This petition is entitled “Pass Anti-Scab Labour Legislation.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the use of replacement workers undermines workers’ collective power, unnecessarily prolongs labour disputes, and removes the essential power that the withdrawal of labour is supposed to give workers to help end a dispute, that is, the ability to apply economic pressure;

“Whereas the use of scab labour contributes to higher-conflict picket lines, jeopardizes workplace safety, destabilizes normalized labour relations between workers and their employers and removes the employer incentive to negotiate and settle fair contracts; and

“Whereas strong and fair anti-scab legislation will help lead to shorter labour disputes, safer workplaces, and less hostile picket lines;

“Whereas similar legislation has been introduced in British Columbia and Quebec with no increases to the number of strike or lockout days;

“Whereas Ontario had anti-scab legislation under an NDP government, that was unfortunately ripped away from workers by the Harris Conservatives;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To prohibit employers from using replacement labour for the duration of any legal strike or lockout;

“To prohibit employers from using both external and internal replacement workers;

“To include significant financial penalties for employers who defy the anti-scab legislation; and

“To support Ontario’s workers and pass anti-scab labour legislation, like the Ontario NDP Bill 90, Anti-Scab Labour Act, 2023.”

I support this petition. I’ll provide it to page Danté for the Clerks’ table.

“Support the University of Sudbury.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Franco-Ontarians have fought and organized for a century to see a French-only higher education institution developed for, by and with Franco-Ontarians in the north through the University of Sudbury; and

“Whereas 65.9% of Franco-Ontarians believe the province should fund the University of Sudbury towards this French-language-only programming for higher education; and

“Whereas Franco-Ontarians are still fighting to see their charter right protected and have the same higher education given in the French-minority language; and

“Whereas studies have shown that at full capacity, the University of Sudbury will generate $89.3 million for the region; and

“Whereas there are 8,500 Franco-Ontarians in the region aged between 10 and 19 who could enroll in higher education in French close to their home in the next 10 years;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To provide the needed funding as requested by University of Sudbury of $10 million a year to ensure the future of University of Sudbury, a higher education institution made for, by and with Franco-Ontarians, starting now.”

I support this petition. I’ll affix my signature and provide it to Beckett to bring to the table.

The petition I’d like to read is entitled “Health Care: Not for Sale.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontarians should get health care based on need—not the size of your wallet;

“Whereas Premier Ford and Health Minister Jones say they’re planning to privatize parts of health care;

“Whereas privatization will bleed nurses, doctors and PSWs out of our public hospitals, making the health care crisis worse;

“Whereas privatization always ends with patients getting a bill;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately stop all plans to privatize Ontario’s health care system, and fix the crisis in health care by:

“—repealing Bill 124 and recruiting, retaining, and respecting doctors, nurses and PSWs with better working conditions;

“—licensing tens of thousands of internationally educated nurses and other health care professionals already in Ontario, who wait years and pay thousands to have their credentials certified;

“—10 employer-paid sick days;

“—making education and training free or low-cost for nurses, doctors, and other health care professionals;

“—incentivizing doctors and nurses to choose to live and work in northern Ontario,” and;

“—funding hospitals to have enough nurses on every shift, on every ward.”

I fully support this petition and will deliver it with page Michael to the Clerks.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas children and youth across Ontario experience mental health and addiction issues that impact their lives and the lives of those around them;

“Whereas the demand for community child and youth mental health services is increasing ... 50% of them are waiting over six months and 20% ... for longer than a year for services;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to properly and equitably fund community children’s mental health services immediately to improve access to timely services for children, youth and families in our communities.”

I fully support this petition, will affix my signature and deliver it with page captain Danté to the Clerks.

I am very pleased to rise in this assembly this afternoon to speak to our bill, the Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act. This is our proposed new Consumer Protection Act, an act that is vital to the people of Ontario and to our economy. This bill also contains our proposed amendments to the Consumer Reporting Act.

Mr. Speaker, our government has an obligation to Ontario consumers. In fact, we are all consumers in our province and our government must ensure that there are safeguards against unfair business practices. These include, among other things, aggressive sales tactics and misleading claims.

At a time when many families are struggling just to pay for household essentials and looking to make every dollar count, our government must stand up for them and make sure they do not face unnecessary hardships. If passed, this legislation would enhance protections for consumers in the marketplace, strengthening their rights and their confidence, while making it easier for businesses to comply with consumer protection rules. Our proposed changes to the Consumer Reporting Act would improve and clarify that act for businesses and for consumers, while at the same time helping Ontarians monitor, protect and access their information and their credit scores.

A look back at historical context is appropriate at this time, I suggest, Mr. Speaker. How did we get to this point in consumer protection history?

Going back many decades, the idea of consumer protection was a subject of federal initiatives both here in Canada and in the United States. Back in 1962, President John Kennedy spoke of a consumer bill of rights. And in 1967, our federal Canadian government created the first federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but the province of Ontario was already well ahead of the federal government at that point. This is because, of course, in the original BNA Act of 1867, the Constitution Act of 1867, the exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights fell to the provinces.

So Ontario was the leading province, I submit, under then Prime Minister John Robarts—in those days, we called the First Minister of the province the Prime Minister. Under a Robarts Progressive Conservative government almost 60 years ago, the journey of this act began. That is when this assembly passed the Consumer Protection Act of 1966. That consumer-protection legislation was initially focused on door-to-door sales, consumer credit and repossession. Other legislation passed by the provinces included provisions providing for relief from unconscionable transactions and restricting certain business practices.

The current Consumer Protection Act that we propose to replace by this new modernized consumer protection act was introduced through the Consumer Protection Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002. The minister of a Progressive Conservative government at that time was Tim Hudak, who the Speaker acknowledged today and is present in the assembly. That act was designed to modernize and harmonize consumer protection laws to better serve and safeguard Ontarians. It was a major consolidation of six pieces of legislation that were developed between 1966 and 1994: the Business Practices Act of 1974, the Consumer Protection Act of 1966, the Consumer Protection Bureau Act of 1966, the Loan Brokers Act of 1994, the Motor Vehicle Repair Act of 1988, and the Prepaid Services Act of the same year, 1988.

Both of these game-changing statutes for the protection of Ontarians were drafted and introduced by Progressive Conservative governments, I am proud to report, and our Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, 2023, is a continuation of this great Progressive Conservative legacy. This is a legacy of putting Ontarians’ well-being at the forefront and making sure that our fellow citizens have all of the protections needed as they navigate the marketplace—an increasingly digitalized marketplace—and online world.

We need look no further than the preamble to this proposed bill as we look to determine what the purpose of this and consumer protection legislation is really all about. The preamble is worth reading, I say to all members of the House. The preamble contains these four pillars:

“Consumers should have confidence that they are well-protected and well-informed when they buy goods or services in the marketplace.

“The economy thrives when businesses understand their responsibilities and consumers can trust businesses when spending their hard-earned money.

“The government of Ontario is dedicated to informing consumers, empowering them with a greater understanding of their rights and protecting consumers from unfair business practices, while holding non-compliant businesses accountable.

“The government of Ontario is committed to supporting a level playing field for businesses in order to promote fairness in the marketplace.”

I submit that that preamble is represented in all of the 121 sections of the proposed bill. I might add, in terms of historic context, that times have changed; the marketplace is more complex. We need consumer protection more than any other time. But by contrast, Bill 142 is much lengthier in terms of sections. It contains 12 parts making up those 121 sections. The original 1966 act was 35 sections and four parts. We have come a long way, but life and consumer protection needs are more complex in the modern world of 2023.

My ministry, the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery, plays an important role in fulfilling our government’s duty to consumers. As Ontarians make significant purchasing choices, we are here to enforce consumer protection legislation and safeguard our fellow citizens from bad actors. Ontarians must feel confident that their government has their backs regardless of when, where or how they enter contracts. Whether they are signing a contract for home renovations, an installation of a major home appliance, the purchase of a time-share, or the purchase of subscriptions and memberships, we must provide modern legislation that addresses consumer protection now in 2023.

Ontario currently has at its disposal the Consumer Protection Act of 2002, which aims to guard the rights of consumers while fostering a healthy and competitive economy. It is the primary legislation that defines rules for consumer protection in Ontario—a key piece of Ontario’s consumer protection framework that applies to most transactions between consumers and businesses. The current act does help protect consumers from harm when they purchase goods and services in the marketplace for personal, family or household purposes, whether shopping in person or online, and this is particularly important in our increasingly online world where consumer habits and business practices are focused on digital service delivery more than ever. Our new proposals would, if passed, help better protect consumers against unfair business practices, and this means building upon what can be done when a business engages in those unfair business practices.

Madam Speaker, as you may know, the current act has not been comprehensively updated since it came into force in 2005. While we call it the current legislation—the Consumer Protection Act, 2002—it actually was not proclaimed for three years after its passage in this House under a PC government. As it stands, the act is quite complex currently, because after a series of amendments over the past two decades, it is not readily understandable for consumers and is often complicated for businesses to comply with. In today’s increasingly digital and service-oriented economy, it simply does not reflect the current reality. So much has changed in just two short decades, as we now are in the early years of the third decade of the 21st century. That is why we must change with the times. After all, Ontario’s marketplace has evolved significantly in this century alone. Consumer protections need to reflect today’s reality of an online world as more of us are shopping online, banking online and relying on technology more than ever.

Over the years, our government has received an increasing number of complaints from the public and stakeholders about harmful, misleading and costly business practices. It has also been brought to our attention that there are real and perceived gaps in enforcement. The people of Ontario have stated loudly and clearly that they want action to ensure their rights as consumers are protected. We know these issues disproportionately affect new Canadians, seniors and other vulnerable consumers, while also undermining a fair and competitive economy.

To address these deficiencies, our government introduced the Rebuilding Consumer Confidence Act in 2019, accompanied by the announcement of a broader strategy to rebuild Ontarians’ confidence in the marketplace. As an important part of this strategy, my ministry began a comprehensive review of the existing Consumer Protection Act. We examined how to update the act to strengthen protection for consumers, adapt to changing technology and marketplace innovations, and to streamline and clarify requirements to improve consumer and business understanding and compliance. The proposed new Consumer Protection Act reflects the culmination of years of work, including extensive consultations with the public and stakeholders over a three-year period. And I give credit to the deputy minister, who is present in the House today to view the beginning of the debate on this bill, for her excellent leadership in getting us to this point.

Amongst a vast stakeholder group, including consumers, consumer associations, legal and advocacy organizations, businesses and law enforcement officials, we have received many expressions of support for our suite of proposed reforms—these include Graham Webb from the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly. Mr. Webb spoke strongly in favour of the measures that we propose to help vulnerable seniors, who are often exploited and taken advantage of in this changing and complex consumer world.

