doorstep.

It will provide clear pathways for consumers to cancel contracts under specified conditions.

This will give honest and forthright businesses protection as well. It’ll give consumers

the ability to use the Civil Resolution Tribunal to adjudicate disputes under the

Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act.

[2:25 p.m.]

These new changes will raise consumer awareness and improve enforcement measures to

crack down on unsavoury business practices that prey on the vulnerable who can least

afford it.

This is great legislation that does not harm legitimate, honest small businesses with

bureaucratic red tape but does make it very difficult for the unscrupulous businesses

to take advantage of unsuspecting consumers. Strengthening consumer protection laws

reflects our government’s commitment to affordability and fairness, ensuring British

Columbians have the tools and information to make informed purchases.

These proposed new laws were not developed in a vacuum, not simply put together in

a boardroom. They are the result of public and stakeholder consultation. Consumers

told us they want to know the contract terms up front, including renewal, cancellation

and refund policies, bringing more transparency to pre-purchase contracts.

These proposed changes to the British Columbia Business Practices and Consumer Protection

Act will modernize the legislation to ensure stronger protections for consumers and

a more transparent marketplace. The key changes in the legislation focus on consumer

products in the following ways.

One, it increases contract transparency to support better decision-making and reduce

disputes. An example is people buying a new cell phone; they’ll be given more transparent

information prior to entering into a contract with a provider.

Two, it’ll create new rules for new types of consumer contracts, such as subscription

of services, to reduce unexpected charges. For example, a person who has a streaming

service will now have more control over renewal and cancellation of their contract.

I’m sure we have all bought subscriptions for a set term — a month, a year or whatever

the term is — that automatically renew, sometimes unknown to us.

Third, it’ll improve remedies for consumers around refunds, returns and cancellations,

again, particularly for online orders. An example of this is clothing retailers, which

now will be required to provide clear instructions on how to obtain and refund and

return products. This will address people’s frustration with bad experiences when

returning products.

Fourthly, the legislation will prohibit contract terms that require costly private

arbitration, limit participation in class actions and restrict a consumer’s ability

to review a product or service. For example, through their contracts, businesses can

no longer prevent consumers from leaving reviews, joining class action lawsuits or

needing to access costly private arbitration when there is a dispute.

Fifth, it will prohibit the direct sale, door to door, of high-cost household products

or offering credit for a direct sale. This, again, will protect vulnerable people

from being victimized by high-pressure sales tactics for expensive homeowner purchases.

Sixth, consumers may now use the Civil Resolution Tribunal to adjudicate disputes

under the BPCPA.

These changes will reduce financial vulnerability and help consumers better understand

the contracts they are agreeing to. They will also ensure more fair business practices,

increasing trust in purchase transactions and enhancing consumer confidence. I believe

this will actually help small businesses in giving consumers a better feeling of confidence

when purchasing.

[2:30 p.m.]

Large businesses which consumers are likely to respect and trust to be fair and honest

often dupe customers with this undeserved confidence in them. Last year Canada’s three

largest telecom providers were exposed for locking customers into long-term contracts

that then hit the customers with unexpected regular increases in price during those

contracts. The same thing happened with online respected ticket sales like Ticketmaster,

where customers are hit with unnecessary ticket fees beyond the regular ticket price

— drip pricing, as it’s called.

These changes in legislation would help by requiring telecom and ticket sales companies

to disclose potential price increases and fees up front, ensuring transparency and

preventing companies using unfair practices to trap consumers with unexpected costs.

Another protection point is direct sales practices, or door-to-door. Banning of direct

sales of high-cost household products and prohibiting the offering of credit as part

of a direct sale reduce the risk of predatory tactics that so often trick the vulnerable

and elderly into overpriced long-term rental costs for expensive equipment like heating

and cooling equipment, which costs homeowners far more than the equipment is worth

and leaves people with liens against their property that they know nothing about.

Consumer Protection B.C. will oversee enforcement of the new requirements. Consumer

Protection B.C. operates itself independently. We are creating new offences under

the act which will ensure that Consumer Protection B.C. has the authority to advance

penalties if businesses fail to comply with these changes.

As I mentioned previously, these amendments were not completed in a vacuum. The government

conducted public surveys, industry consultations and stakeholder engagements to understand

consumer challenges and business impacts over the past few years. We also received

input from consumer advocacy groups, financial institutions and legal experts, which

shaped these amendments. These much-needed amendments will bring B.C. in line with

leading consumer protection laws across Canada.

This bill in no way will increase the burden on the good and honest business people

in British Columbia, but it will force businesses that profit from underhanded practices

with British Columbians to refrain from those practices.

I am pleased to support this bill, which strengthens the support of consumers in B.C.

to levels that will reduce predatory tactics on hard-working people of B.C. and limit

the ways in which their hard-earned income can be taken from them in unscrupulous

and predatory ways.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I support this bill.

Gavin Dew : I rise to speak to this motion. In general, as we review the proposed bill, we find

that there is a lot to be supportive of. There are many good and positive things in

this bill. I certainly agree with the perspective that an update is needed from 2004.

This is not the time to be operating on a system that brought us rickrolling, Mean Girls , Napoleon Dynamite and wardrobe malfunctions.

With that said, the spirit and intent of this bill appear to be good. It appears to

be solid housekeeping. The focus is rightly on protecting people and families, protecting

consumers. Those are all good, positive things.

