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 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 but 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.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I'm 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, 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 that 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. And 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've 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're 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 that 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. Because when you have knowledge, you can have more power — more power as a consumer but 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, 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. Of course, 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's mailing fees. Sometimes there's 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. But 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, so to speak, store 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 that they want to do. They want to be clear.

But even business people will tell you that some of the contracts that 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, do not have hidden clauses that all of a sudden jack up costs for them without any protections or any place to go, because, you know, 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, again, 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, 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. That, for some folks, 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 that 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, right? 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 reduce prices for consumers because they're in a much healthier marketplace.

I find it perplexing, actually, that 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 that 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'll 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, but 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 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 that Myspace was the coolest social media site on the web. I myself was 20 years old. Shrek 2 was the number one movie — a hit, I will tell you. The number one 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, 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. In many cases, this was because the terms and conditions or the renewal charges were not stated clearly, or the penalties were unreasonably unfair.

I am sure there are members in this House who don't read the terms and conditions in detail, and I am even more sure that those of us who have teenagers can relate to them definitely not reading the full terms and conditions. I say this as a parent 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 contracts they will sign in their young lives — it should be fair and transparent. 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 — 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. Thank you. 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 face — not only as individuals, a province or a country but the world — 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 that 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. And then the service that was provided was subpar, and they weren't actually able to contact the company after or were 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 but 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've 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. And so 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've 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've 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 that awareness is already starting to happen, and I think that 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.

And 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 that 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, and 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 that 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 that 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."

And 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 acknowledgment prohibited” 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 that…. 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've already made the point that this may disproportionately impact small operators, so perhaps some thought could be going into how to make sure that it doesn't do that.

Also, I would 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've 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.

But for sure there are some things in here, like…. 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. So 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 just 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 re-booked 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’ll 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'll also add notification requirements for automatic subscription renewals and restrict significant contract changes without the customer's consent.

These amendments will also 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 also 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've 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 who 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 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 that 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 that 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 that 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 as well. 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.

But 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, and 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 — and, it sounds like, some appreciation.

So 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.

But 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, and I quote: "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're 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 very 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 that we've 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. And I think…. As I’ve 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 can, 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 as well. 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 be able 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 — I'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 saw 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 — and you face nothing but barriers, obstacles and challenges to be able to do that. Again, the changes that we're bringing forward in this legislation, in the mind of protecting consumers, addresses 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 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 that 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 that we're bringing forward in this House that we're debating finds ways to be able to protect those people on whose doors that I continue to knock on 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. And 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.

Again, 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 many retail-based businesses. The Highlands is a unique community.

But 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. And 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 that 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.

Interjections.

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 that 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. Again, that was a CBC article from 2022.

[3:00 p.m.]

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're 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." So 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 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 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.

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 that 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 will 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.

On the amendment.

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 4.

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: we want consumers and the business community to have proper consultation after seeing exactly what the bill is. That's what's sitting in front of us today.

Deputy Speaker: The question is, of course, that 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.”

[3:30 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 that 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, NAYS — 48. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

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'd ask you to step into the hallway.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I rise to support the consumer protection legislation, Bill 4, to ensure stronger protections for consumers and a fairer marketplace. And based on extensive public consultation in multiple languages, on multiple platforms, 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 also in my role as Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, absolutely, about poor financial literacy being at the foundation of both poverty, but 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 Makayla.

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, but 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 that 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 that 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 for that. That's not something the federal government has yet implemented, but something that 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've 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 kind of 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 that 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 kind of door-to-door sales — that someone, for example, might be sold an appliance on a monthly rental basis. They believe that they will ultimately own the appliance at the end of the day, but, in fact, if the contract is written in a misleading way, then people on the front door….

I've heard that this has happened, especially to seniors. They don't maybe have as high negotiating skills or are not able to read the fine print. They're also feeling the urgency of wanting to have an air conditioner for a pending heatwave. There have been unscrupulous direct sale, door-to-door, practices.

This legislation is meant to stop that. Those direct sales would not be possible of those high-priced items, expensive appliances. But as well, at the same time, our government has expanded its free portable air conditioners program. The most recent expansion was to reach 19,000 more eligible households. Again, that means that people if have got access to air conditioners, they’re not going to be in this place of being sold something door to door.

We've also expanded new guidelines to clarify rules around installing air conditioners to better support tenants and landlords working together. I appreciate that for a landlord, they might have strong feelings about how an air conditioner would be installed. But a landlord is not able to bar a tenant from installing an air conditioner.

That was an important lesson for us in the very first heatwave, and why, over the last three years, we've been working hard both to get more air conditioners into the hands of vulnerable people, but also to make sure that people have the agency, as renters, to be able to do this installation.

This is being expanded through EquipCare B.C. to be able to support publicly subsidized assisted living and long-term care homes, and this is all part of finding solutions to mitigate climate impacts on the most vulnerable seniors who live in care.

Since the summer of 2023, B.C. Hydro has provided more than 6,000 free air conditioners to people throughout the province. All together we expect B.C. Hydro to provide more than 28,000 air-conditioning units throughout the province.

And then finally, in this area, to make sure that renters have access to the program, the residential tenancy branch has provided more clarity surrounding the installation of air-conditioning units to encourage renters and landlords to work together, clarifying that it's prohibited for landlords to ban air-conditioning units in rental agreements without a rational basis or a legitimate safety concern. This is all work that has been facilitated and designed in cooperation with service providers and advocates, especially for seniors in long-term care and outside long-term care.

We have got other remedies and mechanisms that we've been expanding as well. We're hearing at this time of people under real financial pressure and people that do not have the financial security that they need and that we want every British Columbian to be able to have access to.

We've also been working to provide not just income assistance but also supplementary assistance for people who are in need, low-income British Columbians — crisis supplements that are available for people receiving assistance to address unforeseen emergencies. That could be related to employment, to housing, to transportation. This all fits with this work around Bill 4 of protecting consumers but also protecting people's income.