Over the past few years, governments in Canada and globally have been amending or reviewing consumer protection and competition legislation to respond to the changing needs of consumers and businesses. Our new legislation, if passed, would help us better align Ontario’s regime with other Canadian jurisdictions and make Ontario a leader in Canada in consumer protection, including in the digital economy. That leadership role has been played by the province of Ontario, by leading in consumer protection from the beginning, almost 60 years ago.

In terms of the main elements—further to my outline of what the bill is about in the preamble—I’d like to provide an overview of some of the main elements within our proposed Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, 2023.

First, it would build on existing protections to strengthen consumer rights and to better protect and empower each of us—because, as I’ve indicated, we are all consumers.

Second, streamlining and clarifying requirements: That makes it easier for businesses to understand and comply with the law. I know first-hand that the vast majority of our businesses, large and small, do comply with the law, want to comply with the law, but don’t need more burden of red tape and regulations. This is why we call the act, appropriately so, the Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act—because there are two sides to the story, and there are only, relatively speaking, a very few non-compliant, unscrupulous businesses. They will not be able to get away with what they have been getting away with, especially when it comes to protecting our seniors and new Canadians—those with language challenges—and vulnerable Ontarians.

Thirdly, the bill, if passed, would introduce new enforcement powers to better enable my ministry to hold those few bad actors accountable and to support consumers in the meantime.

Now I would like to address each of these elements in greater depth and outline some of the measures that we are exploring as part of the proposed legislation.

To better protect consumers, this legislation, if passed, would strengthen consumer rights by updating contract rules to adapt to changing technology and innovations in the marketplace. Through the development of carefully considered regulations, we would seek to address consumer concerns and consumer harms by reducing barriers to consumer choice and advancing sector-specific protection measures, including unilateral contract amendments made by businesses, as well as automatic renewals and extensions and subscription traps. These practices must be curtailed—punitive exit options from time-shares and long-term leases of home-related equipment; high termination costs for purchase-cost-plus leases if a consumer wishes to end a contract early; and unfair practices such as aggressive sales tactics and misleading claims.

In order to better protect consumers, these proposed changes would also modernize contract rules. We know that the vast majority of businesses do aim to treat their customers fairly and honestly, as I have indicated. However, there are some businesses that can cause tremendous damage and harm to our fellow citizens, and they may provide contract information in ways that make it difficult to understand. Under the proposed changes, a single set of core rules would govern consumer contracts, regardless of the type of contract, the sector and how the business operates, whether online, by phone or in person. My ministry will explore whether some contracts may need additional rules, for example, in the case of some big-ticket items for purchase. This means businesses would also be required to disclose the key terms of a contract, with a fair and accurate description of the goods and services that would be supplied and an itemized list of prices. These rules would apply to most consumer contracts, including home renovation contracts, contracts for the installation of home appliances, time-shares, personal development services and gym memberships, loan brokering, credit repair services, and certain lease agreements.

And as we quickly approach another holiday season, we know the topic of gift cards may come to mind for those looking to make purchases or redemptions. With the expanded gift card market in recent years, it has now grown to include a variety of prepaid purchase contract and services. Therefore, it has become increasingly important to ensure those who buy and use these prepaid purchase cards are protected. As such, our government is proposing to transfer the current regulatory prohibition that gift cards cannot expire to this new act, to ensure prominence. Regardless of how gift cards are purchased—in store, online or via an app—we would make sure both buyers and sellers are aware that gift cards cannot expire. Now, under the current act, gift card provisions are set out in regulation. To ensure it’s clear to all Ontarians and businesses that these gift cards cannot expire, we are proposing to enshrine this rule within our new proposed act.

As my ministry outlines the developments toward providing details on the many proposals in this legislation to be implemented in regulations under the act, we will be continuing our ongoing work with our stakeholders and the general public. We will want to know how rules can be enhanced and work better for all residents of Ontario.

The current Consumer Protection Act allows businesses to amend, renew or extend most contracts by simply providing a notice to a consumer, and it permits price-escalation clauses where charges paid by consumers can increase during the contract. However, our proposed new rules would make consumer consent and choice paramount—stronger than ever. Specifically, the new act would limit when businesses can make unilateral contract amendments and conduct renewals and extensions. Businesses could only do so if permitted by the act or regulations. More than before, businesses would need to obtain clear consent from their customers for contract amendments, renewals and extensions.

Once implemented, these proposed changes would also require that automatic renewals or extensions of contracts, where permitted, include an ongoing and important right for the consumer: the right to exit and put their hard-earned dollars to work elsewhere for new services or goods. Consumers should never feel trapped. It is vitally important that Ontarians can make informed choices when we buy goods and services. We believe they have a right to understand these contracts up front so they can make the appropriate decisions to suit their needs and their budgets. By reducing costs to consumers when they terminate contracts and potentially change suppliers, we would also support competition and consumer choice in this regard.

Once passed and implemented, these proposed changes also would make it easier for consumers to cancel subscriptions and memberships when they no longer want to use them. Businesses should be encouraged to continue innovating and delivering value year over year to retain their consumers—not forcing them to be stuck in contracts that consumers no longer wish to be part of.

We often see a few salespeople make false claims of government oversight or authorization and sometimes bogus prize offers. The proposed changes under this bill would, if passed, specifically prohibit such business behaviour as an unfair practice.

The proposed changes would also clearly prohibit price gouging and other means of taking advantage of consumers. If a business engaged in an unfair practice, the new act, if passed, would give consumers the right to rescind a contract for one year after entering the contract, or one year after the unfair practice takes place, whichever is later. Furthermore, we are strengthening consumer rights against businesses that do not provide refunds when the Consumer Protection Act requires it.

Under the current legislation, when a consumer is entitled to a refund, the business must issue that refund within 15 days of a consumer giving notice. However, under our proposed legislation, if a consumer must take legal action to enforce their right to a refund under the Consumer Protection Act and the consumer is ultimately successful in court, they would have the right to recover three times the amount that should have been refunded by the business in the first place. Our government will not stand by and allow these few bad actors to take advantage of hard-working residents of Ontario by way of unfair business practices.

In the region of Durham, and in my riding of Durham, I’ve had the experience of being both a trial lawyer and a deputy judge over 30 years. I was a deputy judge for three terms, from 2002 to 2011, in the context of my overall 30-year career. As a lawyer, I was involved in consumer protection cases that went to court, and I presided over such cases as a deputy judge. What I learned is how important it is for consumers who have been wronged to have speedy justice, to have fair compensation. I’m also aware of how many excellent businesses are operating in Durham and throughout Ontario, who want to serve consumers properly, who want to comply with the law, who don’t want to be burdened with unnecessary red tape and regulation in doing so. There are two sides to the equation, as I indicated. That on-the-ground experience, both as a lawyer representing both sides of consumer protection disputes and presiding over the adjudication of those disputes as a deputy judge, gave me insight as to how important it is to modernize consumer protection rules and the core values around consumer protection in this modern, digital, online world.

I want to take a moment to talk specifically about the proposed legislation in regard to time-shares. You may have heard about consumers who have entered into a time-share contract that finds themselves and their families locked in indefinitely. This can cause real concern if an owner’s travel or financial situation changes. This could make the continued cost of a time-share less affordable or even unaffordable, or in the event that an original consumer passes away, it leaves the time-share contract to their children to deal with.

The current Consumer Protection Act includes requirements for time-shares. However, it does not address exit options for consumers. Therefore, under our proposed changes, Ontarians would have an exit option at 25 years. This would apply to new and existing time-share agreements and would also provide a similar exit option for others, to be determined in future regulations, upon a time-share owner’s death. In doing so, we would limit the costs that a consumer may be charged in exercising the right to exit.

Some of these time-share contracts go back to the 1980s and 1990s, and there is no exit option under the current legislation. This exit option is very, very important for not only the consumer who entered into it, sometimes decades ago, but also to their heirs and successors who would otherwise be bound in perpetuity with respect to these time-shares. That is not right. That is not fair. We’ve listened to all those involved in regard to these time-share contracts, and we’ve come up with an exit option that we submit is fair for all concerned.

On long-term leases, we know that understanding the true costs of long-term leases, such as for a water heater, including the cost to terminate the lease early, can be particularly challenging for seniors and newcomers to our province. The lack of clarity with respect to these long-term leases can often enable bad actors to take advantage of vulnerable individuals. In Ontario, it is much more common for homeowners, more so than those in other provinces, to lease or rent water heaters, furnaces and other home comfort equipment on a long-term basis. Quite often, they are persuaded to enter into contracts by aggressive salespeople who seek to find a way to sell the products to them at home despite the fact that the Consumer Protection Act already restricts offering or selling certain goods and services like HVAC equipment door to door.

For example, let’s start by imagining it is a hot summer day—and we’ve experienced many of those this past summer. Your air conditioner has just gone out, so you invite a salesperson to discuss options about a new air conditioning unit, and they offer a quick solution. Upon entering into a 10-year lease for an air conditioner on the assumption that you could buy it out later if you no longer want to lease the product, you find yourself in a different position than you assumed. Some time later, you decide to look at the relative costs of purchasing, leasing and financing the equipment. Following that, you decide you would like to exit the rental deal. However, when you attempt to buy out the air conditioner, you are informed by the company that you will need to pay all the remaining payments of the lease agreement, even though that amount is five times the value of the fixture.

Our proposed changes under the new act would, if passed, establish specific rules for a new category of long-term contracts, primarily those types of contracts for long-term leases of heating, ventilation and air conditioning known as HVAC, along with other home comfort appliances. To provide Ontarians more clarity and consumer choice, businesses would need to provide them with a buyout schedule where the cost to buy out the contract and obtain ownership of the equipment would decline over time to zero, and this schedule would be clearly and prominently disclosed as part of the initial leasing contract. Additionally, by establishing and reaffirming a 10-day cooling off period and setting limits on termination costs for purchase cost plus leases, Ontarians will have increased protections and options should they decide to end a contract early.

We have received many examples through complaints filed with Consumer Protection Ontario, the ministry and across many MPPs’ offices on both sides of the House, and we hear constantly of the need for protection, particularly in the HVAC industry, where these abuses from a few bad actors are occurring. Businesses—in particular, small businesses—would benefit from clearer, simpler contract requirements that reflect our dynamic and increasingly digital-first marketplace. Combining contract disclosure rules into a single set of core rules would apply to most contracts and, in some cases, reduce the burden on those businesses that enter into contracts with consumers through multiple channels. That is what I mean, again, by the fact that there are two sides of this equation—better for consumers, better for businesses. That’s the name of the act, appropriately so.