As we think about the implementation of this bill and the development of this bill,

I think that there are some issues that should be flagged. The implications for small

business are, of course, very significant. Most small businesses certainly do not

have large legal departments to pore over these things. The cost of implementing changes

to contracts will be significant for small business. The risk of accumulating red

tape is significant.

[2:35 p.m.]

I do hear what I believe is a note of naivety on the other side of the House with

regard to what the implications of well-intentioned red tape are. As a small business

operator myself and as someone who’s worked with lots of businesses, so often well-intentioned,

positive, good, consumer-friendly rules end up having very significant implications

for the small businesses that are on the forefront of implementing those rules.

We should, of course, as has been acknowledged by a number of speakers, recognize

that most good, honest businesses…. You know, 98 percent small business in this province….

Most good business people want to do good business. They don’t want to scam people.

They don’t want to be in an adversarial relationship, and we should try to avoid that

adversarial relationship between consumers and business.

What does concern me quite substantially is what appears to be a notable absence of

consultation in the development of this bill. It appears that while I was sitting

in the House, via text message I was able to consult more small business organizations

than this government has.

That was rather distressing, because when I reached out to business organizations,

virtually every answer that I received while sitting here was that they had had absolutely

zero consultation from this government with regard to the development of this bill

or with regard to the opportunity to identify potential issues around the implementation

of the bill or implications of elements of the bill for the ways that it will affect

their particular industries and their small businesses. That does concern me quite

materially, and it is reflective of a notable pattern of lacking consultation from

this government.

So when I hear members opposite make comments about the extent of stakeholder consultation,

it worries me considerably that I sent six or eight text messages while sitting in

this House, asking organizations whether they had been consulted with regard to Bill

4, whether they felt they’d had any opportunity to provide feedback around what the

implications could be for their businesses or for their members, and not one replied

that they had actually had any conversation with government about this bill. That

is very worrisome.

While, obviously, we can’t know what the potential elements of the bill are that could

be problematic for the good-faith implementation by businesses large and small in

this province, the reason we don’t know what those issues are is that there’s been

no consultation or very little consultation or a half-hearted effort at consultation

that perhaps has been selective as to those organizations which this government likes

to hear from.

That is very worrisome, and I would certainly encourage the government to pull up

its socks and to make a more substantial effort to consult not only on the content

of this bill but to establish an improved habit of consultation, because I think what

perhaps is missed in the development of this kind of legislation is…. It’s not about

adversarialism. It shouldn’t be about attacking business.

I hear the right words being said on the other side of the House about the good intentions

and good faith of small business in this province and about the desire to have a great

relationship between businesses and consumers. But I think what really does appear

to be missed is that it isn’t the high-level spirit of the bill…. It isn’t the intent

of the bill that ends up creating unintended consequences for small business; it’s

the details.

As I say, there is little indication that work has been undertaken by this government

to ensure that there are no unintended consequences or landmines or red flags in this

bill that could become problematic for the very businesses this government now appears

to want to develop a new relationship with. With that said, I would again encourage

government to try harder at consulting business, and in particular small business,

around this bill.

In the spirit of the great reset they have claimed they want with the business community,

I would encourage them, with other bills coming forward that could have direct and

indirect implications for businesses large and small in this province…. I would encourage

them to make a much more substantial effort to consult early and to not wait for crises

to emerge or red flags to be raised once bills are already fully developed.

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Good afternoon to everyone in the House.

It’s a pleasure to be able to rise and speak to this legislation, the Consumer Protection

Act. I’m honoured to be able to speak and follow the member across the way and be

able to represent the perspectives of the people of Langford-Highlands on this very

important legislation.

I just want to begin, at the outset, by thanking the Attorney General for her leadership

in bringing this legislation forward and her team, who I’m sure have been doing a

lot of consultation in regards to this legislation over some time. Legislation like

this just doesn’t appear overnight. It takes a lot of hard work, and I want to take

an opportunity to be able to thank the hard-working men and women of the Attorney

General’s ministry for the work they have been doing over some time to be able to

bring this legislation forward.

I understand that this legislation is being brought forward for the first time since

2004. So I would say that this is not just a matter of housekeeping but a good opportunity

for us to be able to dive into some conversations about how we protect people.

When we were out on the doorsteps in this past election, talking about the issues

that mattered most to people, protecting people was one of them, whether that’s crime

and public safety or another whole host of issues. This is one of the ways that, on

this side of the House, we’re working hard to be able to address those that take advantage

of vulnerable people. That’s why I’m pleased to be able to speak to this legislation.

It’s still hard to imagine that there would be those, whether they’re individuals

or business owners, that would set up operations with the sole intent of taking advantage

of people. It’s hard to imagine, but it does happen.

There are also those that have every good consequence, and for them, I see this as

just making sure that we’re dotting the i’s, crossing the t’s and making sure that

there are fair and equal processes for business owners and for the consumer as well.

It’s why it’s so important that we’ve brought this legislation forward. It’s why it’s

an opportunity, I might add, for all of us in this House to be able to stand up and

be able to speak to this.

I was out on the doorstep this past October in one of the mobile home parks in Langford.

There are predominantly seniors living in the mobile home park. I heard a story of

a senior who was taken advantage of. We hear these stories from time to time about

these sorts of things. I think if you just simply google these issues, you come up

with them.

I just saw, a couple of days ago, fraudsters using real obituaries to scam people.

Who in their right mind would get up in the morning and say: “I’m going to go scam

vulnerable people”? Who would get up and scam seniors out of thousands of dollars?