Crisis supplements are newly expanded — crisis supplements just expanded this September — and can be issued where there's imminent danger to physical or mental health.

There is also no longer an explicit requirement regarding whether a child is at risk of being removed from the family's care in order to receive a crisis supplement. We’d heard that this was a real barrier to people reaching out and asking for help, and so that is a regulation that we changed.

Health supplements are also now available to be issued for additional kinds of breathing devices, the mandibular advancement device and cough assist device.

[4:00 p.m.]

We also, a year ago — or two years ago, actually — brought in a housing stability supplement introduced to help families maintain their housing when a family member is temporarily absent from the family. That was in a place that it could reduce a person's assistance level, but that just might be that they were in a special care facility. They might be in bed-based addiction treatment, or they might be incarcerated. Or another scenario would be if a family member died, then if that changes the person's family size, and therefore their income assistance calculation, we don't want a family at that time of crisis to be at the point of eviction because they can no longer pay their rent.

That is, again, a crisis supplement that a family or individual can apply for. It's adjudicated. And now, because it's built into regulation, the good people that work at the front counter helping folks navigate assistance have got clear guidelines.

We also had, over this last year, 9,000 health supplements issued for medical equipment. Again, someone that's on income assistance or very low income, if they're not able to afford it and they don’t have a benefits plan that can help them access the medical support that they need…. That is also something that has been expanded through a regulatory change that our government has brought in.

Probably the piece that I think has been the very most in the news about consumer protection, leading up to the implementation of Bill 4, has been some of the protection for consumers in relation to ticket-buying. Several years ago now, an earlier bill eliminated ticket bots and mass-buying software. The new ticket bylaw that we brought in provided more consumer protections and fairer processes for people when they had bought tickets to an event online or at the ticket booth.

Now, I know we aren't all the way there yet, but certainly that advancement just in the very first year of our government's mandate responded to the ticket-buying software and bots that had unfairly bought up large quantities of live event tickets for resale at inflated prices.

Again, another example of what's driving the Bill 4 legislation is the colossal move to an online retail platform that has really changed the consumer landscape, both on concert ticket-buying and other forms of consumer engagement in the marketplace, and our tools have had to respond to that online need.

Our basic consumer protection laws had not been updated since 2004, and for all the reasons that I've listed, the evolution of the market and the pressure on vulnerable seniors and vulnerable people that I talk with every day in my ministry…. We just hate to see the increasing risks of fraud, the preying on vulnerable people such as seniors. Newcomers has been a really significant area. Individuals with disabilities and those with lower incomes are, to our great disappointment and to their shame, targeted sometimes by predatory business practices. As part of our government's broad commitment to improving consumer rights protections and transparency, these amendments to the consumer protection legislation are here for Bill 4.

I will just wrap up by saying that I absolutely recognize the need to work with those who will be at the interface of implementation of this legislation.

[4:05 p.m.]

I heard members say that the separation between legislation and regulation implementation was a flaw in this legislation. But — absolutely — with passage of the legislation, then the work happens on the part of our public service and consumer advocacy organizations and the business advocacy organizations, the chambers of commerce across our province that then work in a very detailed way about both the timing and the mechanics of implementation.

We recognize that there may be some particular businesses that need to update their policies, contracts and disclosures to comply with the new rules. But that work will be done absolutely hand in hand, carefully, because we want these to work.

We want, more than anything, to have a fairer and more transparent marketplace that benefits reputable businesses but also protects consumers and — from my seat as Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction — especially the most vulnerable British Columbians. They are reliant on us and this Legislature to keep them in mind, to protect their interests and to have them be able to engage with trust and faith in the marketplace when they commit their precious dollars to purchase things that will bring them joy and stimulate our local economy.

I'll just finish by recognizing the really colossal effort of both businesses and British Columbians at this time of extreme concern about the impacts of President Trump's proposed tariffs. We have so much movement in the marketplace towards people purchasing locally, buying locally, checking the labels.

That is a consumer practice that is happening out of people's hearts, not arising from legislation but certainly a very strong imperative of our time. As a government that stands up with people and invests in people, we’re proud to add our Bill 4 consumer protection legislation to stand alongside that public effort.

Again, I support Bill 4.

Deputy Speaker: The Chair will recognize the member for Nanaimo-Lantzville.

George Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will say that it's the first time that I've gotten to be in this House with you in the chair, so congratulations on your appointment and also for your fantastic ability to chair our meeting so far. Thank you so much for that.

Today we are taking a critical step towards ensuring fairness, transparency and accountability in British Columbia's marketplace. As a lawyer and someone who has worked extensively with large and small businesses, I know firsthand that strong consumer protections do not harm businesses, but they strengthen them.

This legislation is about ensuring a level playing field, where ethical businesses thrive and consumers have confidence in the transactions they make. When consumers don't trust the marketplace, the marketplace suffers. And when a few bad actors take advantage of loopholes, it's responsible businesses, the ones who play by the rules, who end up paying the price.

Why is this legislation needed? Well, let's take a moment to reflect. The Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act was last updated in 2004. What has changed in the world since then?

Well, back in that time period, people were still renting VHSes. They were renting DVDs. Probably some people on the other side of the House might also think this: flip phones were the height of technology

In 2004, most people bought their goods in person. Today, e-commerce dominates. There is no front-end individual. There is no interaction with people. There is just a product which people click online, and instantly, they are connected to a product that might not give them any opportunity to be able to escape that contract. In 2004, subscription services were rare. Now they are everywhere. We're seeing streaming services, fitness, meal kits and software licensing.

[4:10 p.m.]

In 2004, contracts were signed on paper. As I mentioned earlier, we're signing them in the click of a button without seeing any fine print. I don't know how many of the people in this House have ever seen a clickwrap contract before, but wow. They can go on for days and days and days. I've written some of them.

