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?

Thank you as well to our critic for consumer protection. The member for Humber River–Black Creek talked a lot about the need for an Ontario consumer watchdog. While listening to the debate today I think often of people who come to our office—probably all of our offices. It’s very often senior citizens who have been duped over the telephone, people who picked up the phone and found out that they’ve won a trip. Everyone knows that foghorn noise that goes off.

It’s individuals being affected by this. Typically, large organizations have deep pockets, they have lobbyists and they have an advocacy voice. One of the things that the member said was, consumers will be better armed but still ungunned. I think that really resonates with me. Maybe he could expand on why the people of Ontario need a consumer watchdog.

Thank you very much to the member for Humber River–Black Creek for always being informative and helping us understand a bill like this and how it affects people. My question to you is—I know you spoke about this, but can you just explain a little bit more about the people who are most vulnerable to these kinds of malpractices when it comes to consumer protection? You know: seniors, for example; young folks. Can you explain how this bill could have been better to protect those folks?

I appreciate the question from the member and my friend. I think he misunderstands me. In fact, I’ve spoken rather supportively of this legislation. I’ve said it’s positive in many different ways, and it will improve consumer protection in Ontario.

The only difference is that what I’ve asked for and what I’m pushing for is to bring us to that gold standard. What I’m calling for is the establishment of a consumer watchdog, in parallel to what the government is trying to achieve here. I think we can all agree that consumer protection is a priority and I think we all want what’s best for consumers.

That’s the current state of the system. So even as we continue to improve the consumer protection laws, as we continue to put laws more and more—I don’t want to just say in the favour of consumers, but actually fair laws that should be there. The problem is they continue to have to go to court. As I have said and as you repeated, we’d better arm them with these consumer protection laws, but regardless, when they go up against entire industries or big corporations, they remain ungunned.

There are many ways to do that. One would be to implement a consumer watchdog here in Ontario. Another way would be to find a way to work harder and to support and perhaps even fund organizations that have consumer protection at their heart so that they could stand up for all of us and be a counterbalance to an industry that works so hard to tell government to do what they want.

As part of my speech, I think a lot of the heaviest criticisms of this bill came from those same home warranty advocates that I quoted, and they are justly frustrated, because they continue to be reached out to by new home purchasers that feel that they’re not continuing to be protected. So I think there are a lot of areas within the realm of consumer protection that need to be addressed, specifically in the areas of new home warranties.

I appreciate the member for that question and continuing speaking for those advocates because we haven’t forgotten them, and there’s a lot more we need to do to protect new home purchasers here in Ontario.

I have a question for my friend, the member opposite, who is a very capable critic in regard to this particular ministry. I listened carefully to the concerns he raised in his remarks today about NOSIs. We’re equally concerned about it.

Can the member confirm that he agrees that section 60 of this proposed bill is a good start? But parallel to that, with our consultation period, which will continue on what we can do in the here and the now parallel to section 60, can he agree that he’ll be participating and encouraging others to participate in our consultation period on NOSIs, which concludes December 1?

I want to congratulate our critic here for consumer affairs. There is a theme that went through this debate that sometimes consumers don’t know what they don’t know until you buy a product or are involved with the industry; then you understand what the unfairness is.

But one of the things that stuck out for me, and I think people may not know this as well: You mentioned Canadians for Properly Built Homes and how they issued a statement about Justice Cunningham’s report and recommendations that should happen around it. But one of the questions that they were asking for the Ford government to deal with—because, as you noted, the Ford government did make a promise before 2018 to proceed with some of those recommendations. One of the things I want to highlight is, why do you think this Ford government won’t reverse the decision to allow remote inspections during construction? Because I’d bet many consumers have no idea that those remote inspections aren’t being done today.

Thank you very much for the question. Definitely, this bill, at least in words, is seeking to address vulnerable individuals who are being affected and taken advantage of by these predatory scams. But as I had mentioned earlier, one thing that’s lacking is the fact that, though we continue to arm them with better laws—and there appears to be better laws included here—the problem is that those very same people have to go to court to fight to get justice.