Again, I’m thankful that on this side of the House, we have the opportunity to be

able to debate this type of legislation, which is focused solely on protecting people,

protecting consumers.

Now, the members opposite have had an opportunity to be able to share their perspectives.

I welcome that from the member opposite that just spoke before me. I had an opportunity,

in this House, to be able to hear from the critic responsible, the member for Richmond-Queensborough,

about his perspectives on this legislation and how, from what it sounds like, they

understand the intent of the legislation with, it sounds like, some appreciation.

The comments from the critic responsible for responding on behalf of the official

opposition certainly have differed from the comments just made by the member for Kelowna-Mission

in overall intent, but that doesn’t surprise me. Divided caucus. You kind of expect

that from the folks on the other side.

In particular, I want to go back to the comments made during bill debate this morning

from the critic, the member for Richmond-Queensborough, where he said: “Increase in

compliance costs and expensive labour policies….” Of course, he is referring to a

supposed increase in compliance costs and expensive labour policies from this government,

from our time in government, I would presume.

[2:45 p.m.]

So let’s talk a little bit about what I presume he’s talking about, paid sick leave.

Five days paid sick leave. Does the member opposite support five days paid sick leave?

Maybe. Maybe not.

Eliminating the medical services premium. I presume that he doesn’t support that because

his leader voted time and time again to add costs onto people through increases in

the medical services premium.

We are increasing the minimum wage on this side of the House. I’m proud of that, as

someone who has been a minimum wage worker for a good chunk of my life. Protections

for app-based workers. Making sure that construction sites have flush toilets. Those

are just a handful of the friendly labour practices, worker practices, that we have

implemented on this side of the House. I, for one, am really proud of those practices.

I think we are on this side of the House as well.

So when the members opposite stand up and speak to this legislation, speak to protecting

consumers and somehow say that we have expensive labour policies, I think they should

be very, very clear what labour policies those are and whether they support paid sick

leave; whether they want to bring back the medical services premium; whether they

don’t believe the most vulnerable, youngest workers deserve an increase to their minimum

wage; and a whole host of things. I think that member should be crystal clear about

that well into the future.

This legislation is focused on protecting British Columbians, on making sure that

our consumer protection laws are focused on British Columbians, making sure that when

British Columbians are going to purchase an item, a good or a service, their best

interests are at heart.

At the end of the day, I would agree that 99 percent of businesses across British

Columbia would agree with that. But there are going to be those that take advantage

of that, and this legislation is solely focused on making sure we’re holding those

accountable and protecting those British Columbians. Again, we need to remember whose

side we are on.

This legislation we have brought forward in this House, this consumer protection legislation,

requires businesses to provide important contract terms up front, including improved

remedies for consumers around renewal, cancellation, return and refund policies.

Again, I think these are issues that British Columbians deal with on a daily basis,

whether it is streaming services, other types of app-based services. As I have heard

from my colleague from the Kootenays prior to me, we all go through these examples,

including MLAs and our family and our friends, where we try to procure these services.

Sometimes we don’t see the fine print, or sometimes the fine print is not as clear

as it should be.

I was just going across the news, and I saw that an HVAC company that was not providing

clear pricing information got banned by Consumer Protection B.C. from door-knocking

for several months and got fined as well. So any opportunity we have, in this place,

to be able to stand up and support this legislation and make these necessary changes,

I think, is important.

These amendments have been developed based on feedback that we’ve received from the

public and stakeholders. I recognize that the members opposite, many of them, are

new, including colleagues on this side of the House. I’m still a relatively new MLA

as well, though I have worked in a constituency office before under my predecessor,

John Horgan. So I’ve heard the stories of people coming into our community office.

I’m sure that many of the of the members across the way will experience this in their

communities, where they hear the heart-wrenching stories of people who’ve lost money.

It doesn’t matter if it’s a couple hundred bucks or a few thousand dollars. Any time

that happens, it hits you.

I can only imagine how challenging it is to those that happen. I think of my vulnerable

grandmother at home who, I’m sure, has faced these own challenges herself when she’s

at home answering the phone and being taken advantage of. Thankfully, we’ve been able

to step in a few times and put a stop to it, but these sorts of things happen.

I just want to spend some time talking about, as the members on this side of the House

have done, the key aspects and changes in this legislation.

As was acknowledged on the other side of the House and on this side, B.C.’s consumer

protection laws were last updated in 2004, and I think it’s fair to say that the marketplace

has evolved significantly since then.

[2:50 p.m.]

So 2004 was a long time ago. I was ten years old then. There wasn’t as much online

purchasing. We had eBay back then. I didn’t get a chance to use eBay. I’m an Amazon

kid, I guess. That’s more my generation. But things have changed where — I’m sure

someone could pull the stats — a significant proportion of the population is using

these online app-based services to order goods, to procure services and a whole host

of things. I just think of ride-hailing as an example as well, which has grown significantly.

Consumers are facing increasing risks of fraud. Vulnerable people such as seniors,

newcomers, individuals with disabilities and those with lower incomes are often targeted

by predatory business practices. These amendments, I think, address a number of the

issues that for us who have been around for a little while, we’ve heard in our community

offices. Certainly, I think, it by no means addresses all of the issues, because again,

this is an evolving space, and there is a need to continuously update our laws to

be able to protect people.

As my colleague earlier raised, an example of what this amendment means is people

buying a new cell phone. If you go to the store and purchase a new cell phone, you

will now be, when this legislation is passed, given more transparent information,

not after you make your purchase but prior to entering into a contract and making

your purchase with a service provider.