Most businesses, like our Minister of Finance mentioned earlier today, act in good faith. But this rapid shift in our world has created significant loopholes, some that some companies are exploiting, and that is completely wrong. That's what the intent of this legislation is: to make sure that we're creating a fair and level playing field for all businesses. If we look to what the Competition Bureau has said: in 2001, they investigated corporations for misleading advertising with respect to online subscriptions.

Some in the opposition might say that this legislation is unnecessary and that consumers should just read the fine print. But let me tell you. I'd actually ask everyone in this House: what's the first thing that you want to do when you get home? Let me guess. For the opposition, the first thing they want to do when they get home after a long day of work is sit there and curl up with a 40-page terms and conditions document instead of watching Netflix. You definitely know how to spend your time having fun. You should join and become a lawyer, actually.

That being said, consumers have signed up for free trials only to later face unexpected charges due to complex cancellation policies that are hidden in the fine print. Another example is companies who have pre-checked agreement boxes, locking people into ongoing subscriptions without clear consent.

The purpose of a contract is that there is offer and that there is acceptance. When you don't have the ability to change any of the terms of a contract, that's the individual who’s in the vulnerable position. This is where this legislation matters.

The Business Practices and Consumer Protection amendments make sure that we create a level playing field. If a contract is fair, a business should have no problem making sure that it is transparent. If a contract is reasonable, a company shouldn’t be afraid to show it up front. This legislation ensures that British Columbians agree to a service and that they know exactly what they are signing up for. That is the basics of contract law.

I can tell you that signing up should never be easier than ending a contract. Mom-and-pop stores build their businesses on a reputation of trust and service. Some might argue that increasing regulation makes life harder for businesses, but the opposite is true. This legislation supports ethical businesses by ensuring that there is clarity and certainty.

Businesses small and large — the way that they’re able to operate is by knowing that they have certainty in their business practices. By knowing what they have to do within the four corners of their contract — that is how they’re able to ensure that their business can proceed. Clear rules on contract transparency, refunds and subscription renewals mean fewer disputes and stronger consumer trust.

A business that doesn't have to litigate repeatedly…. That's a good thing for a business. They have more money to spend on their business rather than going through the courts. We want a strong British Columbia with strong economic trust and consumer trust, because when individuals have strong confidence in the businesses that they interact with, they're willing to spend more money.

[4:15 p.m.]

Many of the businesses in British Columbia are doing the right thing every single day. But there are some that aren't following the rules, and that costs the businesses that are playing by the rules. Companies that are profiting off of deception are taking away from the businesses that are doing the right thing every day. As I've mentioned, consumer confidence is so important and integral to our economy. When people feel protected, they spend more, they engage and they invest in businesses.

As my colleague, the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, had mentioned, we’re talking about — in a time when Donald Trump is going to move forward with unjustified tariffs — looking at supporting local businesses. These tariffs are going to be significant, and what we need to make sure that we’re doing is ensuring that our businesses are following the rules. As I mentioned already, most of them are.

We want to make sure that the businesses in British Columbia are top of the line and that they are following these rules. Consider local gyms. A well-run gym…. I haven't been to one in a while, but that being said…. Members understand their fees, they understand the cancellation terms and the promotions up front. Why is that a bad thing — for a business to be able to set these things out for the people and the services that they are providing in British Columbia and across our country?

Some competitors have locked people into unfair auto-renewal contracts, hoping they won't notice until they’re charged. Some people are getting charged repeatedly, month after month, having to try to connect with some person through an online service chatting agency which doesn't say that they can actually talk to a real human being. And then what does that lead to? A person getting charged again and again and again.

This legislation helps businesses. It helps ensure that good businesses do not get undercut by bad actors. This should be something that is integral and a common thread between businesses and consumers alike — that a strong marketplace is built on trust. This legislation ensures that businesses that operate fairly are rewarded, not undermined by those who don't.

A key provision of this legislation is banning contractual terms that block people from joining class actions. Some of you might wonder: why does that matter? Well, the lawyer is going to tell you why.

In Uber Technologies and Heller, a case on class actions, an Uber driver in Canada was forced into a private arbitration in the Netherlands — in the Netherlands, of all places — rather than being able to have the ability to commence an action here in the country that they're in.

Imagine. This individual would have to leave Canada, get on a plane, go to the Netherlands, stay in a hotel for the entirety of this arbitration instead of being able to have and pursue a fair legal process in Canada. That's costly. It's not easily accessible. That is not good policy.

When the Supreme Court of Canada made its decision on this particular case, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that it was unfair, setting an important legal precedent for consumer rights.

[4:20 p.m.]

Now, here in British Columbia, we have the opportunity to take the next step to ensure that all consumers are protected. We’ve connected with businesses, we’ve connected with industry, and there have been many stakeholders that have been part of this process. If a business truly believes in its products, why would it fear accountability? If a company stands behind its service, why would it force customers into secret arbitrations instead of a fair process that they can see in their own country?

This legislation ensures when mistakes happen, companies can correct them fairly and transparently. That's why we also, in this legislation that has not been updated since 2004, look to crack down on predatory sales and practices. Again, I will say it. The majority of businesses operate with integrity. However, there are businesses in British Columbia and across the world that use misleading sales tactics, especially in high-pressure settings, and that must be stopped.

We see these examples across our country, with HVAC rental scams in Ontario, where homeowners were convinced to sign long-term rental agreements for heating and cooling systems. And what happened after they had someone come to their door and tell them: “This product is in your interest”? They found out that there were hidden fees, penalties that amounted to thousands of dollars. Some people wouldn't even be able to sell their homes without paying huge exit fees. To me, that is wrong.

And that’s what the intent of this legislation is. It’s to make sure that consumers and businesses alike understand the terms of their contract, what their responsibilities are, and can implement the terms of those contracts, based off what is contained within the four corners of that contract.