We must ensure that our laws support a fair and competitive economy while striking a balance between strengthened consumer protections that help enhance consumer confidence and reduce burdens and costs for businesses. Reducing red tape is a key part of building a stronger economy and improving services for Ontarians. That is why our government is continuing to bring forward additional burden reduction packages that are saving businesses nearly $700 million each year in compliance costs, and our government is on track to the $1 billion figure in annual savings. Part of that is our strong track record of improving access to critical government services and making it easier to invest and build in Ontario. My ministry continues to update regulations that can often hold us back, and we are taking action to enable people to thrive and businesses to prosper.

Ontario is Canada’s economic engine, and despite global economic uncertainty, our government remains laser-focused on building a strong and resilient economy—one in which there are well-paying jobs for people across the province, and one that strengthens communities and sets a strong foundation for our shared future.

As I believe you may know, Speaker, our government regularly meets with governments in other jurisdictions. This enables us to recognize how to best strengthen our economic ties and reinforce our province’s strengths across all sectors, while allowing us the opportunity to showcase Ontario’s advantages, as many international businesses continue their expansion plans and look to Ontario as an opportunity for prosperity.

During a time of uncertainty, our government continues to create the conditions to attract new businesses and investments. It’s worth repeating at this point that a government like ours—and no government can do this—is not here to control the economy or to direct the economy but to create conditions that allow for prosperity, for innovation, for job creation. That is how a government like our Ontario Progressive Conservative government creates economic prosperity for all.

Stronger enforcement powers against those few bad actors who are out there is an important feature of this proposed legislation. Our proposed changes would strengthen enforcement powers to help our government target unethical business practices without adding regulatory burden on most of the compliant, excellent business enterprises, large and small, that serve the public and provide value in goods and services to consumers.

If passed, the Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, 2023, would better protect consumers by allowing my ministry to have stronger enforcement powers against the few bad actors.

Members of this House have heard of cases where businesses use an intermediary, such as an online platform or a building service, which effectively supports the business’s contravention of the act. A single mother, for example, might be persuaded to enter a contract for heating, air conditioning and furnace services by an aggressive salesperson who misrepresents the true cost of the contract and the savings that she will apparently achieve. The consumer relies on the Consumer Protection Act to rescind the contract because of the business’s unfair practices, but the business continues to collect monthly payments through a third-party billing service. Under the current Consumer Protection Act, the ministry can issue compliance orders only against those people who are directly contravening the act, not the intermediaries. That’s a weakness with the current legislation, which was not anticipated when it was first passed by this House two decades ago. As a result, the ministry cannot issue a compliance order under the current legislation against the billing agency. It cannot direct it to stop collecting payments on behalf of the non-compliant business. Therefore, our proposed changes would extend enforcement powers to cover the actions of the intermediaries, like the billing agency, that assist a business in contravening the act.

Further proposed changes, if passed, would assist the ministry in those cases where a third party might be willing to co-operate with the ministry in its efforts to address contraventions of the act by another business but are hesitant to provide information voluntarily, without a court order.

Under the current act, the ministry would have to apply to the court for a search warrant. The execution of a search warrant by the ministry can be a highly disruptive process for the third party. Therefore, our proposed changes would authorize a justice of the peace to issue a production order upon application by an investigator under the director. This would enable the collection of relevant evidence. A production order puts greater control of the collection and release of information in the hands of the third party and is much less disruptive to the third party’s operations.

The new act would also allow for the sharing of information obtained over the course of exercising a power or carrying out a duty related to the administration of the Consumer Protection Act with other government regulatory entities, whether they are involved in consumer protection or not. In the event of a contract term that attempts to forbid a consumer from filing a complaint with the ministry or otherwise communicating with the ministry, consumers would have alternate options for recourse. Our proposed changes would clarify that businesses would not be able to include terms in a contract that mislead consumers about their right to have disputes adjudicated in an Ontario court.

We’ve also heard of cases where some businesses may try to control negative consumer comments and bill people whose comments they consider to be damaging or disparaging. Under the proposed changes in this bill, if they are passed and implemented, it would support the free exchange of information in the marketplace by prohibiting businesses from including terms in a contract that try to deter them from publishing reviews or that bill consumers in response to the content of these reviews. Our government believes that Ontario’s citizens should be able to share their experiences with a business without fear of repercussions, as the free flow of information between consumers is vital to encouraging businesses to compete on value and to improve competition.

Speaker, I want to reiterate that these stronger enforcement measures are not intended to add any additional costs or burdens to business, because we know that the vast majority of businesses, as I have said, are compliant and, quite frankly, provide excellent service to consumers. They want their good reputation to be shared with other customers and other consumers.

So in keeping with the principles of a modern regulator, my ministry takes an evidence-based and proportionate response to business non-compliance that focuses on addressing consumer harm. Before using its strongest enforcement tools, my ministry would need to be satisfied that there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe an offence under the proposed new act has been committed, and that the public interest demands certain action be taken. Along with the proposed new Consumer Protection Act, our government remains committed to strengthening consumer protection, and we will continue to look at even more ways to protect consumers.

Speaker, the act contains two schedules, the first schedule being what I’ve outlined already, the Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act. The second schedule addresses the Consumer Reporting Act. This proposed legislation would make amendments to the Consumer Reporting Act, the legislation that sets out what can and cannot be included in a credit report. The Consumer Reporting Act governs consumer reporting agencies, also known as credit bureaus or agencies. These agencies provide information about consumers’ credit histories, such as their borrowing and bill-paying habits. These reports are provided to third parties that include creditors, insurers, employers and landlords.

There are currently 29 such agencies registered under the Consumer Reporting Act. Equifax and TransUnion are two of the largest. They are used by most consumers and third parties to access consumer information. Many other agencies are smaller and focused on specific data types.

The Consumer Reporting Act requires that agencies ensure the accuracy of their consumer reports. These requirements not only protect the consumer, but also third parties such as banks, lenders, landlords and employers, all of whom rely on the information that these agencies maintain. To that end, the act requires agencies to be registered and governs what an agency can report, how a report can be used, when a report can be requested and what a consumer can do if their file is inaccurate or incomplete.

In recent years, you may have seen a heightened focus on credit reporting, especially since 2017, when the Equifax data breach compromised the records of 154 million data subjects worldwide, including 19,000 Canadians. In 2019, a TransUnion breach compromised the information of 37,000 Canadians.

Amendments to the Consumer Reporting Act were passed in 2018 but have not yet been proclaimed into force. Those amendments made changes related to consumer access to consumer reports and scores, security freezes and ministry enforcement powers. The changes we are now proposing to the Consumer Reporting Act would, if passed, improve and clarify the act. Consumer reporting agencies would be able to effectively implement amended and improved versions of the 2018 provisions. Consumers would have greater access to their credit information and a greater ability to limit how their credit information is shared through security freezes.

Clarke Cross, the CEO of TransUnion, one of the largest agencies, applauds our proposed efforts in this regard to make these changes.

When agencies contravene the act and its regulations, consumers would be able seek recourse and be provided with additional tools to correct and protect their information, especially against the dangers of identity theft. We know many Ontarians share similar concerns related to identity theft, and under the proposed amendments, having the ability to place a freeze on their credit report for a certain purpose could prevent creditors or lenders from accessing those reports. In the case of a stolen identity, this would impact a creditor’s decision on whether to extend credit to a person who is fraudulently trying to do so.

Additionally, under these changes, Ontarians would be enabled to receive free electronic access to their consumer reports and credit scores once per month. That’s free access without compromising their credit score, because we know that the more a history is accessed the more that could affect a consumer’s credit score. That would not occur with these proposed changes. The consumer can have access to credit scores and reports once each month instead of the previously unproclaimed requirement of free electronic access twice per year. They may also find having the statutory right to place an explanatory statement on their consumer file to contextualize their information, such as in the circumstances of loans, to be a useful tool at their disposal. This is important, because the ability to access credit is important for consumers, whether being involved in a home renovation or a smaller purchase. In short, enhanced compliance and enforcement tools would enable the ministry to enforce the law more effectively.

And that is not all. My ministry is also working to address an area of significant concern for consumer harm related to notices of security interest. We addressed this in section 60 of the proposed Consumer Protection Act, but before I go further, I would like to provide a brief overview of the issue we are facing for those who are not familiar with NOSIs, or notices of security interest.

A NOSI is a notice that may be registered on the land registry system by a business when it rents, finances or leases certain equipment that is installed in a home. This would include such fixtures as water heaters and furnaces. These are often mistaken as a lien. These are notices that may be registered when a business or consumer has signed a contract that gives rise to a security interest in the equipment; it is not an interest in land. A NOSI allows a legitimate business to protect its interests and repossess its equipment in the event of a homeowner default on a payment in certain circumstances. However, let me be clear: It does not—and I repeat this, it does not—give the lenders or lessor an interest in or claim against the land itself.

NOSIs do serve a legitimate purpose. However, it is clear that because of just a few bad actors, once again, we are seeing NOSIs used to exploit homeowners for their own financial gain. In the past decade, the use of notices of security interest for fixtures on residential property has increased exponentially, with businesses sometimes inappropriately using them to discourage consumers from changing suppliers and as leverage to obtain contract payouts for consumers that exceed the value of the fixtures. You may have heard some businesses would register a NOSI for an amount that is very high, sometimes not even reflecting anywhere near the actual balance owed by the consumer. They convince a homeowner that they need to pay this grossly inflated amount to have the NOSI discharged from title and the contract cancelled.

We have learned that this is an escalating problem. You may have read recent media reports about how vulnerable consumers are being targeted by bad actors who misuse NOSIs; they even come to their door to do so, to misrepresent themselves. So there has been a sharp increase in the number of consumers adversely affected by having a NOSI on title, the effect of which usually arises when they are trying to sell their home or access additional financing. In 2022, there were 38,475 NOSIs registered in the land registry system, with more than 450,000 in total registered since 2000. To demonstrate how that contrasts with when the current Consumer Protection Act was passed by this House in 2002, in that year there were only 450 NOSIs registered.

The land registry system, unfortunately, is not able to distinguish between those that have been used for legitimate purposes and those registered by the unscrupulous. My ministry is therefore taking an important first step in addressing this issue. We are looking at possible solutions to address the harms being caused by the misuse of NOSIs. We’ve heard loudly and clearly that many homeowners are unaware that a NOSI has been registered on title to their property. In some cases, properties have been owned for decades by an individual or a couple, and as the equity in the home has increased dramatically and the mortgage was long ago paid off, they discover the existence of the NOSI when they go to sell the home.