I think we all get the excitement of going into the store and purchasing a phone,

but it’s an important opportunity for us to ensure that we’re protecting consumers

and making sure that their rights are being upheld as part of that buyer purchase

agreement.

Another example is a person who has a streaming service will, once this legislation

is approved, have more control over the renewal and cancellation of their contracts,

making sure that there is actually information provided again prior to procuring the

service. Also, making sure, when we’re talking about this legislation, that we’re

providing that information, whether it’s a type of contract that is renewed monthly

or renewed annually…. All of those pieces are provided to the consumer — again, the

person who’s procuring the service.

My colleague talked about online suppliers like clothing retailers who will now be

required to provide clear instructions on how to obtain a refund and return products.

Again, this will address people’s frustrations with bad experiences and sometimes

very challenging experiences when they’re trying to return products.

Those of us who’ve worked in the retail space, I think, have seen firsthand or have

participated ourselves in examples where you’ve purchased a product and you’re simply

trying to refund it for a number of reasons — whether you didn’t like the product,

whether the product doesn’t work anymore, a whole host of reasons. You face nothing

but barriers, obstacles and challenges to be able to do that. Again, the changes we’re

bringing forward in this legislation, in the mind of protecting consumers, address

that.

This legislation prohibits contract terms that require costly private arbitration,

limit participation in class actions and restrict consumers’ abilities to review a

product or service. An example would be that through their contracts, businesses can

no longer prevent consumers from leaving reviews, joining class action lawsuits or

needing to access costly private arbitration where there is a specific dispute. I

think these are issues that we’ve certainly heard in our community offices and, again,

I’m glad are being brought forward.

A couple other things that I want to highlight are prohibiting the direct sale door-to-door

of high-cost household products or the offering of credit or direct sales. An example

would be vulnerable people being protected from being victimized by high-pressure

sales tactics for things such as air conditioners, furnaces, etc. If you go into the

legislation, you’ll see a number of those pieces listed.

Again, I represent a constituency where I’ve got several mobile home parks, where

many of the people that live in those mobile home parks are vulnerable seniors. To

be able to know that the legislation we’re bringing forward in this House that we’re

debating finds ways to be able to protect those people on whose doors I continue to

knock every election is exactly why I ran for office in the first place and something

I’m very proud of.

[2:55 p.m.]

As the members on this side of the House have mentioned a few times, consumers — through

this legislation, through the Consumer Protection Act changes and amendments we are

making — may now use the Civil Resolution Tribunal to adjudicate disputes under the

BPCPA.

Again, I think there has been a lot of success, and we have been relying quite heavily

on the Civil Resolution Tribunal. It has shown, from my aspect, having spoken to a

number of pieces of legislation that have involved the Civil Resolution Tribunal,

that it’s working and that, at the end of the day, it is serving British Columbians

well, as it should.

This is going to help consumers. There has been a considerable effort on this side

of the House to focus our conversations on consumers, on people, the people of British

Columbia, because these changes will reduce financial vulnerability and help people

better understand the contracts they are agreeing to. They’ll also ensure there are

fair business practices, increasing trust in purchase transactions and enhancing consumer

confidence — at the end of the day, protecting people.

There has been some conversation around the costs on business, and I’ll speak to that

again, but this is about making sure that we’re protecting people. The majority of

businesses in our communities…. I think of the businesses in Langford-Highlands and

particularly in Langford, because there are not as many small-based businesses. There

are certainly a lot of home-based businesses in the district of Highlands but not

any retail-based businesses. The Highlands is a unique community.

In Langford, most of the businesses I talk to…. I would say 99.99 percent of the businesses

I speak to have every intention of ensuring that they run their practices based on

the laws that govern them. They value their consumers, their customers and the people

in their communities.

We’ve been talking an awful lot about people and businesses for the last couple of

weeks. We have seen, in all of our communities, certainly in my case in Langford,

an increase in the number of people going into their local businesses, procuring services,

procuring goods — Canadian goods, B.C. goods. That’s something I think we all should

be proud of, especially those that are part of Team Canada.

I know that not everyone in this House is part of Team Canada, but I’ll leave it to

the others to speak to that. Those members know what I’m talking about.

I just want to spend….

Interjections.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I would welcome the members opposite to be able to stand up in this House and speak…

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : …to this legislation. There are some members who haven’t exercised their opportunity

to be able to speak to anything — throne speech, legislation. I wonder why. It’s probably

because they say really stupid things.

Deputy Speaker : Member.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : What are some real-world examples where these changes will help people?

Deputy Speaker : Member, just remarks to Bill 4, please.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : You bet, Madam Speaker. I’ll wrap up. It’s a bit touchy over there with the divided

caucus they’ve got.

I think we all….

Interjections.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Touchy day. Touchy day.

I think all of us that have an opportunity to be able to watch the CBC Marketplace see some of these stories in action, where you’ve seen businesses, shady businesses,

take advantage of people. In November 2024, CBC ran a story about how customers with

Canada’s three biggest telecom providers were frustrated by contracts that lock them

into agreements but allow the companies to increase prices at the same time.

Consumers described the contracts as a trap by design and said that they were fed

up with unexpected increases to their monthly internet, TV and home phone bills during

their contracts. That was from a CBC

article in November of last year. The reason

I share that is the legislation we have brought forward addresses those very issues.

There are other examples from CBC Marketplace, a Go Public investigation that exposed the deceitful tactics used to trick consumers

into overpriced long-term rental contracts for new heating and cooling equipment.