I would like to speak to another issue within our own province that highlights the reason why we need this consumer protection amendment update. For example, a senior in British Columbia was convinced to sign a contract for a water filtration system, and I'm sure you can guess where this is going. She was promised a great deal. And what did she get? I'm sure you know where this is going. It wasn't a great deal. A 15-year lease costing her thousands of dollars more than what the system was worth.

I don't know how my colleagues might be able to say that that is a fair practice, for someone to go after seniors — people who have helped build our province, who have built our country — and to go after them at a time when they have reduced ability to afford different items and say that that is okay. What we want to do, and I believe what this government is very much focused on, is ensure that every British Columbian has a fair chance and is treated fairly when they go through the contractual process of offer and acceptance.

I'll get close to finishing this story. That is, that what happened when she was trying to cancel this lease, hit with penalties that she didn't even know existed….

This legislation ensures consumers have the time to make informed decisions and also have fulsome information in front of them. That is the purpose, for me, of this legislation as well.

[4:25 p.m.]

We've moved from a time period of VHS’s, and some of my friends really love flip phones, as I've heard the numerous thunderous applause. But in 2023, the Better Business Bureau found that 40 percent of consumers struggled to cancel a subscription they no longer wanted. That's a problem.

This legislation requires that there be clear refund and return policies, that there are no more hidden conditions, that there be advanced notice for auto-renewals and that consumers must be reminded before being charged. For an individual, for a young mom who's taking care of three children, who goes to work in the morning, comes home and is dealing with so many different issues, this is a way that we're helping to create a fairer, kinder and gentler society.

In our communities, we know that British Columbians work hard, and they want to do what’s best for their families. That’s what businesses, good businesses in British Columbia and across Canada, want to do. They don’t want to deceive British Columbians. They want to make sure that the products they’re providing are the ones that British Columbians want and need. So giving people the opportunity to know before they’re charged again for a subscription service is good policy.

Ensuring that there is explicit consent — that’s also great policy. Why would we not want companies to have that explicit consent? It actually makes it better for companies to know that if they end up needing to be in litigation later, it is so crystal-clear that the consumer signed and consented to these additional charges. This makes sure that there is a meeting of the mind between the consumer and the company.

I mentioned this earlier. Signing up should never be easier than cancelling. If a company makes it hard to leave that contract, it says a lot about that company.

Legislation is only as strong as its enforcement. That’s why this bill strengthens the ability of Consumer Protection B.C. to hold companies accountable. Ethical businesses have nothing to worry about, and the majority of companies in Canada are ethical ones. But those who deceive consumers will face meaningful consequences, and I don’t think that is anything that anyone in this House should be worried about.

That's what we're focused on, making sure that those who are doing good work in British Columbia, those companies that are creating economic development in our province — who are giving people good jobs; who are teaching our tradespeople to build our province, from each corner of our province — will always be the companies that we want to uplift.

We want British Columbia to be the best place on earth, and it is the best place on earth. I am a proud British Columbian. I’ve been proud to work with many great companies. That’s why, in B.C., we reward honest businesses that treat people fairly.

I also want to speak to the aspect of the Civil Resolution Tribunal. The Civil Resolution Tribunal is an area that is more accessible to everyday people. The Supreme Court of British Columbia is a bit more complex, whereas at the Civil Resolution Tribunal, you don't need to be a lawyer. It is supposed to be accessible.

When people are dealing with the challenges that have arisen through the type of subscription service models, they would be able to have a remedy that’s available to them. When you have multiple $50 charges, it’s very difficult to be able to go and commence an action. That’s why we have the Civil Resolution Tribunal available for people.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

That’s why you also want to move away from the point of only looking at class actions, because class actions are a preferable way when you have a number of people who have smaller claims who need to be able to find a way to get a remedy through the courts.

[4:30 p.m.]

For me, I am very proud that this government is bringing forward consumer protection for British Columbians, especially during a time when we are seeing challenges with affordability. We’re standing on the side of businesses by ensuring that they have the clarity that they need to be able to provide the services that they want to provide to British Columbians, and we’re modernizing our legislation to reflect contemporary business practices. These are important things that we need to do as a province. To continue to have us stay back in 2004 and delay is unnecessary.

For some people…. We've heard today that we should do some more consultation. We've consulted with industry, with businesses and with lawyers to make sure that we could get to this place. The opposition says: "Let's wait a little longer." Well, let me tell you, it’ll be "wait a little longer" in the sense of signing up to the gym: "Well, I'll go to the gym on Monday.” But that’ll be six months later, or maybe it’ll be a year later. I don't think that British Columbians can wait for those changes.

We need to support British Columbians and consumers who are interacting with businesses every single day, and that's what this government is focused on.

We're getting close to closing, Madam Speaker. It’s great to see you in the chair, as well, and the first time that I've been able to address you in this chair. So thank you very much for being here and for also hearing why I believe that this legislation is so important, not just for my constituents in Nanaimo-Lantzville but across British Columbia.

This legislation isn't just about consumer rights; it's about strengthening trust in the marketplace. Because we don’t have a strong economy, we do not have strong businesses, without people having faith in our institutions. It’s integral to our businesses and consumer practices.

When I look to the future of British Columbia and our consumer protection legislation, I am hopeful, because I know that seniors will be protected, newcomers to British Columbia will not be taken advantage of and businesses will know that they will have the four corners of their contract that they can rely upon.

When a consumer comes to them and says, "I don't think that this contract was correct," that company can say: "No. Here's that consumer protection legislation that clears out specifically where I, as a business, did exactly what I was supposed to."

I'm very happy to stand in favour of businesses' and consumers' right to participate in the proper litigation process. As I mentioned already, it's very expensive to go through litigation, and we want to have our businesses laser focused on the things that matter, such as creating more economic growth, creating jobs and ensuring that individuals have faith in British Columbia's marketplace so that they can spend their money on the things that matter to them — and also with their families.