It has been brought to our attention that a significant number of businesses in the home appliance sector are inappropriately using NOSIs to exploit homeowners for their own financial gain. Nick Perreten of Enercare, one of the good actors who would use NOSIs for a legitimate purpose, has spoken out loudly and clearly in favour of our initiative. This includes the current consultation paper and consultation period that, in conjunction with tabling this bill that includes section 60 and taking a first step at addressing the abuse of notices of security interest, includes a 45-day consultation period which began just under two weeks ago and will conclude on December 1. Parallel to this bill, we are looking at taking specific action that can address the specific abuse of NOSIs even before this act is proclaimed in force, if it is passed by this House. So we are moving swiftly, above and beyond what is contained in this act, to address the specific abuse by a few bad actors in relation to notices of security interest.

Additionally, I want to take this opportunity to thank the member of provincial Parliament for Kitchener–Conestoga, who has been working closely with the Waterloo Regional Police Service. He did so and, as a result, has raised awareness of widespread fraud and abuse of the NOSI system.

As well, the member of provincial Parliament for Markham–Unionville brought forward a motion in this House asking my ministry and our government to further investigate this issue, and that has occurred, with this consultation period.

So I thank those members for their raising-awareness campaign. We are taking action. We are listening.

This business practice of registering a NOSI through the land registry office is meant to signal a business’s interest in the fixture. While that may be legitimate for a company like Enercare, a homeowner should never be put in an unfair position as a result. We simply should not and cannot allow any more Ontarians to fall victim to the misuse of NOSIs.

There is also evidence that financial crimes are increasing as unscrupulous participants in the marketplace intentionally misconstrue the NOSI and its effect to pressure vulnerable Ontarians into high-interest short-term mortgages with less-than-reputable lenders, to pay out the NOSI and extract more money through mortgages. That’s particularly dangerous because, as you may know, a mortgage is a registered interest in land, unlike a NOSI. So this is a hideous practice that particularly harms senior citizens in our province.

There have been cases where homeowners have lost their homes entirely because of mortgage defaults, or they’ve made a large cash payment because of NOSIs that were leveraged inappropriately by the unscrupulous.

Since posting my ministry’s consultation paper on Ontario’s Regulatory Registry last week, we hope that businesses and consumers across the province will continue to share their input and views with us. The consultation period is designed to create an opportunity for businesses and consumers across the province to participate, but also to be concluded by December 1 of this year, so that we can take swift action to address it above and beyond and in parallel to this bill which is before the House.

We are most interested in hearing stories from consumers about NOSIs registered on the title to their property, and we are seeking input from everyone about how we could address the misuse of these otherwise legitimate tools—but used illegitimately by a few.

This consultation will gather feedback from stakeholders, including businesses, law enforcement and legal experts, on the current challenges and opportunities related to NOSIs. We are looking to identify potential immediate solutions that could enhance consumer protection while promoting a fair and competitive economy. My ministry has been in touch with the vast stakeholder group, including advocacy groups and police services, that have previously expressed concern over the misuse of NOSIs. We can’t forget the recent coverage in the media either. This is a very serious matter that affects all homeowners in the province, but particularly vulnerable consumers, including seniors and new Ontarians. My ministry, additionally, continues to monitor this issue and the correspondence we receive as we find new ways to tackle this troubling issue.

This is why we have taken this important step to explore better ways to address these concerns presently and rapidly. After reviewing all the feedback to be received, we will consider any new approaches to address the harmful use of notices of security interest and report back early next year on a comprehensive approach. This could include immediate legislative or regulatory changes, operational updates, and any other recommendations that arise from the consultations.

Right now, based on proposals we have publicly consulted on earlier this year, the proposed new act includes provisions that would help clarify business obligations to discharge NOSIs. Keep in mind that even the start that we are making with section 60 of this proposed bill could give rise to compliance orders, which, if not met by the offending bad actor or business, could be met with severe penalties, including full prosecution and even jail time, if a conviction results.

The proposals would also allow our government to better help consumers who are seeking to discharge a notice of security interest that is attached to their property when a business has failed to do so. These options could certainly include an automatic sunset clause, but we will consider all options to put an end to this harmful practice.

Currently, when a consumer disputes the registration of a NOSI, the consumer must apply to the court for an order to discharge the NOSI. The new CPA proposes to provide consumers with an alternative to the existing process in cases where the underlying contract is terminated, cancelled or rescinded, in accordance with the Consumer Protection Act, the CPA.

As we give this issue further debate, we hope that businesses, consumers, law enforcement and legal experts across Ontario will share their input between now and December 1, and offer suggestions on how to stop the abuse and protect Ontario homeowners against the misuse of what is normally a legitimate tool.

Ontario has also been raising awareness about the importance of online safety by joining the international community in recognizing October as Cyber Security Awareness Month. As a global leader in the digital space, Ontario is always working to strengthen our cyber security practices and to protect the data entrusted to us by our people and businesses. As we continue to navigate our digital world, our government must take the lead in protecting Ontarians’ personal information and to help align our province with federal and international jurisdictions. I urge everyone to take full advantage of my ministry’s many online resources to learn more about how to better protect our personal information online and what our government is doing to keep all of us cyber-safe.

This legislation is building on the previous work of my ministry’s mandate to improve consumer protections for all Ontarians. At one time, the law, without consumer protection legislation, relied on an old doctrine called caveat emptor: “the buyer must beware” or “let the buyer beware.” That concept, thankfully, was diminished in common law with a series of court rulings over many decades, but it came to an end beginning in 1966 and continuing through to the present day, with this proposed bill, with Ontario-led consumer protection. “Caveat emptor” in the consumer protection world is dead and gone.

Earlier this year, we added protections for first-time homebuyers. We know home ownership is top of mind for many Ontarians as we continue to face a housing supply crisis across our province. That is why our government continues to work on its plan to get at least 1.5 million homes built by 2031, as well as steps to tackle the crisis in communities across Ontario. Whether it is through one of our delegated administrative authorities under the purview of my ministry or through new legislation such as this bill, we will continue to find ways to enhance consumer protection, particularly for homebuyers.

First-time homebuyers can rest assured that their savings are protected with our new, expanded deposit insurance for first home savings accounts at Ontario credit unions. Additionally, we consulted on a cooling-off period for buyers of new freehold homes and received input on whether it should be mandatory to receive legal advice before signing a purchase agreement for a new home. After all, you need a lawyer—and lawyers aren’t so bad—to actually go through with a transaction and register your deed. Why wouldn’t you want to have a lawyer to review a contract for a new home that, in some cases, might be a seven-figure amount to purchase it—and perhaps $100,000 down? Lawyers are there and can provide independent legal advice at a very, very reasonable cost. It’s a good backup plan for a consumer making what, in many cases, if not all cases, is the most significant purchase of their lives.

These are just some measures that are all part of our government’s broader plan to provide people with the very best in consumer protection to ensure they have the necessary tools when they buy a new home. Our government will do everything we can to reassure hard-working Ontarians that we have their backs and are protecting them when they’re making such a major purchase.

This is all about protecting consumers and making sure they know their rights, while also informing businesses of their obligations and making it easier for the vast majority of these businesses to comply, as the vast majority wish to.

Speaker, a new consumer protection act is needed, and this is a bill that I believe all Ontarians can get behind.

Our government is working for you, as it continues its work to find solutions that make life easier for Ontarians. We must change with the times, and that is why we decided against proposing further amendments to the existing Consumer Protection Act—and replacing it altogether. The changes we are proposing would, if passed, maintain and build on the current law’s intent in consumer protections while targeting significant consumer harms, particularly new consumer harms. These improvements would result in stronger protections and, we believe, a stronger economic climate. At the same time, we must help guide businesses about their responsibilities and obligations to comply.

I call on all parties to support this important bill to promote a safe, fair and informed marketplace.

That concludes our petitions for this afternoon.

Welcome back to Queen’s Park. It’s great to have you here.

I’m not sure who that is with him—

Interruption.

Mr. McCarthy moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 142, An Act to enact the Consumer Protection Act, 2023, to amend the Consumer Reporting Act and to amend or repeal various other Acts / Projet de loi 142, Loi visant à édicter la Loi de 2023 sur la protection du consommateur, à modifier la Loi sur les renseignements concernant le consommateur et à modifier ou abroger diverses autres lois.

I have a petition signed by many Londoners entitled “Support Gender-Affirming Health Care.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Support Gender-Affirming Health Care.

“Whereas two-spirit, transgender, non-binary, gender-diverse, and intersex communities face significant challenges to accessing health care services that are friendly, competent, and affirming in Ontario;

“Whereas everyone deserves access to health care, and they shouldn’t have to fight for it, shouldn’t have to wait for it, and should never receive less care or support because of who they are; and

“Whereas gender-affirming care is life-saving care;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the ... NDP’s Gender Affirming Health Care Advisory Committee Act to improve access to and coverage for gender-affirming health care in Ontario.”

I support this petition, affix my signature and will send it to the table with page Kate.

Thank you, Minister, for introducing the legislation that, if passed, will strengthen protections for Ontarians from unfair business practices.

This bill is about prohibiting unfair business practices. It’s about consent. It’s about removing unnecessary barriers. It’s about fairer exit options. It also lets the ministry hold bad actors accountable. It also helps businesses to comply with—easier to comply with the consumer protection rules.

You just mentioned a little bit more about the public input, so I appreciate that.

Can the minister expand more about the public input and how important it is to this bill?

Questions?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you: I would like to ask the minister about the notices of security interest, the NOSIs. Lots of my constituents in Erin Mills have been raising some worries. With their age going up, they are looking into selling their properties. They start discovering that there are some practices from some of the predatory businesses, in having some NOSIs under titles—and they weren’t aware or they cannot get off it in an easy way. I hear that even the numbers, from a few thousand, have gone up to over 30,000 currently, in the meantime. Can the minister tell us how this legislation is going to help us address that issue?

I thank the member opposite for the thoughtful question.

There was wide consultation. It began in March 2020, just before the COVID restrictions were put into place, and it concluded earlier this year. This included, of course, online submissions. It included round tables. It included written submissions. And we heard from everybody—individual consumers with their own anecdotes, families of those who were affected, law enforcement, legal groups and consumer advocacy groups, as well as specific groups representing the elderly, one of whom I quoted in my speech. With that kind of feedback and consultation, we believe we’ve found that correct balance the member speaks of.

We welcome proposed amendments, but I think this bill finds the right balance and is based and reflective of input from literally thousands and thousands of participants.

When it comes to the cost of groceries, of course, we’ve already had debate in this House about price escalations, particularly for groceries, that arise from the carbon tax, and I think the member opposite knows our government’s position on that. We say repeal the carbon tax, and we’ve called upon the federal government to do that.

With respect to price gouging generally, it is a specific, prohibited, unfair practice in the proposed new bill. It will better enable our government to respond to price gouging in the marketplace in the future, in a general sense. This prohibition would not address systematic high prices, including in sectors such as grocery retail, as the CPA is not a price-control statute. Issues related to market dominance and anti-competitive conduct would typically fall under the jurisdiction of the federal Competition Bureau.