Legal experts that spoke to the CBC said that what was uncovered is typical of the

way some HVAC-rental companies work, costing homeowners far more than the equipment

is worth, leaving them, in many cases, with liens against their properties they know

nothing about.

[3:00 p.m.]

Again, that was a CBC

article from 2022.

I could go on, but I’ll just end with saying this. On this side of the House, we are

going to be focused each and every day in this legislative session and since we formed

government, right to the end of our mandate — focused on protecting British Columbians;

focused on championing our most competitive advantage, which is our people.

At the same time, we are going to continue to champion the small business owners that

make up our province each and every day, in every corner of our province.

We have small business owners on this side of the House. We have small business owners

on that side of the House. It’s so important that we have that reflected in this place

and we have the issues and challenges that small business owners face each and every

day.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Let’s not also forget that we need to champion workers. So when we talk about cost

of labour policies, let’s also be very clear to the members opposite what those are.

Minimum wage. What’s your opinion on that? Paid sick leave. What’s your opinion? Do

you support five days sick leave? Do you support paid sick leave or not?

The members opposite, during their bill debate, spoke about labour policies. I think

they should be very crystal-clear.

I’m proud, in this House, to be able to stand on behalf of the people of Langford-Highlands

and support this legislation, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so.

Deputy Speaker : Recognizing the member for Kamloops North…. Centre, please.

Peter Milobar : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No “north” anymore, just centre.

It’s always interesting to rise after a minister of the Crown that has such eloquent,

classy ways of describing the opposition every time he speaks, so I’ll try to contain

myself here.

When I rise to speak to Bill 4, it’s interesting. This bill, as being promoted by

the government, is to get rid of high-pressure sales tactics — consumer protection.

People will know exactly what they’re signing. People will know exactly what they’ve

committed to, except the limited time offered by the government, one time only, right

now, today. “Approve this, and we’ll tell you what it all means sometime in the future.”

That’s the problem with Bill 4.

The government, with Bill 4, is doing the exact thing that they’re trying to say they’re

preventing by having open-ended contracts and not clear contract language. I’ll get

into why they’re doing that with Bill 4.

The minister just said we’re looking out for small business. It’s interesting, because

they actually have not consulted with small business before they brought forward Bill

4. It’s a funny way to look out for a business community that you don’t even talk

to.

The reason I say, “Limited-time offer and we’ll tell you what it all means later,”

is because it’s in keeping with every other piece of open-ended legislation that this

government likes to pass.

This bill has 41 clauses. Clause 41 says, in column 1, “Anything not anywhere else

covered in this table” and: “The date of Royal Assent.” That’s clause 41, “Commencement.”

Then you keep looking at commencement, sections 4 to 19: “By regulation of the Lieutenant

Governor in Council.” That means, despite what the previous minister just said about

this being in effect as soon as we deal with this in debate, in fact, it won’t. It’ll

be at the whim of the cabinet when sections 4 to 19 come into effect.

Sections 21 to 27. Oh, look at that: by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

That means no one knows when those will come into effect, and a lot of these still

need to be worked out into what the fine print of the regulations will actually be

for Bill 4, kind of like a contract that doesn’t spell out everything that someone

is signing, and the business is saying: “Don’t worry about it. We’ll figure that out

later. Just sign here.” That’s what Bill 4 is saying right now.

Let’s look at

section 36. Oh, by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council

— same thing.

Section 40, by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The vast majority of this bill is terms yet to be announced by the government, but:

“Sign today; just trust us.” It’ll all work out, on a bill that’s supposed to protect

consumers against open-ended contracts with ambiguous language. Only the NDP could

try to pull this off.

It is ridiculous beyond the extreme for the NDP to try to paint this as if the B.C.

Conservatives are against consumer protection. We absolutely are. In fact, if you

look at what our members have said previously, that’s exactly what they were saying.

[3:05 p.m.]

It is also a valid point that since this hasn’t been updated since 2004, surely in

the 21 intervening years, the government could have actually, I don’t know, talked

with businesses if they were planning on updating this.

I recognize they weren’t government for all of that. I long for the days when the

other side used to chant “16 years” in this place. But now they’ve had eight, one-third

of the time that this hasn’t been updated. They’ve had eight of those years that they

could have updated it, let alone actually consulted with the business communities.

We’re not saying it would even result in any changes. It just means the business community

would better understand what exactly is expected of them and what the true consequences

of these changes actually mean to the business community.

On a bill where they’re expecting the businesses, rightfully so, to be more transparent,

to provide better clarity to their customers, better protections for the customer

with that business, it strikes beyond hypocrisy that they’re trying to admonish the

opposition for stating concerns for a business community that hasn’t been consulted,

despite the government and ministers trying to convey that they have. I don’t know

who wrote their speaking notes, but perhaps they should have double-checked before

that.

For the government to try to admonish an opposition for merely suggesting we might

have questions and concerns or be seeking clarification on behalf of businesses and

consumers, what this bill actually means….

Then when we get to committee stage, irony of all ironies, the government is going

to say to us when we ask those questions: “Well, we don’t know. We still have to work

out that regulation.” But sign on the dotted line by approving clause 2, sign on the

dotted line by approving clause 3, sign on the dotted line by approving clause 4,

and so on.

The same tactics they purport to be trying to change with Bill 4 they are using in

Bill 4 to try to get it passed. It defies…. With everything else going on right now

out there, this is what needs to be accelerated by this government without proper

consultation to the business communities, because it has been 21 years since it was

last updated.