That's what we want to make sure that people are doing. We don't want seniors to be having their life savings go off into an abyss. We don't want to have bad actors taking the place of our good, strong businesses that have been leading the way.

[4:35 p.m.]

Madam Speaker, I'm close to wrapping up here, I assure you. Even though I know that you would love to hear me speak a little longer, unfortunately the time is coming to an end. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak just a little longer.

A strong economy isn't built on deception. It's built on trust. Today we are making sure that in British Columbia, trust is the rule and not the exception. With this bill, we are standing up for fairness, we are standing up for accountability and we are standing up for British Columbians.

Hon. Rick Glumac: I am honoured to stand in the House today to speak to Bill 4, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. This, to me, is the kind of legislation that…. This is why we're here. This is why our government is here — to protect the people of British Columbia.

I believe it has been a long string of legislation since we've become government, in 2016, that has focused on protecting residents of this province and helping to grow our economy and have a strong local economy here in B.C. From the moment we came in, we stopped corporate and union donations. We did the largest middle-class tax cut in B.C. history with the elimination of the MSP premiums. We are always looking out for B.C. residents, and this is another example of how we are doing that.

Prior to this bill, the legislation that protects consumers hasn’t been changed since 2004. That has been mentioned a few times by speakers here. Many have referenced 2004 and how long ago that was and how different things were back then.

One speaker said: "Oh yes, Shrek 2 was the No. 1 movie at that time." I was working on Shrek 2 at that time; I was in San Francisco. I was not doing any of this. This is a whole new thing compared to 2004 — very different times. One other speaker mentioned VHS tapes. I don't think there were VHS tapes though; I think that was before, like the '90s. But DVDs, I think. Anyways, it was a long time ago. Things were different for sure. And that legislation needed to be updated.

We have new technologies today, new business practices, different consumer behaviours and a completely different marketplace in so many ways impacting how our transactions are done, how we actually pay for things.

The population has changed significantly as well. The demographic has shifted. There is a lot more of a seniors population now than there used to be.

As we know, some of our older residents, our parents, can be vulnerable to someone knocking on the door and trying to convince them to buy something. When you think about it, it's like: "How could that be?" There have been instances when someone has knocked on a door — there have been lots of news reports about this — saying they're from the B.C. Environmental Home Services. It sounds very official. They want to inspect the furnace and make sure everything is okay, so they let them in to inspect the furnace.

After the inspection, they come out and say: “Well, there are some problems. Your furnace is an older system. Your insurance might not be valid.” Things like that.

Seniors and homeowners are like: "Oh my goodness. What should I do?"

[4:40 p.m.]

They say: "Don't worry. We’ve got you covered. We can get you a new furnace."

"That's too expensive. I can't do that."

“Well, don't worry. We’ve got you covered. We can do a contract with you. It's only $100 a month. It's for five years, and we will give you a new furnace. Then at the end of that term, you'll own that furnace.”

It all sounds good, except that none of it is true. The furnace didn’t need to be replaced. The contract, in fact, didn’t provide furnace ownership after the five years. Even worse than that, there are instances in the contracts where there is language calling for security registration or notice of security interest, which basically means that they're signing a contract with the homeowner which puts a lien on the home.

Sometimes this can be unknown to the homeowner until such time as they need to sell their home, Then they discover there’s a lien on the home, and they say: “How could there be a lien on the home? I never did anything.” Then they find out that because of this contract, they have to pay off this contract, probably at a significant cost, in order to remove the lien. This is just one example of how people are vulnerable. These are high-pressure tactics. These are things that are very troubling and that can lead to a significant loss of money for our residents here in British Columbia.

Recognizing that some of these things have been happening, our government embarked on consultation in 2019 and then again in 2022. There has been some criticism by the opposition that the business community was not engaged in this consultation, but in fact there was significant engagement. There was a consumer contracts discussion paper that was written and shared with stakeholders across many sectors – small business, public interest, consumer rights advocates, seniors, vulnerable group advocates, Indigenous businesses.

In part of this engagement process, sector representatives were encouraged to make written submissions in response to the proposals outlined in the discussion paper. Written submissions were received from a cross-section of businesses. The MLAs that were responsible for this consultation met with many business organizations.

Some examples are the Automotive Retailers Association, the B.C. Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Canadian Consumer Council, Council of Senior Citizens Organizations, Direct Selling Association, Public Guardian and Trustee, Public Interest Advocacy Centre of Canada, the Retail Council of Canada, Small Business Round Table, Motor Vehicle Sales Authority and Small Business B.C.

These are just some examples of business organizations and other groups that were consulted in formulating this legislation that we are looking at today. I think any efforts to delay that any further are completely unwarranted. I’m glad that amendment did not pass earlier.

This is not the only thing around consumer protection that our government has done. We prohibited ticket-buying bots in 2021 — I think it was — where programs would go out there and buy a whole slew of tickets, and then, having essentially a monopoly on those tickets, they would sell them at highly inflated prices. We made that illegal as well. There’s a clear history of the work that we are doing to protect consumers, and that is part of this legislation.

[4:45 p.m.]

This legislation does a number of things. It requires businesses to provide important contract terms up front, including info about renewal, cancellation, return and refund policies. It helps bring that transparency that is much needed. It requires it. This is helpful for cell phone contracts. This is helpful if you’re purchasing an item online and you’re not really sure if you can return that item. It’s going to become required that that information be presented more clearly.

The legislation will also introduce notification requirements for automatic subscription renewals and restrict significant contract changes without the consumer's consent. This is helpful for streaming services and things like that. The legislation will also prohibit contract terms that restrict participation in class action lawsuits, restrict consumer reviews or require private arbitration for disputes.

I was listening in the House earlier, when members of the opposition did express concern. A particular member stated that it may not be okay that we are not allowing contracts that restrict consumer reviews, saying: “Oh, that could impact businesses.”