Thank you to the minister for his debate on this bill. It’s a long bill. I’m not allowed to show it as a prop, but it’s a very thick bill with lots of details in it.

One of the first things that popped into my mind when I was thinking about consumer protection is the number of calls I’ve been getting over the last year and a half—almost two years—about the high price of food. Many constituents in my riding and perhaps across Ontario believe they’re being gouged by grocery stores. I know there’s a section in here about—it changes language to allow that it is prohibited practice to charge a price for goods or services that grossly exceeds the price at which similar goods or services are available from similar suppliers. But what about a situation in the grocery store where it feels like all the grocery stores have raised their prices, artificially inflating the cost of things and hitting people in the pocketbook? How does this bill help them?

I’d like to thank the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery for his presentation this morning.

Before I ask my question, as a preamble, I just wanted to let the minister know that—before the minister says this is something that falls within the purview of HCRA or Tarion, the Ministry of Consumer Services pursued an action against K-Tech Building Systems and Stanley Kondrotas, in the case of Bonnie Engel’s cottage.

My question, though, comes from Canadians for Properly Built Homes, who have asked the ever-changing minister this since 2019. I’d like to ask it again. Homeowners have purchased homes with used furnaces. Will this government take steps to have builders stop contravening the act and installing used furnaces in newly built homes, or will the minister, at the very least, require builders to disclose this in advance on the agreement to purchase?

I thank the member opposite, and I’m looking forward to hearing his speech in the House later today as he enters the debate on this important bill.

It is a start, with section 60 of the act, where we address a 15-day period after which a NOSI must be extinguished by a business if a consumer contract is cancelled. That’s in this act, and it replaces what’s not in the other act. The existing act doesn’t address this. Over and above that, we are doing this consultation paper, this consultation period, up until December 1 of this year, because we know that we need to take immediate steps. One of those steps is recommending to homeowners to do a credit check or a title check on their own property to see if there’s anything unknown or surprising to them in terms of a registration on their title. That’s important. So just as a health check we carry out for our own personal health, do so with your own home, even before you refinance yourself.

Question?

It is an honour to rise as the official opposition’s lead in speaking to government Bill 142, entitled Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act.

Nothing personal here, of course, but as you could imagine, on this side of the House, we deal with government bills with a healthy amount of skepticism, as many bills come wrapped in a hopeful name and elegant packaging but too often hide a dangerous core. As a matter of fact, many opposition critics and researchers have become violently ill when handling new government legislation at times.

Speaker, I have a young family to take care of, and I could not take any chances, so I did the only responsible thing, as critic, before diving into this legislation: I first contacted poison control to take the first look. And so there I was, watching with trepidation, at a safe distance, as the team went about leafing through this highly technical bill in their bright yellow haz-mat suits. And imagine the relief and surprise I felt when, after a long period of examination, the team began unzipping their suits and handling the bill with bare hands. We haven’t found a poison pill, for now.

But in all seriousness, I’d like to acknowledge and congratulate the minister and Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery for their work on this bill, which entirely repeals the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, and replaces it with the legislation we are now debating, and which I believe will improve consumer protection in some important areas—a process that has no doubt taken many months, if not years.

While the government has numbers—meaning an army of staff—and time on their side when it comes to drafting legislation, we in the opposition have neither when it comes to critiquing and analyzing it. So I would like to thank our small but mighty research team, especially Caitlin Hipkiss, for her tremendous work in a short time. As well, I’d like to thank a number of other contributors who have come through in a short period, including Marina Pavlović, associate professor at the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa; Dave Deonarain, real estate lawyer; the consumers council; Canadians for Properly Built Homes; consumer advocate Barbara Captijn; Linda Palmieri, a concerned citizen; and many more I’ve had the chance to contact in this short time.

I’d also again like to thank the minister and his ministry for arranging a short technical briefing that helped address some of the immediate concerns we had upon reading the bill.

Speaker, the need for consumer protection in Ontario has never been greater. As many find themselves affected by the affordability crisis, the value of a dollar means more now than ever. People are frustrated out of their minds with price gouging, misleading advertisements, shrinkflation. To top it off, entire industries are posting massive profits while people are struggling to survive. And, of course, there’s an unending variety of scams particularly targeting our elderly and most vulnerable. It is our responsibility, as legislators, to ensure that Ontarians have the gold standard of consumer protection that they deserve.

That being said, today we are debating a government consumer protection bill that would replace and repeal the existing act that’s there today. Analyzing this act was challenging, as parts of the act have been moved around and deleted entirely, leaving us concerned that consumers would not be protected in some areas. As well, certain protections were removed from legislation, placed into regulation—and this reminded us of what happened with the PAWS Act. As you may remember, there was a problem when provisions were removed and were to be prescribed by regulation—however, when the regulations were delayed, it actually led to no laws in place for a period of time. This caused a series of problems, and we want to ensure consumers don’t find themselves in a similar situation, without protection—because this bill moves many provisions from legislation into regulation and also appears to expand the scope of what provisions can be made into regulation.

Early analysis from law firms has suggested that this list of areas signals that the regulations under the new CPA may be more detailed and expansive than the current version. It is difficult to ascertain what the impact will be, as we do not yet have the text of the regulations, which is always a challenge. As it stands, we know that previous provisions on motor vehicles and the cashing of government cheques have been removed from the legislation in favour of shifting to regulation, as an example.

At the briefing, ministry staff answered some of our questions and said that there would be a seamless transition that would not leave unintended holes in protections. So I will move on and dig deeper into this legislation.

When this legislation was announced on October 23, the government stated that it would “strengthen protections and make life easier for consumers and businesses” through a series of initiatives it included in its backgrounder. I will now reference each initiative and briefly discuss whether I think it is a valid issue to be addressed and if the government’s aims will improve said issues. So let’s see what they are.

First off, tackling unfair business practices: This legislation changes language to allow that it is a prohibited practice to charge for goods or services that grossly exceeds the price at which similar goods or services are available from similar suppliers—or to state it simply, price gouging is not allowed. In the midst of this affordability crisis, the public certainly wants to see action on this. After grocery chain CEOs testified in the House of Commons, Dalhousie University polled Canadians about their opinions on food inflation; 31% of Ontarian respondents blamed price gouging, and a significant number of respondents across the country believed it was in fact the role of government to intervene.

We New Democrats are committed to fighting price gouging wherever it rears its greedy head, and we are interested to know how this government intends to do it with this legislation. In the way that it is worded, it will not stop industry-wide gouging but will only address individual sellers as compared to their competitors as a whole. This legislation defines price gouging as an unconscionable act and includes other examples such as the misrepresentation of products or services.

At present, unconscionable acts include representations that goods are new or unused if they are not, for example representing a used appliance for sale as if it was new. This can lead to serious consequences in the mechanical safety and operation of the item. It also prohibits exploiting a person’s inability to understand and expands these rights to include language barriers as a reason as to why a person may not be able to understand a contract. It also goes further to lay out that it is an unconscionable act to enter into a contract with a consumer if the person or business doing so knows that there is no reasonable chance that the consumer will be able to pay the total amount owing under the contract.

This bill changes language to allow that it is a prohibited practice to charge a price for goods or services that grossly exceeds the price of other similar goods. So this is an attempt to curb gouging, and that is good. The only problem, you could argue, is, well, what happens when an entire section of the market is charging high prices? So I have questions about what would happen in monopoly situations where similar suppliers or businesses are all offering products with the same inflated price. You might say that this act is not intended to regulate the market—and I guess that’s a different discussion, but I appreciate this safeguard in place here. So while all these aims of the proposed legislation and this initiative seem to all be positive and supportable, it remains to be seen how this will be undertaken and enforced.

The next initiative, addressing predatory practices by some suppliers leasing equipment to homeowners: This issue has garnered quite a bit of media attention. Often they involve door-to-door HVAC rentals and sales that have resulted in many consumers being taken advantage of due to an inability to understand often-misleading contracts and terms. In this initiative, the government tries to address a common problem in what they call purchase-cost-plus leases, where the amount of product drastically exceeds the cost of the purchased good.

A purchase-cost-plus lease is an agreement where a party agrees to reimburse the contract party for expenses plus a specified profit proportional to the full value of the contract—for example, you need to purchase an item that’s $1,000, but you don’t have that up front; instead, you enter into a contract where the full term is $1,300 over two years, and you pay a monthly fee to the person providing the contract with that extra profit.

Cost-plus leases can be a large problem when the amount of profit drastically exceeds the cost of the good. This bill would add provisions that would entitle the lessee to purchase the leased goods and terminate the lease at any point during the lease term, upon payment, not exceeding the cost at which the lessee may purchase the leased good. The cost must decrease to $0 during the lease term.

The legislation states that a purchase-cost-plus lease would be “a lease under which the total amount payable exceeds 90% of the estimated retail value of the leased goods.” The provision does not regulate the market, but it does regulate at what point a consumer can exercise their rights. For example, a furnace at retail could cost $6,000. Frequently, we will see contracts with exorbitant markups. With these new provisions, using $6,000 as an example, the total amount payable could now go up to $11,400, but not above. For contrast, in one case, a senior couple in Welland saw a $43,000 bill for a $6,000 furnace.

So this change seems to be a positive move, as the legislation adds provisions to allow customers to purchase and terminate the lease at any point during the term, requires that costs decrease to $0 during the lease term and caps, and even more.

There are also some provisions here that limit contracts being initiated at a person’s dwelling, and that clearly state that consumers may, without any reason, cancel certain listed consumer contracts within 10 days. I think this section is long overdue, as door-to-door sales have resulted in a huge amount of consumer complaints that continue to shock people when reported in the media. One such type of scam is referred to as notices of security interest, often referred to as NOSIs or liens, which I will cover in greater detail soon. This initiative is welcome, and certainly supportable.

Providing an exit for time-shares: This initiative is self-explanatory and needed, as many consumers and their families locked into infinite time-share contracts exist today. With this new legislation, a consumer can automatically exit a time-share contract after 25 years, or at the time of their passing, with limits to any exit costs. It is also worth noting that the ability to exit a time-share contract on or after the 25-year anniversary, so long as the termination fees and other requirements are met, is in fact retroactive. This is good. It is not often that we see retroactive changes. I believe this will assist many individuals who are struggling to resolve disputes relating to time-shares for deceased family members. We do not have more information, as this will be defined in regulations, but this initiative will improve the current situation for consumers.