A few extra months is not going to massively tilt the change of what’s going on out

there one way or the other, but it would provide the time to get proper consultation,

proper feedback — again, it doesn’t mean there will even be a change — a proper understanding

by businesses of what this actually means to them and how they have to restructure

things and a timeline, more importantly. Right now saying “by regulation of the Lieutenant

Governor in Council,” doesn’t really mean much with this government.

I’m old enough to remember us debating FOI charges being added on by this government.

The same language was in that bill, “By regulation of Lieutenant Governor in Council,”

was what the fee was going to be to file for an FOI. The minister stood up in this

place for days on end saying that it hasn’t been worked out yet. “We need to consult.

We need to consult. We’re not sure how much that fee will be.”

Fifteen minutes after the bill passed in this chamber, an order in council by regulation

of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, was signed in the hallway just behind this

chamber setting what that fee would be. Fastest consultation known to man.

The fact that they can’t even tell us the timeline that the regulations will be set

out, let alone the fine print, which again Bill 4 is supposed to actually illuminate,

fine print in contracts…. This government cannot tell us what their own fine print

is going to be on Bill 4.

With that, I move an amendment. I would like to move:

[That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 4) intituled Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 2025 be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.”]

[3:10 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker : We have an amendment on the floor today. I would seek some direction from this House.

Member, you can take the floor.

On the amendment.

Peter Milobar : Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I beg your mercy on this procedure as well, because, after

all, as much as I’ve been in this chamber for a few years — I was even House Leader

for a couple of years — my procedural stuff is still a little bit foggy because we

actually haven’t sat in this chamber for almost a year, thanks to this government.

So we’re all trying to get our feet back under us as well.

The reason I’m making this amendment is, really, again, for the people at home to

understand, more than anything…. The government…. I’ll leave it to their House Leader

and their parliamentarians to explain to them what this motion actually is, but this

is simply what they call a hoist motion.

It doesn’t terminate the bill. It simply says that now that we know at least some

of what the government is planning with Bill 4 — as you read through it, and it’s

now a public document — the public and the business communities and consumers will

have six months to review it and provide feedback. Then in six months’ time, we will

pick up the debate exactly where we are today.

That is all this amendment does. It doesn’t change anything inside of this document.

It simply pauses it so it is now a public document, because remember, until this bill

was introduced — what was it, yesterday or the day before? — it wasn’t a public document.

Opposition hadn’t seen it. The public hadn’t seen it. Business groups hadn’t seen

it. No one had seen this document whatsoever.

Now that everyone has a chance to actually read it, it gives everybody in the broader

community six months to be able to review it and provide proper feedback to the government

and properly assess what this will mean for them and properly be able to adjust and

get ready for it. That is simply all we are asking as opposition.

Again, in six months’ time, we would be back in this chamber, unless the government

cancels the fall sitting, and we would be able to stand up and we would be able to

continue the debate where we left off on Bill 4.

I do hope the government takes this hoist motion seriously, because it’s not meant

to be overly obstructionist or anything of that nature. It is truly meant to meet

the spirit and the intent that the government says Bill 4 is, which is to prevent

non-transparency in contracts, not knowing what it is you’re signing for, actually

being properly notified. All of those things that the government has been talking

about today, this hoist motion would provide for with Bill 4. Let the public actually

have that voice and let business groups have that voice, because, as we’ve already

heard, they were not consulted either.

There is no downside for the government to do this. They waited over five months after

the election to call this House back. Surely, letting the public and the business

community actually have open-end transparency about a contractual document, essentially

a law contractual document, that the government is bringing forward, that is supposed

to be providing those same types of protections, allegedly…. They would want that

to happen.

I do hope that our amendment can be supported. I do hope the Green Party supports

it. And I hope that we can actually bring some true transparency to something like

the consumer protection bill that is supposed to provide for transparency.

Deputy Speaker : We do have an amendment on the floor. I would welcome speakers to this amendment.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : I would suggest the amendment be circulated to all parties, which is the normal practice,

and that we take a brief recess in order to do that.

Deputy Speaker : The Kamloops Centre MLA has introduced this, exactly: “I move that the Business Practices

and Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 2025, Bill 4, be read a second time this day,

six months hence.”

We’ll circulate that now, and we’ll take a five-minute recess.

The House recessed from 3:15 p.m. to 3:21 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker : All right, Members, we’ll call the House back to order. A little excitement this

afternoon, for sure.

Point of Order

Brent Chapman : Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I believe the Minister of Forests used unparliamentary

language. I would like it to be withdrawn.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I will withdraw my language.

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker : Thank you very much

Thank you, Minister.

We have before us, of course, an amendment to Bill 4.

The debate must turn now to the amendment. The question before the House is not Bill

4 itself at second reading, but that the bill be read a second time six months hence.

I would welcome any speakers to this.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : I stand to speak against the motion.

Let me take the opportunity to let members of the House know of the work that built

this legislation that we were debating, the consumer protection legislation, Bill

In 2019, a significant and expansive public consultation was done to strengthen protections

for consumers, creating borrowers’ rights and remedies, setting limits on total cost

of borrowing, prohibiting fees and charges, restricting the use of borrowers’ personal

information, protecting people from wage assignment, requiring businesses that provide

high-cost credit products to be licensed by Consumer Protection B.C. and enabling

Consumer Protection B.C. to enforce the act’s amendments and future regulations. All

of these were the focus of public consultation. Again, that was in 2019.

