.jpg;w=804)
Before booking a dinner reservation for a friend's birthday, we tossed a few restaurant ideas into the group chat. One friend said one of the places we recommended was too far away with limited transit options, and another reminded us of her shellfish allergy. Despite our thoughtful suggestions, none seemed to fit. Then, someone suggested a new Italian spot that had just opened nearby and seemed perfect for the festive occasion. After some back and forth, we settled on trying the new place. It was a blast.
Asking our friends for feedback on restaurant options, though trivial, underscores the value of seeking input from others to gather diverse opinions and make informed decisions. For more consequential decisions—such as those made by government—engagement is essential to improve policy outcomes and avoid unintended consequences.
Unfortunately, the B.C. government has consistently sidelined a crucial voice in discussions around major legislative changes: The voice of small businesses.
This pattern began years ago with the introduction of the Employer Health Tax and employer-paid sick days, but it reached new heights during the 2024 spring legislative session. Despite small and medium-sized enterprises comprising 98 per cent of B.C. businesses, their perspective is frequently excluded from consultations. Worse still, the B.C. government repeatedly announced sweeping legislative reforms without notice, causing confusion, frustration and uncertainty among small firms.
The first blow came in January, when the government proposed amendments to the Land Act, radically altering property rights and land ownership and how development decisions are made. Public education on these changes was insufficient, and the “consultation” process appeared to be an afterthought rather than a sincere effort to gather input. One participating farmer lamented the consultation was "just a pretense to dot the i's and cross the t's." Predictably, government had to rescind the amendments due to public outcry.
Just a few weeks later, the province launched its review of B.C.’s Labour Relations Code, which essentially determines the future of provincial labour law. Although government had five years to prepare for this consultation, stakeholders were only allotted a mere month to submit feedback. On top of this tight timeline, they received no indication of which elements of the code were up for debate. Naturally, this opaque approach makes it exceedingly difficult for participants to make meaningful contributions.
Midway through the review, the B.C. government announced Bill 9, a new piece of legislation allowing provincially regulated employees to join federal picket lines. Despite the bill’s obvious significance to both workers and employers, it was not included in the Labour Relations Code review. This sidestep of procedural fairness is frustrating for small businesses who deserve to have their voices heard in decisions that will impact their livelihoods.
The cherry on top came mid-March, with government announcing yet another surprise bill—the Public Health and Accountability Act. The bill was written with extremely broad language, which legal experts quickly pointed out could be interpreted to allow the B.C. government to sue practically any business associated with the province. Of course, legal changes of this magnitude undermine stability for businesses and deter much-needed investment. Yet again, the government had to roll back the bill.
This series of legislative failures underscores a fundamental truth: Good policy decisions aren’t made in a vacuum.
Genuine engagement builds trust between government and citizens and strengthens policies to better address real challenges. While it’s troubling that our restaurant selection process involves more consultation than the B.C. government’s policymaking, there’s still a chance to change course. Perhaps next time, small businesses will have a seat at the table.
Emily Boston is a senior policy analyst at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Jairo Yunis is the director for British Columbia and Western economic policy at CFIB.