Clarifying rules for gift cards: again, another self-explanatory initiative that seeks to clarify that all purchased prepaid cards cannot expire, regardless of how they are purchased. Despite an already-existing ban on gift card expiration dates in Ontario, CTV News reported earlier this year the case of Carola Della Mattia of Brampton, whose $250 prepaid Visa gift card had an expiry date as well as a service fee that ate away at the balance—as prepaid credit cards may also have activation fees and maintenance or dormancy fees deducted each month that many are unaware of. Like too many consumers who are taken advantage of, Carola only found justice after the company was shamed in the media.

I should also note that points and loyalty cards that are used for collecting store awards are not covered by gift card rules, so we could see there is room for improvement here.

It is also interesting to note that approximately 2% to 4% of gift cards in the US are never claimed, representing billions in profits for retailers, according to a study by the Retail Gift Card Association. I imagine the statistics are similar here.

I also wonder about protecting consumers who have gift cards for stores that have declared bankruptcy. You may wonder, how does the gift card rule apply to this and protect consumers? Well, currently it does not. When a company files for bankruptcy, the ban on gift card expiry is not applied. Enhanced clarity on this to ensure that all gift cards cannot expire is welcome.

The next initiative, protecting consumers’ right to take action in court—

Despite the question of the validity of the point of order, I do also want to welcome the young ones and their teachers here today. Welcome and enjoy. I’ll try to be as entertaining as a cartoon, okay?

Again, protecting consumers’ right to take action in court: Some businesses will try to protect themselves here in Ontario by creating contracts that suggest wronged consumers pursue their claims in courts in other jurisdictions. For instance, the business will state that their headquarters are on another continent and suggest consumers file in that jurisdiction. Ontarians have a legal right to pursue their claims here in Ontario courts. This legislation will require that businesses cannot include terms in a contract that could mislead or suggest that consumers cannot have their disputes heard in an Ontario court. Again, this is positive and supportable.

Next, larger fines for illegal business activity: Here is a strategy commonly employed by this government—doubling fines. The issue here is that raising fines to an astronomical amount doesn’t mean that maximum fines will actually be issued. Let’s take an example. The theoretical fines for landlords in Ontario can be as high as $50,000 for individuals and five times that amount for corporations. However, as reported by sudbury.com, out of 51 fines levied by the Landlord and Tenant Board in the last four years, three quarters were for $2,000 or less, with by far the most common fine being $1,000. This is obviously way under the maximum. Currently, the maximum fines for a person or business convicted under the Consumer Protection Act are $50,000 and $250,000, respectively. This new legislation would double those amounts. Wronged consumers will need a court to determine that the act was breached for a fine to be laid. As you know, most consumers do not have the financial means to pursue these claims, because often the value of the claim is significantly below the legal fees required—not to mention the time it would take.

It would make sense to increase the penalties, not just fines, for offences to act as a deterrent. For example, Australia recently changed its consumer protection legislation to include significantly higher penalties, up to $50 million.

Larger fines like those in Australia would serve as a stronger deterrent than a simple doubling. So here the doubling of fines may appear like a strong move, but time will tell if hefty fines are levied. Nonetheless, this too is supportable.

Deterring businesses from refusing to provide statutory refunds: Currently, in law, there are provisions for businesses to provide consumers with a refund when they are entitled to one, but that doesn’t always happen.

Earlier this year, CTV News reported on the frustrating issues faced by an Ontario resident named Michael McKelvie, who was being denied a refund he was entitled to on an expensive camcorder he had purchased from Amazon. Again, a refund was finally granted after the story broke in the media.

Within the new proposed act here, consumers who sue businesses over refund issues could be entitled to recover three times the original refund amount. Although this, once again, requires the consumer to often fight a large retailer in court, this would be a beneficial change.

Addressing automatic contract for service renewals: This initiative seeks to protect consumers from various changes to contracts through a series of limitations. This could help warn and require consent from consumers on unwanted extensions or price changes. There are suggested regulations that could include ongoing rights for consumers to cancel. Often, these changes in contracts or renewals are one-sided. So once more, this would be a positive change, though it appears it will rely on future regulation changes.

Right to review: Ontario new home warranty advocates have told me that they have been approached by many disgruntled consumers who have been threatened or even sued by home builders for speaking out about the problems they are facing. The government says that this legislation would prohibit businesses from creating contract terms to prevent consumers from being sued or punished from publishing negative reviews—another positive move.

Consultations on regulations: In addition to the above, the government is proposing to make it easier to cancel subscriptions and memberships, provide free electronic access to their consumer reports and credit scores, and allow consumers to place a security freeze on their credit reports and place explanatory information on their consumer files. I do look forward to hearing the results of this consultation.

Finally, it’s time to deal with the initiative entitled “Helping Consumers with Discharging Certain Notices of Security Interest.” I know the minister spent quite a bit of time in his speech on this. This issue comes up often in the media, and it’s increasing. I suspect every member in this House has heard difficult stories faced by their residents with regard to these notices often called liens or NOSIs. Notices of security interest—abbreviated as NOSI—are easily registered on the land registry system by third parties when they install a fixture like a furnace or water heater on the property. Businesses claim that registering a NOSI is a form of protection, in case the homeowner defaults on payments or sells the property. Unfortunately, some businesses will use these NOSIs to scam consumers out of money when they are desperately attempting to refinance or sell their homes. Of course, these scammers search out elderly and other vulnerable individuals to take advantage of—take the story of Ian Craig in Kitchener, reported by Kitchener CTV News, who had $150,000 of NOSIs on title to be cleared before he could refinance his property.

Recently, a frustrated daughter, Linda Palmieri, reached out to me to tell the story of her in-laws who live in my community. She describes them as sweet, kind and trusting people who have been targeted from the years 2015 to 2021 and have a dozen NOSIs on their home, totalling tens of thousands of dollars. In addition to the NOSIs, they were sold multiple products and services they don’t need, at exorbitant prices, including a surge protector costing $15,000. Police have been involved, but she wants real action to prevent this from happening to anyone else. Sadly, there are many more examples.

In the words of the government, “The proposed new legislation would clarify a business’ obligation to discharge a NOSI under specific circumstances. It also allows some consumers to receive assistance from the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery in enforcing a business’ obligations to discharge a NOSI.”

Often, businesses violate the act by not disclosing that security interest, where thousands of dollars have been taken out against their customer’s home titles. Typically, these interests are used as collateral and a homeowner only comes to discover that these security interests have been applied to their home when they attempt to sell or remortgage their home.

These situations really highlight the issue of predatory sales tactics in the home equipment industry, particularly affecting vulnerable individuals such as senior citizens and those with language barriers or disabilities, but the scary thing is that it can happen to anyone.

You may recall the media story about Tracy Spence, a resident of Toronto who faced a shocking cost to buy out a rental contract for a simple furnace and air conditioner. Having paid over $7,000 in monthly rental fees since 2016, she was informed that it would cost an additional $32,406 to own the appliances. This was far more than the combined cash selling price of $10,798 listed in her contract. Spence, like many others, felt deceived after signing up to rent home energy appliances. Spence had felt pressured by a fast-talking salesperson when signing the rental deal in 2016, and the promised cost savings didn’t materialize as expected. Spence decided to exit her contract in 2019 when complications arose while trying to refinance her mortgage due to a lien for the appliances placed on her home, as is often the case. To address this issue, victims have sought legal help to have the NOSIs removed from their homes. In some cases, the police have become involved to investigate criminal activity associated with these scams and try to stop them before they progress.

I cannot stress enough the action required to protect consumers from these scams that have led to incredible stress, worry and financial ruin for many who have faced foreclosures because of a NOSI that was placed on their property without their understanding or knowledge. So I ask you, do these proposed changes go far enough? As stated above, we’ve seen situations where seniors are forced to pay out tens of thousands of dollars in NOSIs that were obtained via unscrupulous practices. We’ve seen cases where seniors will have a series of NOSIs, all from different suppliers, for various equipment—some even have cases where a person will have numerous pieces of the same equipment.

I understand that the government is currently undergoing a consultation on the rules governing these NOSIs, and there are a number of ideas on how to address this problem. Let’s take one, for example. Dave Deonarain, a real estate lawyer, recently reached out to me stating the problems that come with how easily a NOSI can be registered against a property and how hard they are to remove. He has found over 20 files where there was a NOSI registered without the client being aware. He further claims that every time he has attempted to remove a NOSI, the holder of the interest has been uncooperative, and it requires lots of effort to have them removed. For instance, one of his clients had to go to a company’s head office after four long weeks of getting nowhere with emails, letters and phone calls. Another client required three to four weeks of that, and it became a wild goose chase from one company to another before it could be discharged. Finally, a current client of his is selling his property and will not be able to discharge all NOSIs on his property before the closing date. One of the NOSIs is registered to a company in Vancouver, and five telephone conversations with the company have yet to fix anything. Mr. Deonarain believes the solution would be a mandatory requirement that only licensed Ontario lawyers register, discharge or assign NOSIs via the land registry—and I’m sure, during your consultation, you will hear many, many different suggestions and ideas.

Also, others want even more drastic change. The government has promised that all options are on the table, and I will hold them to their word on this. We urgently need action to end these scams once and for all.

Door-to-door sales: At present, there is a right that a supplier can’t solicit a consumer to enter into a direct agreement unless the consumer has initiated the contract or the consumer has a specific request that the supplier attend at the consumer’s dwelling. These provisions were implemented under the previous government following an ongoing problem of predatory door-to-door sales for things like furnaces, water heaters and other installation equipment. Critics, however, have pointed out that these provisions are easy to circumvent, particularly with vulnerable populations, as they would only require an invitation from the consumer.

In the present legislation, cooling-off periods are sprinkled throughout for various named consumer contracts. This new legislation consolidates those cooling-off periods and states that a consumer may, without any reason, cancel a listed consumer contract within 10 days. This does not, however, apply to new home purchases, which are often the biggest purchase of a person’s life.

The bill adds new requirements for NOSIs, and the ministry is currently undergoing a regulatory proposal on their use.

As I stated earlier, we’ve seen situations where seniors are forced to pay out tens of thousands of dollars in NOSIs that were obtained via unscrupulous practices. We’ve seen cases where seniors will have a series of NOSIs, all from different suppliers, for various equipment—some even have cases where a person will have numerous pieces of the same equipment; again, I’ve mentioned some paying for equipment that doesn’t function. Some are even paying for equipment they no longer have. In this bill, there are new provisions that would require that a supplier of certain rented or leased equipment—e.g., furnaces, water heaters—to discharge any related NOSIs within 15 days of cancellation or termination of a consumer contract.

Another positive step is that consumers would have the right to rescind a contract for one year after entering the contract if an unfair practice has taken place, or one year after learning an unfair practice takes place, whichever is later—presently, consumers only have this right for one year of the contract starting. These provisions are an acknowledgement that an unfair practice can occur during the contract, and provide consumers with the right to exit said contract after an unfair practice occurs.