The intention of consumer reviews, as we all know, is to share information with the public about their experience with that product. If an individual did not have a good experience, they should have every right to share that with people.

Of course, if the business has many, many customers…. There are always going to be some bad reviews, but it’s the amalgamation of those reviews, the 4.7 stars or whatever it is, that tells us something about what that business is. Imagine a contract taking away that right. This legislation would prohibit that restriction.

It’ll also ban direct sales, such as door-to-door sales that we mentioned earlier, of high-cost household products like HVAC — air conditioning, furnaces and things like that. It prohibits, also, the offering of credit as part of a direct sale, reducing the risk of predatory sales tactics.

The legislation will also provide clear pathways for consumers to cancel contracts under specific conditions, and it’ll give consumers the ability to use the Civil Resolution Tribunal to adjudicate disputes under the BPCPA. These changes will reduce the financial vulnerability of consumers and help consumers better understand the contracts they are entering into. This will help increase trust in transactions and boost consumer confidence when buying products or entering into new contracts and services.

It’s worthwhile mentioning some other examples of where these things happen. It’s not just the door-to-door example that I gave. It can happen in bigger companies as well.

There’s a story I read about some of the biggest telecom services in Canada entering into contracts with customers. Once they enter into those contracts, the customer finds out that the costs start increasing. As most of us have experienced, when we enter into a contract for a cell phone or something like that, we know what the price is. It’s very clear, and we pay that price for the term of the contract.

[4:50 p.m.]

But there have been cases, in renting TV boxes, for example, where the cost of it went up the first month after the contract started, to the surprise of the consumers that were getting that new service. Imagine how difficult it must have been for anyone that had that happen to them, trying to call in and rectify this situation.

There have been hours spent on the phone trying to understand why this is happening. Why am I being charged extra here? Fighting for what you believe the contract said, but it was so buried in the fine print that you didn't know. This legislation is here to try to address some of these challenges.

If you have looked at some of these contracts…. Some people have said that you need to be a certified professional accountant in order to understand exactly what’s going on. You have to put together an Excel spreadsheet and try to figure out why you are being charged this and why you are being charged that. It can be very challenging.

For the cell phone companies, the CRTC is regulating this. The CRTC, in fact, in this example, sent a letter to the big telecommunication companies which states that these companies should not be surprising their customers with price increases beyond the price they had originally agreed to and reminds them that any additional charges such as those related to equipment must be clear. They are saying that. So this legislation will help ensure that that is what is happening.

Another example that I could give is related to TicketMaster. In fact, there was a class action lawsuit. We mentioned earlier about the bots buying tickets. TicketMaster has always been something that we have been thinking about.

We all like to be able to get tickets to go to our favourite concerts and things like that. Imagine buying that ticket, and then all of a sudden being forced to pay extra fees. When you're in that situation, sometimes….

I'm not a fan of Taylor Swift, but some people might stay up, get in line and do whatever they can do to get those tickets. If you're on that screen and it says that you've got a ticket, it's like winning a lottery. It's like: "Oh, I did it." Then when you get to the checkout, all of a sudden you could be faced with a bunch of different fees.

Examples. This class action lawsuit called this drip pricing: fees outside the regular ticket price which were added at the end to the total price. Some of these fees are, like, stagehand fees or something like that.

When you're in that situation, you've got these tickets, what can you do? You're kind of in a high-pressure situation. You have a timer. You have five minutes to complete this transaction, and you have to do it. So you do it; you pay the fee. You have no other choice. It's not like you can go somewhere else and buy this ticket. You have to buy the ticket.

This class action lawsuit, they’re saying, affects over one million Canadians. And, in fact, it was ruled…. In August 2024, Ticketmaster agreed to pay more than $6 million to Canadian users as a result of this lawsuit.

We know that there are so many ethical and great businesses out there. Sometimes even when we’re talking about these businesses…. We’re not saying that they are unethical, but these things creep into the business practices, and they have to be addressed. This legislation, after much consultation — listening to consumers, listening to residents in British Columbia about what kinds of challenges they've had…. These aspects of this legislation come out of that consultation.

[4:55 p.m.]

It's much needed. It's something that will benefit British Columbians. I am very proud to be able to support this legislation, and I look forward to hearing further debate.

I thank you for the opportunity to stand today and to speak to this.

Susie Chant: I rise to support the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act amendments as proposed by the Office of the Attorney General.

As I begin, I gratefully acknowledge that I am speaking on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən people, the Songhees and the SXIMEȽEȽ in particular. The water, land, air, flora and fauna have been stewarded here for millennia, and the words in front of the Parliament Buildings speak to the importance of the people, especially the children.

Additionally, I acknowledge with appreciation the səlilwətaɬ and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nations, on whose unceded land the riding of North Vancouver–Seymour is situated. Every year I learn more about the values and principles that guide these nations and the leaders who are steadfast in their journey to support all nation members to live a full and healthy life in safety and joy.

As has been said a number of times in this House today, this legislation has been needed for a while. I was a little taken aback at some of the references to what it was like back then, since I can remember what it was like back then and then some. So saying that flip phones were sort of the de rigueur of the day…. I was still on a pager, folks. So come on, let's not make this too much.

Anyway, the reason that we look at these things is that we want to revise and enhance the consumer protection laws so that we incorporate clearer expectations that consumers are better informed before they enter into contracts.

I enjoyed the speech from our lawyer friend over here, who was making very clear what a contract is. It is agreement between the purchaser and the provider, and that agreement needs to be clear and understood by both parties. It needs to very directly state what you can expect, whether it's a good or a service. We want to know that consumers are getting clear information when they enter into the contracts.

As we have said, the marketplace has evolved significantly in the last 20 years. Right now my husband does repairs on equipment for people who have low and no vision. He's the only one that does that work across most of Canada and down the western seaboard. And he has to get stuff off eBay now to replace some of the older equipment, because he can't get it anywhere else.