Then in 2022, a second round of consultation, an extensive survey focusing on purchasing

and contract issues; motor dealer sales, leases and financing; and specific types

of credit-related products and services, such as fraud alerts and credit counselling

services.

That survey was followed by stakeholder consultations, carried out by the now Minister

of Transportation and also our colleague Mike Starchuk, the former MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale.

They had collected input from consumer groups, business organizations and other groups,

like seniors. The stakeholder consultation focused on the results of the public survey,

potential changes to B.C. consumer protection laws, issues affecting vulnerable customers

and the anticipated public impacts.

[3:25 p.m.]

Again, rounds of consultation, in both 2019 and 2022, were carried out through the

whole summer of 2022. The public record of the public input that built this legislation

is strong and clear.

Even with all that, there was really significant concern and fear about impacts on

British Columbia workers and consumers, around the impacts of the threatened President

Trump tariffs. A six-month wait for us to be able to put these protections in place….

If it was a good idea at any time, it certainly is now. So I plan to vote against

the amendment, with thanks to my colleague opposite.

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Minister.

Seeing no further speakers, I’m wondering if Kamloops Centre would like to close debate.

Peter Milobar : I will close the debate and just say this. Again, I really do hope our Green colleagues

take this to heart. I’m sincere when I say this. I know their predecessors were very

much about legislation coming forward to this House that had been well consulted on,

with good advance notice and things of that nature.

I’d point out that as well-intentioned as the minister’s

summary of the consulting

was, most of that happened six years ago, in 2019. This is now 2025. The world may

have changed since 2019 and 2022, in 2025. Just saying. Just going out on a limb.

Perhaps a new round of fresh consultation, in earnest, with the actual wording of

the bill as it stands, would serve everybody very well, including consumers and businesses.

Again, this doesn’t bring government down. This is not a confidence vote. This is

simply saying that we want consumers and the business community to have proper consultation

after seeing exactly what the bill is, and that’s what is sitting in front of us today.

Deputy Speaker : The motion, again, and the question is, of course…. The member moves that the motion

for second reading of Bill 4, intituled Business Practices and Consumer Protection

Amendment Act, 2025, be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting it with

“six months hence.”

Divsion has been called.

[3:30 p.m. – 3:35 p.m.]

Members, for those online, we would request that you turn your camera on. For those

of you online, we’re requesting that you turn your camera on for the upcoming vote.

Members, pursuant to the directive issued on remote participation, the member for

Chilliwack–Cultus Lake cannot be recognized for the division as it appears the member

is in a vehicle.

[3:40 p.m.]

Members, the question before this House this afternoon is the motion moved by the

Kamloops Centre member: “I move that the motion for second reading of Bill No. 4 intituled

Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment, 2025, be amended by deleting

the word ‘now’ and substituting it with ‘six months hence.’”

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 41

Sturko

Kindy

Milobar

Rustad

Banman

Wat

Kooner

Halford

L. Neufeld

Van Popta

Dew

Gasper

K. Neufeld

Day

Block

Bhangu

Paton

Boultbee

Chan

Toor

Hepner

Giddens

Rattée

Davis

McInnis

Bird

Luck

Stamer

Maahs

Tepper

Mok

Wilson

Clare

Williams

Loewen

Dhaliwal

Chapman

McCall

Kealy

Armstrong

Brodie

NAYS — 48

G. Anderson

Blatherwick

Elmore

Sunner

Toporowski

B. Anderson

Neill

Osborne

Brar

Davidson

Kahlon

Parmar

Gibson

Beare

Chandra Herbert

Wickens

Kang

Morissette

Sandhu

Krieger

Chant

Lajeunesse

Choi

Rotchford

Higginson

Routledge

Popham

Dix

Sharma

Farnworth

Eby

Bailey

Begg

Greene

Whiteside

Boyle

Yung

Malcolmson

Chow

Glumac

Arora

Shah

Phillip

Dhir

Lore

Valeriote

Botterell

Deputy Speaker : The question before this House now is the second reading of Bill 4. I would encourage

members that wish to continue with that debate to please rise.

For everyone else that has got a conversation going, we would ask you to step into

the hallway.

On the main motion.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : I rise to support the consumer protection legislation, Bill 4, to ensure stronger

protections for consumers and a fairer marketplace. Based on extensive public consultation

in multiple languages, on multiple platforms and in multiple forums in the years of

2019 and 2022, I stand in support of the package that is here in front of us.

These are changes intended to ensure that people are better informed before entering

into contracts with companies for goods and services and that they have better protections

when they are exploited.

[3:45 p.m.]

The key elements of the proposed legislation will require businesses to provide important

contract terms up front, including improved remedies for consumers around renewal,

cancellation, return and refund policies — particularly for online orders, bringing

more transparency to pre-purchase contracts. We heard strongly in the consultation

with the real move to online purchasing, that this is a new world and one that our

legislation and following regulations need to reflect.

This will also introduce notification requirements for automatic subscription renewals

and restrict significant contract changes without the customer’s consent. Again, something

that we heard from British Columbians in the consultation.

The legislation will prohibit contract terms that restrict participation in class

action lawsuits and restrict consumer reviews or require private arbitration for disputes.

These are all barriers to consumers being able to avail themselves of protection and

remedy in the event of a misleading contract.

The proposed legislation will also ban direct sales of high-cost household items,

such as air conditioners and furnaces — those are two examples — and prohibit the

offering of credit as part of a direct sale. Again, direct sales have been found to

be particularly associated with predatory sales tactics and one that we heard that

British Columbians want more protection from, especially seniors and vulnerable British

Columbians.