I have now reviewed the highlights of this bill as framed by the government itself. All are improvements, and all appear supportable.

Now I want to take a step back for a moment and review the need for better consumer protection in Ontario. The Law Commission of Ontario has stated that consumer protection legislation attempts to address inequities in negotiating positions and access to information in order to promote a trustworthy marketplace for consumers, fair competition among businesses and marketplace efficiency. Lengthy and hard-to-read-and-understand terms of service contracts mean that, in many cases, consumers are agreeing to unwanted terms or falling prey to unfair practices, and that consent is illusory.

It has been said that the EU is the gold standard when it comes to consumer rights and protections, and within Canada, Quebec and BC lead the way.

The Consumers Council of Canada identifies the following as the international consumer rights and responsibilities, and they are:

“(1) Basic needs

“The right to basic goods and services which guarantee survival.

“The responsibility to use these goods and services appropriately. To take action to ensure that basic needs are available.

“(2) Safety

“The right to be protected against goods or services that are hazardous to health and life.

“The responsibility to read instructions and take precautions. To take action to choose safety equipment, use products as instructed and teach safety to children.

“(3) Information

“The right to be given the facts needed to make an informed choice, to be protected against misleading advertising or labelling.

“The responsibility to search out and use available information. To take action to read and follow labels and research before purchase.

“(4) Choice

“The right to choose products and services at competitive prices with an assurance of satisfactory quality.

“The responsibility to make informed and responsible choices. To take action to resist high-pressure sales and to comparison shop.

“(5) Representation

“The right to express consumer interests in the making of decisions.

“The responsibility to make opinions known. To take action to join an association such as the consumers council to make your voice heard and to encourage others to participate.

“(6) Redress

“The right to be compensated for misrepresentation, shoddy goods or unsatisfactory services.

“The responsibility to fight for the quality that should be provided. Take action by complaining effectively and refusing to accept shoddy workmanship.

“(7) Consumer education

“The right to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to be an informed consumer.

“The responsibility to take advantage of consumer opportunities. Take action by attending seminars and workshops, work to ensure consumer education takes place in schools.

“(8) Healthy environment

“The right to live and work in an environment that is neither threatening nor dangerous and which permits a life of dignity and well-being.

“The responsibility to minimize environmental damage through careful choice and use of consumer goods and services. Take action to reduce waste, to reuse products whenever possible and to recycle whenever possible.”

And, additionally: “Privacy

“The right to privacy, particularly as it applies to personal information.

“The responsibility to know how information will be used and to divulge personal information only when appropriate.”

The council has also submitted that “consumer issues are barely confronted by a plethora of federal and provincial agencies acting in isolation, often with inadequate resources. As a result, Ontario consumers must shop around their concerns in a mad hunt for justice.

“They must more often resort to lawsuits, seek guidance from consumer organizations, or express anger and frustration or organize reaction using online reviews and social or other public media.

“Too much of this reaction leads only to frustration and shared anger, rather than confidence inspiring solutions for consumers.

“Without remedial action, an already weak, fragmented provincial consumer protection regime will be further degraded by government financial constraints and pressure from competing interests, inside and outside government.”

Let’s talk about the EU gold standard. Generally speaking, what gives the EU such strong consumer protection laws is that its consumer protection bodies are divided into two streams: (1) the ECC Net, or the European Consumer Centres Network, which provides consumers with advice, legal assistance and advocacy work; and (2) the CPC Net, or the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network, which enforces consumer protection laws across the EU.

ECC Net increases consumer confidence by providing free information and advice on consumer issues as well as assistance with complaints. ECC Net also offers advice on legal protections throughout the EU. ECC Net is co-funded by EU governments and is staffed by legal experts who assist consumers free of charge. The service is not only accessible by having a centre in virtually every EU country, spanning 29 languages, but it also does advocacy work and assists governments with consumer protection policy and legislation. CPC Net, or the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network is made up of various administrations that enforce consumer protection laws in the EU. CPC Net has strong and swift powers that enable it to detect irregularities and take action against mal-intentioned sellers and businesses. CPC Net has enforcement authority over unfair commercial practices; e-commerce; geo-blocking; package holidays, including time-shares and cruises; and online selling, to name a few of many.

When it comes to consumer protection in Ontario, the issue for me is when the government creates a set of laws and then leaves David on his own to fight Goliath. Consumers need an ally, a powerful entity that has their back in the same way that industry has. It’s about the need for policies that make it easier for individuals to cancel subscriptions and membership agreements without facing exorbitant fees or complex, convoluted processes. It’s about ensuring that our rights as consumers are protected, even when our circumstances change. While the provisions in this bill are a step in the right direction, they can, and should, be taken further.

As critic, I often seek input from consumer advocates and organizations. However, I am sad to report that many of these organizations are on the brink of extinction here in Ontario and across Canada. The consumers council, in their 2020 submission to the Ministry of Public and Business Delivery, recommended the “creation of a consumer advancement fund, compensating consumer organizations, and introducing a contributions program for non-profit consumers and other voluntary organizations.”

I think the consumers council summed it up best in their 2020 submission when they describe the importance of consumer trust and the role it plays within Ontario’s economy and the proper functioning of markets. They go on to say, “Ample evidence exists that consumer protection in Canada has diminished in direct proportion to the absence of vigorous external surveillance and government attention to its mandate to promote and protect consumer interests.

“The need is urgent to restore and rebuild consumer confidence and the integrity of the marketplace.

“While the various roles and responsibilities for the CCA recommended here are much-needed and critical, the most important overall role will be its ability to effectively advance the consumer voice in government.

“Someone must be present to speak up for consumers, make their needs known and objectively organize insights gained from their engagement to be presented to the House Senate committees and government agencies that make important decisions impacting Canadian consumers.”

So what’s missing? Does this fix consumer protection in Canada? I know the minister quoted the phrase “caveat emptor.” The question is, does that exist at all in any way, shape or form still in Ontario? Does it exist in Canada?

Speaker, the bill moves many provisions from legislation and into regulation and appears to expand the scope of what provisions can be made in regulation. There are 48 items the government has identified. Again, early analysis from law firms suggested that this list of areas signals that the regulations under the new CPA may be more detailed and expansive than the current version. As with everything, there is always room for improvement, so I look forward to the committee stage of this bill in particular.

For example, when it comes to online agreements and the monetary limit of $50, I would argue that the monetary limit should be removed and that the act cover all such agreements. Section 16—coverage of the act—names some transactions. I hope that these are just examples and not an exhaustive list. I would hope this would also be clarified so that the intention of the act to cover all transactions is reflected in the text of the act.

Under section 50—the cooling-off period—right now, it only covers the enumerated agreements, meaning it doesn’t cover any agreements conducted online, even if they meet the monetary limit and those are currently covered. While section 50 suggests that other agreements may be added through regulation, it is a significant change from the current legislation.

I would also like to note that when it comes to the standard for assessing unfair practices, neither the current Consumer Protection Act nor this proposed legislation provides a standard to assess whether a practice can be considered unfair.

I would like to quote part of a submission by the Competition Bureau on the future of competition policy in Canada, which noted that a standard should be prescribed in legislation. It stated:

“It is important that the act be clear that all consumers, including those who are less sophisticated and more vulnerable, be protected from deceptive marketing practices. Should it not, the proper functioning of the marketplace will be distorted in each instance that a consumer is misled into transacting with misleading advertisers rather than honest competitors.

“The act has yet to prescribe a consumer standard for deceptive marketing conduct, and so the matter has been left to the courts to adjudicate. This has resulted in a lack of consensus and, in many instances, the introduction of standards that fall short of ensuring adequate protection. To correct this, the act should be revised to articulate an appropriate threshold, and in doing so should adopt the standard set by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in Richard v Time (Time). That case concerned the test for false and misleading representations under Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act’s (CPA). The SCC acknowledged that the CPA language in question was based upon certain text located within the Combines Investigation Act and is now analogous to that found within the act.”

Under “Disclosure of information” in section 4, it states, “(1) If a supplier is required to disclose information under this act, the disclosure must be clear, comprehensible and prominent.” What is the definition of “clear” and “comprehensible”? As we know, most consumer agreements are drafted in a language that is not easy to understand and often uses complex language.

It is not unprecedented to require that disclosure agreements be written in plain, easy-to-understand language—take, for example, the Ontario Securities Commission’s “Notice of Amendments (Related to Implementation of Stage 1 of Point of Sale Disclosure for Mutual Funds).” It states: “The Fund Facts is still required to be prepared using plain language and in a format that assists in readability and comprehension.”

There are also some reasons from stakeholders that I would like to share.

For some time, advocates and consumer protection experts have been calling for regulations on new home sales and their warranties.

Canadians for Properly Built Homes issued the following statement in reaction to this proposed bill:

“The Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, 2023 is a step in the right direction for some Ontario consumers, such as a monthly free credit report and clarifying rules for gift cards. Unfortunately, it does not address key areas of concern for CPBH and many purchasers of newly built homes, or those considering purchasing a newly built home, such as:

“1. Ensuring that the largest purchase that most make, a home, is good quality—or even meets the minimal code;

“2. Addressing the ongoing serious shortcomings of key administrative authorities, that are supposed to be focused on consumer protection, such as:

“—the Home Construction Regulatory Authority (HCRA) in relation to the misleading Ontario Builder Directory, and preventing builders from secretly selling newly built homes with used and/or damaged furnaces, and

“—ending Tarion’s monopoly and introducing a competitive, multi-provider model for warranty protection as was recommended by Justice Cunningham in 2016, is offered by much of the rest of Canada, was promised by the PCs before the June 2018 election and was recommended by the Ford government’s own consultation (which they swept under the rug).”

Again, in the words of CPBH, “When is the” existing “government going to address the biggest consumer protection problem in Ontario: protecting consumers who buy newly built homes? When will the building code be enforced during construction in Ontario? When will inspections during construction be enforced on every home built? When will the Ford government reverse its decision to allow remote municipal inspections during construction? When will consumers be able to have confidence that their newly built home will not injure them or make them sick? Once again, we see the ... government tinkering at the margins instead of getting the big problems fixed. It’s what we have come to expect. And it’s far from what Ontarians need and deserve.”

Consumer advocate Barbara Captijn noted:

“This bill does not address major problems in lack of consumer protection in Ontario. It excludes protections for new home buyers in the biggest purchase of one’s life.

“Leaving significant gaps in this bill seems like repairing the roof of a car when the engine is faulty. Doing a few touch-ups to the 2002 act isn’t significantly improving consumer protection.