So when you're looking at things that support people who have visual issues or communication issues and you have to go onto eBay, you’d better be getting what you're looking for. You’d better be getting what was advertised, what that picture showed you. Otherwise, you've got the wrath of my husband, and then you've got me to back up. Or one way or the other. Sometimes it's the wrath of me, and he backs me up. But anyway, that equipment is terribly important for people.

My husband can see and read and write in the language that eBay uses. Can you think about the people that are looking for things on eBay and that they're trying to understand what it is that's available?

And eBay isn't the only thing that I'm referring to. There are many things out there. All you have to do is do some of that — what do we call it? — doomscrolling and looking at different things that pop up and say: "Here, buy me. I'm going to make your life so much better."

Those things that are out there, they need to be clear. It needs to be clear that if I give them my card number and say, "Here's my Mastercard,” or my Visa or anything else, that I'm getting what it is that I have applied for, because there are just too many ways now for people to get separated from their money.

[5:00 p.m.]

That money, as my colleague pointed out, is needed in so many ways. Sure, yes, we need to be able to pay rent. We need to be able to buy food. We need to be able to make sure that we can get transport to and from the places that we need to get to. It would also be nice to be able to go to the occasional movie, for those that go to a movie still. Hang on, I may have to retract that.

Interjection.

Susie Chant: You go to movies? Thank you; I appreciate that. Yes.

You know, having funds available to actually do things with rather than only having what you need to get through. There are many people that don't even have that. A lot of times, those are the people that are hit the hardest. They pick up something, they look at it, it looks like it's going to make life better for them in one way or another. It's going to perhaps save them money for whatever reason because it creates widgets faster.

But then they purchase it, and it does nothing. And now they've paid maybe a one-time cost. Maybe they're paying an ongoing subscription, such as the gym example that was given earlier. I don't know how many people I've heard from about gyms where they have subscribed and bought a year's worth, and then they maybe stopped going after seven or eight months and, okay, we'll just let it run out the year. However, no. It became automatic. It got subscribed again, and they're still paying the money 14 or 15 months later, and sometimes they don't even know it.

There's actually an app in the U.S. that consolidates all the things that your cards are paying month after month and tells you about them. I wish we had something like that because there are times that — I'm sure — all of us have maybe thought about buying something and then realized it's not doing anything for us.

How often have we heard of people buying a product or a service only to find that that contract can be changed, the price has gone up over time with no notification, or they just actually did not get what they paid for. It came through the mail; it came by Amazon and, lo and behold, it is not what they thought they were purchasing. The time and effort to change that, to return it, to maybe get what you wanted or get reimbursement…. A lot of people won't do that. It's money just gone. None of us can afford that. None of us.

These problems have become rampant over the past years, and these amendments will update the legislation in order to strengthen consumer protection and create a fairer marketplace. The key changes proposed should help to raise consumer awareness. We need to know. People need to know what it is they're purchasing. People need to know what the expectations are. People need to know how much it's going to cost them for whatever it is they are buying. The service, the product.

We've talked about tickets. We've talked about people buying tickets. It was advertised at…. Okay, Taylor Swift, anybody? It’s $300; I'm going to go. And then by the time it was fully paid for, it was almost $800. This is something that somebody had been waiting for, for a long, long time. But by the time they got into the lottery, and then into the available tickets, the $300 tickets were all gone. The $500 tickets were all gone. Do you want it? Do you still want to go to Taylor Swift? Okay, you're paying $800.

People that think we're logical go, well, I'm not going to that for $800. However, that's not necessarily the perception and the feeling and the desire. It's an important thing for people to be able to get a product for what it was advertised for and not just see that price go up and up because the market is pushing it in that direction.

The other side of this is that these amendments will allow for enhanced enforcement and particularly in the areas of predatory practice. I have worked for many, many years as a nurse in community. One of my roles was the lead for adult protection in my program.

[5:05 p.m.]

I don't know how many times I've had a son or a daughter call me and say: "Mom." — Mom was widowed maybe two years ago — “has bought three TVs. I don't know what happened. There are three TVs in the house now. She can't even make one of them work without the remote being annoying. Why is it that my mom can just buy three TVs? What are you going to do about that?”

It's because somebody phoned her, or something came in on the computer, or somebody showed up at the door and sold her something that they were able to persuade her was very important to them. It was very important that Mom had a TV in the bedroom, Mom had a TV in the living in the dining room and Mom had a TV in the den. When you ask, Mom goes: "I don't even watch TV. Not anymore. I'm not interested in it anymore. There are too many commercials."

But these are things that happen. They happen with our elderly. They happen with the folks that are new immigrants who are told, "Oh, you must buy one of these. You're in Canada now. This is important to have in your house," — whatever “this” is. There are businesses that prey on people. That is something that we need to be able to have consequence and enforcement for. These amendments will allow for that.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The changes will also hold businesses accountable for their practices and establish an expectation that consumer protection is incorporated into all transactions. This will be achieved through requiring businesses to provide contract terms and conditions right up front and to include improved remedies for the consumers related to renewal, cancellation, return and refund policies. This is particularly pertinent to goods and services bought online and brings greater transparency to contracts related to pre-purchase.

Additionally, notification requirements will be established for automatic subscription renewals. How many of us have had subscriptions renewed? You don't have to put your hand up; I don't want to distress Mr. Speaker. But how many people in this room have had a subscription renewed without even recognizing that it was going to happen?

Yup, yup. Me too. I got one from… What was it? Oh, I'm not even going to say. It's a little embarrassing. Anyway, it was a big chunk of change, and I ended up paying it because I had no idea that I hadn't cancelled it, whatever it was. We're going to leave that to your…. No, maybe we're not going to do that either. We're not going to leave that to your imagination.

Anyway, subscriptions.

Interjections.

