Bill 28: When Good Intentions Create Possible Friction, Fraud, and Fragmentation

Abstract: Bill 28 aims to modernize consumer protection in British Columbia, but its current design risks slowing access to credit, weakening fraud safeguards, and fragmenting Canada’s harmonized credit-reporting framework. By leaving core issues to be solved later through regulations, the bill mirrors challenges seen in Québec and Ontario, where governments ultimately had to amend their statutes because regulations could not fix foundational flaws. A brief pause for consultation would ensure BC avoids the same costly cycle and delivers a system that protects consumers without creating friction, confusion, or operational risk.

British Columbia’s Bill 28 was introduced with the right intent to strengthen consumer protection and give people greater control over their credit information. But good intentions are not always enough. As written, the bill risks slowing down credit access, opening new avenues for fraud, and creating a fragmented system out of step with the rest of the country.

The Canadian Lenders Association (CLA) represents more than 300 financial institutions, including Canada’s major banks, credit unions, fintechs, and non-bank lenders. We are a pro-consumer organization. Our mission is to ensure Canadians can access credit safely, efficiently, and with as little friction as possible.

On this file, we share the government’s goal but have deep concerns with its current execution. Bill 28 moves too quickly, relies too heavily on future regulations to fix structural issues, and breaks with national standards that have protected Canadians for decades.

A pause for consultation is not a delay; it is a safeguard.

Friction: Slowing Down Access to Credit

For more than thirty years, Canadian lenders have used a harmonized system for fraud alerts using a single, verifiable phone number. This simple, national standard allows lenders to confirm identity quickly, keep fraudsters out, and get legitimate borrowers approved without delay.

Bill 28 replaces that clarity with ambiguity. The new law allows “contact information” in alerts a term so open-ended it could include an email address, a mailing address, or multiple unverified methods. This matters because every system in Canada is coded around a fixed-format standard. Changing it will require years of redevelopment and testing, particularly for BC-only lenders that do not operate in other provinces.

The result will be slower credit approvals, more abandoned applications, and unnecessary friction for consumers who need credit in a timely manner.

Fraud: Opening Doors for Bad Actors

Ironically, a bill intended to combat fraud may create new vulnerabilities. Allowing unverified or unsecured contact methods increases the risk of phishing, spoofing, and social-engineering attacks. Fraud thrives in uncertainty. Good policy fights that uncertainty with clear rules, not open-ended ones.

Bill 28 also requires lenders to use the “contact information” provided in an alert to verify identity. That means even institutions with sophisticated, secure authentication systems would be forced to rely on whatever method the consumer happened to enter including those most vulnerable to compromise.

A rigid rule creates a rigid vulnerability.

Fragmentation: Breaking National Consistency

BC risks becoming an outlier. Ontario and Quebec have already modernized their legislation with harmonized frameworks for credit freezes and alerts. Bill 28 introduces rules and definitions that diverge from this national alignment, forcing lenders to create a separate track just for British Columbia.

Fragmentation raises costs, introduces operational inefficiencies, and ultimately means a BC consumer applying for credit will face a different and more confusing process than someone in any other province.

Concern that Consultation will comes Too Late

British Columbia has the advantage of learning from two recent Canadian examples where governments assumed that regulation could fix statutory issues. It could not.

Québec
When Québec introduced its Credit Assessment Agents Act, policymakers expected regulatory consultations would iron out remaining issues. Instead, once implementation began, it became clear that the statute itself created obligations that were impractical or technically incompatible with real-world credit processes. Québec ultimately had to return to the legislature with technical amendments because regulations could not override the statute.

Ontario
Ontario’s experience with Bill 152 was similar. The law introduced new suspension rules for credit freezes, with the expectation that operational concerns could be managed later through regulations. But the statutory language was too rigid. The province required nearly two years including an 11-month rollout and a second year of corrective amendments to fix issues that early consultation could have prevented.

A Better Path Forward

The CLA supports modernization. We support consumer empowerment. We support the goal of protecting British Columbians from fraud. But modernization must be built on consultation with the industry that implements it every day.

A collaborative approach would allow BC to:

• Maintain national harmonization
• Ensure technical feasibility
• Reduce friction for consumers
• Strengthen fraud protections
• Avoid costly future amendments

The alternative is a cycle already seen in Ontario and Quebec: a rapid rollout, followed by confusion, operational strain, and eventual legislative repair.

Protecting consumers and enabling access to credit are not competing goals—they depend on each other. Bill 28 aims to protect consumers, but without targeted amendments and genuine consultation before passage, it may inadvertently create the very problems it seeks to solve.

BC has an opportunity to get this right the first time. A brief pause now can prevent years of friction, confusion, and avoidable changes later. The CLA urges policymakers to work with industry partners to ensure that modernization enhances protection rather than undermining it.

The stakes are too high for guesswork. Let’s build a system that works for every British Columbian from day one.

Key points

• Ambiguous “contact information” rules replace a proven national standard and will slow credit approvals while creating operational uncertainty.

• Fraud risk increases if lenders are required to verify identity using unsecured or consumer-entered contact methods like email or mailing addresses.

• BC becomes an outlier, breaking national harmonization with Ontario and Québec and introducing a fragmented, BC-only credit-reporting process.

• Regulations cannot fix structural flaws in the statute—Ontario and Québec both had to pass corrective amendments when legislation moved too quickly.

• Early consultation prevents costly redesigns, ensuring modernization enhances consumer protection without adding friction or confusion.