“The subtitle of the bill, the Consumer Protection Act, ‘protecting consumers, protecting businesses’ mixes two very different things. Individual consumers don’t have the financial resources businesses have, nor the time or tax deductibility advantages to resolve injustices in the courts. Consumers are the most vulnerable party in a business transaction, which is why we need a strong Consumer Protection Act.

“Some of the proposals in Bill 142 are a step in the right direction, such as providing an exit to time-share agreements, limiting automatic contract renewals without specific consent and preventing suppliers from soliciting at a consumer’s dwelling etc.

“But this bill ignores the 900-pound gorilla in the room, unfair business practices in new home sales. As with the Consumer Protection Act in 2002, this new bill specifically excludes real estate transactions except, oddly, for time-share purchases.

“New home buying is an area where consumers need to be protected, since one’s life savings are often at stake, as well as one’s well-being and stability. But there are growing numbers of reports in the media about unscrupulous practices in this area, such as developers taking deposits and not building homes they’ve contracted to, project cancellations, price escalations, preventing consumers from speaking out about problems with developers and selling homes without the necessary provincial approvals or the finances to complete the project.

“The government announced they are clamping down on what they call ‘bad actors’ and ‘unscrupulous builders,’ but there’s nothing in the Consumer Protection Act to protect consumers in the biggest investment of their lives.”

So those who are long-time consumer protection advocates, who have fought tooth and nail on the issues of home warranty—I’ve read quotes from them on their feelings about the current legislation before us.

Overall, is this legislation an improvement over the Consumer Protection Act, 2002? Yes, it is. There are improvements here. Will this make Ontario the gold standard of consumer protection amongst all the jurisdictions out there? I think there is much more work required to bring us to that standard. Why? Well, there are many reasons—but one: We lack enforcement. This legislation does change laws to better protect consumers, but ultimately consumers will have to seek justice in court against companies with massive wealth and teams of lawyers. Consumers will be better armed but, in my opinion, they remain outgunned. Furthermore, consumers face industry-wide issues that this legislation cannot fix, and these powerful industries that may compete amongst themselves still band together to form powerful and well-funded associations that lobby governments and attempt to sway public opinion through PR campaigns. But what do consumers have? There are consumer protections organizations and advocates out there, but they, as I mentioned, are on the brink of extinction and operate with little to no funding. They churn out well-thought-out reports with solutions, but ultimately they are shouting into the winds of a hurricane that is slowly sweeping them away. As I said, there is more work to be done, but we cannot do that work alone. Consumers need help. They need a strong ally to stand up against these industries.

On December 8, 2020, under the 42nd Parliament of Ontario, I tabled the Ontario Consumer Watchdog Act, legislation for the government to develop and implement a plan to establish an independent consumer watchdog organization that is responsible for overseeing consumer protection matters in Ontario. On March 8, 2021, I tabled second reading of the act. And earlier this year, we proudly tabled a strengthened version—the Ontario consumer watchdog, an independent organization that would oversee all consumer protection matters in Ontario.

At present, it can be difficult to exercise consumer protection rights. Depending on the nature of the complaint, there could be a number of different places, and frequently the only avenue is to pursue the matter legally, an option that is not available to many consumers and is cost-prohibitive. The consumer watchdog would be able to release public reports, similar to the Auditor General or the Ombudsman of Ontario, and to levy fines or other penalties against businesses that have been found not to have acted in accordance with consumer protection legislation.

Daniel Tsai, a consumer advocate, had this to say about the bill:

“Ontario families continue to struggle against escalating grocery prices and huge food bills to feed themselves while the big five grocery chains (Loblaws, Sobeys, Metro, Costco and Walmart—dominate with 80% market share and reap huge profits they put back into their executives’ pockets. While Loblaws’s CEO gets a million-dollar raise, Canadians need a break from price gouging and a government to champion their concerns. An Ontario consumer watchdog is what this province sorely needs to fight food inflation and price gouging and to protect consumers. If Ontario implements” the MPP from Humber River–Black Creek’s “consumer watchdog bill, Ontario will be the undisputed leader in protecting consumers in Canada.”

Don Mercer, former president of the Consumers Council of Canada, issued the following statement:

“Consumers Council of Canada applauds this bill being tabled for the consideration of Ontario legislators—it’s especially timely to engage with proposals for improving consumer protection in Ontario. Under current economic pressures, consumers are increasingly sensitive about whether the marketplace is fair and that public policy works for rather than against them.

“They want their legitimate concerns to be heard and responded to promptly by business and government. They are ready for innovative ideas that will better support their legitimate interest in meeting basic needs, staying safe and healthy, exercising informed choice, finding redress and protecting their privacy. In our sophisticated economy, whole-of-government approaches to deliver consumer well-being will be critical to economic success.”

The reaction from the government, however, when the bill was tabled was to shoot down the bill for a watchdog. Unfortunately, the disdain of the idea was apparent in the words of the minister of the time, referring to the establishment of a consumer watchdog as implementing “more red tape and more blockers.” He said that there is an abundance of compliance and enforcement actions that currently exist, and even directed people to call Consumer Protection Ontario. This is simply untrue.

I will mention that press conference, again, when the Premier angrily blasted a retailer for gouging on Lysol wipes, urging the public to report gouging to the consumer hotline. What happened at that time? Again, there were 30,000 complaints and not a single fine laid.

The minister went on to further say at the time, “My ministry has oversight of 11 administrative authorities and one statutory corporation that are responsible for delivering critical programs and services, including ensuring that delegated consumer protection and public safety laws are applied and enforced. They include very flexible ways to respond to a wide range of emerging issues.”

Most consumer protection advocates state that these delegated administrative authorities are not working. They are generally loaded with the players they seek to regulate. At best they seek not to rock the boat, and at worst these authorities function as though they were fully captured.

This brings me to the last point, which is a concern I’ve always had with this government: They rely heavily, if not solely, on industry to write their policy. Speaker, industries cannot regulate themselves. When governments consult businesses on how to better protect consumers from unfair practices, they are essentially asking the fox on how to better construct chicken wire. Why would they help anyway? When consulted, they scream poor or threaten to leave the market, while posting profits and comforting their shareholders.

Speaker, take for example the auto insurance industry. Statistics show that Ontarians are some of the safest drivers in the country, yet we continue to pay the highest auto insurance rates on earth. Families are paying sky-high auto insurance premiums while big insurance companies make record profits. GTA drivers with clean records continue to be gouged by this unfair practice, which makes life unaffordable in places like Brampton, Scarborough and Vaughan. Drivers need relief.

When the NDP introduced a bill to end postal code discrimination and price gouging, the government blocked the bill, only to introduce lacklustre measures that failed to address postal code discrimination. However, in 2022, the bill was voted on unanimously, but the government did not pass it into law.

Ontarians are already living paycheque to paycheque, especially in the face of a skyrocketing cost-of-living and affordability crisis. We need to take action against price gouging and postal code discrimination that is putting more financial burden on hard-working Ontarians and only benefiting big corporations.

Take it from a resident named Yavuz, who wrote to my office saying the following:

“Coming from a working-class background, every dollar counts for me and my family, including insurance rates. Unfortunately, the current policies and regulations on auto insurance create an accessibility and class barrier to automotive transportation, which has led me to forego owning a car as the associated insurance rates are cost-prohibitive. Honest, law-abiding citizens are discriminated by virtue of their geographical and financial backgrounds due to postal code discrimination, without accounting for individual factors. Insurance equality means that people can travel more and explore more economic opportunities. If insurance costs were less cost-prohibitive, I would also have more of an opportunity to work in different localities.”

So you’ve heard it from consumer protection advocates, in particular those in a particular area that are frustrated because they feel that this bill is not going to address their issue. You’ve heard from experts and associations about what they think the gold standard should look like and what it should be focused on. You’ve heard from everyday residents.

And so, Speaker, we are debating a bill that has many positive improvements for consumer protection. It repeals the act from 2002 with a series of improvements. But here on this side of the House, we’re looking for the gold standard. Are there improvements? There are. I’ve listed many; I’ve been very open about how it’s positive, and I do believe, in a number of situations, it will help consumers. But what the issue continues to be is that to fix problems, consumers will have to go through the court systems. And while this may equip them with better laws for their lawyers, they’re going to have to shell out money, in a lot of cases, to fight against Goliath. That is going to continue to be a challenge.

We are going to be looking very closely in terms of what the regulations will say, because a lot of what’s been moved has been moved to that part. Again, I thank the minister and the ministry for granting a briefing, where they said, “If and when this bill comes into force, there will be a seamless transition,” which we didn’t see with other acts like the PAWS Act, which is something that is very important.

Again, what we are looking to see is an understanding that, when it comes to consumers and when it comes to industry, there is a massive, massive imbalance. Industries get together and they put money into associations that stand up and fight for them. Those industries and associations are able to buy advertisements; they’re able to lobby very aggressively the government. They have lots and lots of power. And even though members of that industry might be competing with one another, they are all working in the same direction to ensure that that industry, in particular—and take auto insurance—is going to be profitable for all of them.

But we as consumers are interested in being able to pay the bills, in being treated fairly. And so, as this government has gone through the consultation process, and they’re going to do more consulting, I urge them to reach out to these associations and these consumer groups. But I urge them to go even further and begin to think about and consider the importance of why funding and empowering these groups is so crucial to consumer protection here in Ontario.

I, with other colleagues, have tabled the Ontario Consumer Watchdog Act, which would run parallel to all the work that you are doing as government. It would run parallel to the act that you are attempting to repeal and replace. It would provide an ally to consumers across all of this great province. It would provide an entity that could do things like issue reports, levy fines and do more. Having that watchdog would help us transition and move us to the gold standard that exists in the European Union and other jurisdictions. And after all, as legislators, shouldn’t we be fighting for what is the best for Ontarians?

Speaker, I hope the minister will take a serious look at that legislation that could take consumer protection to the highest levels. It runs, again, parallel to this positive consumer protection legislation we’re debating today and would only help the ministry and consumers of our great province.

To conclude, I believe that this legislation will improve consumer protection in Ontario in a number of areas. I again acknowledge the work of the minister and his ministry and thank them for the briefing and conversations that they’ve granted. If this bill passes second reading, I look forward to following it through committee before it returns to this House.

I’m sorry to interrupt the member. The Minister of Education has a point of order.

I turn back to the member from Humber River–Black Creek.

Point of order.

Our government has brought forward a historic plan to modernize consumer protection law in Ontario by extending the order-making powers of Consumer Protection Ontario to cover any businesses whose actions have the effect of assisting in violating the CPA.

We hear that the NDP opposes our plan to go after bad actors. Through you, Speaker, can the member opposite please tell us how they plan to deter bad actors if they are unwilling to give the government the chance to empower Ontarians to do so many—

Questions?