This will also provide clearer pathways for consumers to cancel contracts under specified

conditions and give consumers the ability to use the Civil Resolution Tribunal to

adjudicate disputes under the B.C. Consumer Protection Act.

All of these are designed to raise consumer awareness, improve enforcement measures

and crack down on predatory practices and hold businesses accountable. This is all

part of a package to strengthen fairness and affordability. This is a significant

government commitment to ensure British Columbians have the tools and information

needed to make informed purchases.

I hear, in my representation of Nanaimo and Nanaimo–Gabriola and in my role as Minister

of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, absolutely, about poor financial literacy

being at the foundation of both poverty, and also, exploitation. We’re certainly aware

of the risk of financial exploitation and very grateful for the consumer organizations

that recommended amendments to the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act.

There are a number of not-for-profits working across British Columbia that are especially

dedicated to connecting low-income and vulnerable British Columbians with supports

around financial literacy and numeracy. I want to highlight Disability Alliance B.C.,

DABC, which has been operating the tax assistance and information program, also known

as Tax AID, since 2015.

Deputy Speaker : Minister, I hate to interrupt you, but I see someone has risen here.

I’ll just introduce the member from Kelowna Centre.

Kristina Loewen : Thank you, hon. Speaker, and my apologies for interrupting.

I just want to seek leave to introduce my family.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Kristina Loewen : I’m super excited to introduce to you guys today my husband, Andrew Loewen, and my

two youngest kids, River and Mykyla.

Please help me in welcoming them.

Deputy Speaker : Welcome to the Legislature.

Minister, apologies.

Debate Continued

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

And welcome to the member’s family. It’s so nice when that can happen.

I am grateful for the advocacy that not-for-profit organizations that are dedicated

towards raising financial literacy and numeracy do to protect and support people who

are low-income and people who are especially vulnerable.

There’s a great cross-section of people that can be easily exploited or sold a bill

of goods, so to speak. These are organizations that really step up and build financial

literacy and also help with the most basic things, like tax filing, which can help

people access a lot of the federal and provincial supports that they’re eligible for.

[3:50 p.m.]

Disability Alliance of B.C. has been operating the tax assistance and information

program since 2015. They provide free community-based income tax–filing services for

people with disabilities and also persons with multiple persistent barriers across

British Columbia. They work in partnership with Together Against Poverty Society,

with the Ki-Low-Na Friendship Society and the Active Support Against Poverty Society.

In all these cases, they’re making British Columbia more accessible by improving access

to things like financial resources. They can also directly connect people who have

been exploited…. Maybe they’ve signed a cell phone contract that they wish they could

get out of. Maybe they were sold something on the doorstep, direct sales, which again,

can catch seniors and vulnerable people back on their heels and get them into a contract

they wish they weren’t into. These organizations really do fantastic navigation work

to help people get out of the jam.

With the extra protection of the legislation that is being debated here today, we’ve

got even more solid backup for people that are in a challenge. It’s, sadly, not uncommon

for people with a disability, people who are receiving income assistance, people who

are receiving disability assistance, to have incomes below the poverty line, and they

face significant barriers to accessing additional financial resources through tax

filing.

Services provided through organizations that help them file…. They can help them access

tax credits. They can get income tax refunds and additional benefits such as the registered

disability savings plan, grants and bonds. Many of these are federal supports, but

people, if they don’t file taxes, don’t get those supports. Because we’re moving into

tax-filing season, members of the Legislature in any riding can help their vulnerable

and low-income clients. They may not have income, but they still should file a tax

return, because that gives them eligibility for things like our B.C. child and family

benefit, for example.

On a sidebar, British Columbia and my ministry’s office have been doing advocacy directly

to the federal government, asking them to have automatic tax filing for some of these

people that have had challenges accessing tax filing. In some cases, it could just

be an automatic thing, if they enrol in that. That’s not something the federal government

has yet implemented, but something they say they would like to pursue.

We also have a group that’s here locally. Victoria LEAP is the program — life skills,

employment skills and awareness program. That’s run by the Community Social Planning

Council of Greater Victoria. I have heard a lot about their tiered program that serves

people who were formerly homeless, as well as supporting people in poverty to get

identification.

That’s one of, often, the greatest barriers to being able to access help or to be

able to access tax filing and other income supports, a replacement of ID. This is

a project that builds labour capacity, as well, because it taps into an existing pool

of workers who are often overlooked.

Another example of peer employment tax filing and support for poverty reduction is

in the Downtown Eastside. That’s Mission Possible Compassionate Ministries Society,

and they also have a really innovative peer employment model that has been testing

practices to support low-income people with multiple barriers to file their taxes

with a collaborative community-based approach. It’s really a classic approach in the

Downtown Eastside that, again, helps people with consumer protection, access to supports

and navigation that is available to them.

[3:55 p.m.]

The changes that we are proposing in the area of direct sales of high-cost household

products like air conditioners…. It has a really nice link to the work that the province

has been doing to help people stay cool during some of the really intense heatwaves

that we’ve had in British Columbia in the last couple of years. There has been that

much more of a feeling of urgency of accessing air conditioning products when you

know there’s a heatwave coming and you haven’t been able to find something in Canadian

Tire.

It’s one of the stories that I’ve heard around the door-to-door sales — that someone,

for example, might be sold an appliance on a monthly rental basi