Susie Chant: Subscriptions do…. You know, we laugh, but that's money down the drain. That's money I could have spent on many other things and enjoyed spending it on other things. Notification requirements for subscription renewals, with restrictions placed on significant contract changes only happening with the subscriber’s consent.

That harkens back to what was said earlier around, for instance, the telecom situation that occurred across Canada, where the three major telecom providers basically all put their rates up at the same time. So if I was with one provider and thought, “Okay, I’d better go to another one, because this one's too expensive for me,” I didn't have, really, much of a choice. I was going to be paying the same rate no matter what. There was no competition there. That's another area that will be impacted by this amendment.

Contract terms that restrict participation in class action lawsuits, restrict consumer reviews or require private arbitrators for disputes — these will now be prohibited. Much as I hate to say this, I didn't even know that happened. I did not know that there were times that you would go into a contract that would say: "You can't do a review on whatever this product is." I didn't know that. So now I've learned something new through working on this particular amendment.

[5:10 p.m.]

Direct sales of high-cost products or items that typically cost more than $1,000 will be banned, as will the offering of credit on part of a direct sale. This step will address and reduce the risks of predatory sales tactics. Consumers will have more transparent options to cancel contracts under specified conditions. Finally, consumers will be able to use the Civil Resolution Tribunal to adjudicate disputes under amended legislation. You heard my friend speak about that.

The Civil Resolution Tribunal is much more accessible for most of us. Most of us are not in the place where we're going to be able to get a lawyer to defend ourselves against what a business says we need to pay or do or continue to pay. Now we're able to take that to somewhere that's more accessible and be able to present our side and make it so that we have a fair adjudication of what's going on.

Implementing these new changes will enhance consumer awareness and the capacity for enforcement, as I've said before. This also allows us to hold businesses accountable. Again, to reinforce what was said by my colleague, most businesses are trying to do their best to provide fair service, appropriate goods, reasonable exchange for what you pay them. But there are those out there that will take advantage of a situation.

I can hark back to…. Anybody who actually remembers the Cabbage Patch dolls? Okay. At one point, Cabbage Patch dolls were selling for over $150 for a thing — excuse me; I'm showing my bias — that did very little other than being there. Why was that? Because the market was realizing that everybody wanted one for whatever reason. I still don't quite understand that.

However, here we were. People were paying 100, 120, 150 bucks because they wanted that Cabbage Patch doll for their granddaughter who wanted a Cabbage Patch doll or their grandson who wanted a Cabbage Patch doll. And they weren't going to be that grandma that didn't get the kid what they wanted. I, unfortunately…. If I'm ever that grandma, they're not going to get what they want at that price. It's not going to happen. I’ve got to say, every once in a while my kids wanted to trade for another mother. It's true.

Sorry, I lost my point for a minute. Okay. Amendments promote affordability and fairness, increasing the ability of people of British Columbia to access information and tools that are important to making informed decisions regarding the purchase of goods and services.

As was spoken to before, these amendments also went through a rigorous consultation process, involving both the public in general and stakeholders who are impacted. It was designed to promote fairness, transparency and fiscal inclusion for all consumers. Public surveys, consultation with industry and stakeholder engagement forums were conducted to determine a clear understanding of current consumer challenges and business impacts. Input was also provided by consumer advocacy groups, financial institutions and legal experts.

These amendments will also bring British Columbia into alignment with other leading consumer laws in the country, which is another thing that we have been a little bit behind on, in that, since 2004, we've been using the same law. These amendments will now bring us back into line with current state and with other provinces in the country.

For some businesses, it will mean updating policies, contracts and disclosures to ensure that they are in compliance with the new rules. This work will be supported. The amendment earlier asked that there be some time put in place to allow businesses to catch up with this. The way that it will be done is that businesses will be supported to come into compliance as they need to.

[5:15 p.m.]

It’ll be supported by Consumer Protection British Columbia so that businesses are informed about the impact on them. Consumer Protection B.C. will also oversee enforcement with penalties of a maximum of $50,000 for a business or $5,000 a person for those who are not able to comply.

For those that are interested, the consumer protection bureau of British Columbia is an independent entity, and it is in fact funded through the licensing and compliance fees that are paid by businesses. So it's not the tax dollars that are going into supporting the implementation of this amendment.

As of royal assent, some of these changes will then come into play immediately, whereas some of them will be enacted later, allowing businesses to make the required adjustments to bring them into compliance.

There have been many examples of predatory or outright nefarious business practices that have led to consumers paying for products or services that were not wanted or not what was expected. Examples have been cited across the country, as outlined by the Attorney General, and those are the ones that have made it into the public domain.

How many times do you think a consumer has just continued to pay, either knowingly or on occasion unknowingly, because they don't have the capacity or the tenacity to get it changed? Gym memberships not used, clothing discarded, diet programs that just keep taking monthly programs, even though the purchaser is not realizing the amazing results advertised by companies who prey on self-image anxieties.

Big companies like Canada's major telecom providers are making it so that people have no choice but to pay the unexpected charges on critical services. In our country, a phone is a critical service. Internet is a critical service. Television is a pretty critical service. These are important things for people, and when you make it so that you have no choice but to pay increasing…. It's not good enough.

CBC has done a lovely job of reporting on the stuff that comes to their attention. But there is so much that goes on without those reports, without the public understanding.

I’ll talk about Ticketmaster, briefly. It's been talked about a couple of times now. Again, unearthed and publicized by CBC, December 6, 2024, it’s engaging in drip pricing so that a variety of fees are added to the base ticket prices — considered to be unfair practices. A class action suit was launched, where it was also noted that Ticketmaster sales occurred in real time, whereby if an individual hesitated to book the tickets of their choice, they may well lose the purchasing opportunity.

Noting the hour, I will reserve my right to complete the debate, and I move adjournment of the debate.

Susie Chant moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday.

The House adjourned at 5:18 p.m.