I think we need more. We need to empower those advocates who are fighting to make recommendations to improve laws—not just here, but in all categories. We have to find a way to create an ally that could stand up for Ontarians, better advise governments and better advise consumers, which is the watchdog act that is running parallel to this legislation here. This legislation has a series of positive changes, and I hope that they in turn will take a look at our legislation as well.

It’s always an honour and a pleasure to rise in the House, and to speak today about the Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, 2023.

Madam Speaker, we were very excited to introduce this bill last week and highlight our proposals to strengthen protections for all consumers in Ontario. The proposals we have tabled for consideration will make life easier for the people of Ontario and businesses, particularly those in the increasingly online world where consumer habits and business practices are focused on digital service delivery. I think back on 2005 when this was first put into a bill. Where were cellphones back then? You look at it today. We’ve had so much development, so many changes in that time period, it’s amazing.

Our government is aiming to strengthen consumer rights and confidence, make it easier for businesses to comply with consumer protection rules and promote a fair and competitive economy. We have been given a strong and clear message to fight for the people of Ontario in a rapidly evolving and changing marketplace. And we want Ontario people to know we have been listening to them.

The proposed new Consumer Protection Act, 2023, reflects extensive consultation with the public and stakeholders over a three-year period from March 2020 until March 2023. The feedback we have received has been crucial to informing us about the proposed changes that we’re proposing in this act. The people of Ontario have told us they want us to take action to make sure their rights as consumers are protected. We listened and we are taking action.

As the minister previously explained, the existing Consumer Protection Act of 2002 is the primary legislation defining rules for consumer protection in Ontario. It’s a key piece of Ontario’s consumer protection framework and applies to most transactions between consumers and businesses. Through Consumer Protection Ontario, our ministry’s awareness program, we have promoted consumer rights under this act. However, since taking effect in 2005, the Consumer Protection Act has not been updated, and, Madam Speaker, Ontario’s marketplace has changed significantly since that time. The world we live in now relies heavily on technology. So, to better protect consumers, our proposed new act will modernize contract rules to adapt to changing technology and innovations in the marketplace. In addition, our proposed changes to the Consumer Reporting Act will improve and clarify the act and help people of Ontario monitor and protect their information and their credit scores.

The proposed new Consumer Protection Act, 2023, would support and enhance the current protections of consumer rights and make it easier for the people of Ontario to shop with confidence at home, online and in their communities. At the same time, the new act, if passed and once implemented, will streamline and clarify requirements for businesses and make it easier for them to understand and comply with the law. Additionally, it would also provide our ministry with new powers to help promote compliance and take appropriate action against those businesses who behave contrary to the acts or any of these regulations.

Madam Speaker, it has become clear that consumers need updated protections that reflect the realities of an online world and address high-impact consumer harms. The new act would, if passed and once implemented, better protect consumers against unfair business practices; reinforce consumer choice and rights in relation to contract amendments and automatic renewals; and provide fairer exit options from time-shares and long-term leases of home-related equipment, whether it’s HVAC or air conditioning or a water heater.

It is vital that we’re able to make informed choices when we buy goods and services in today’s marketplace. We believe the people of Ontario also have the right to understand their contracts upfront. Under the proposed changes, we are consolidating the various contract disclosure rules under the current act into a single set of core rules that would apply to most consumer contracts. Our proposed new act would require that key contract information be made prominent so consumers can be made aware and understand any long-term implications of the contract they choose to enter.

To be clear, our proposals are extensive. Let me share a few of them now. Let’s talk about business compliance. While we know the vast majority of businesses treat their customers fairly and honestly, it is clear that some are not really good actors and contravene those rules. If passed, this act would forbid unfair practices such as false claims of government oversight or authorization and bogus prize offers.

Let me give you an example. A homeowner was looking to acquire a more environmentally friendly water purification system for his home. The homeowner opted to go with a business that claimed it was endorsed by the government of Ontario. Disappointed with the purification system and later learning the claim of the government endorsement was false, they went to the Consumer Protection Act and found it was misrepresenting the homeowner, and he took no action.

Under the new act, it would include stronger, clearer examples of prohibited unfair practices, so that it is easier to understand that the business’ false claim of government endorsement is an unfair practice that entitles him to rescind and stop the contract immediately. In the event of an unfair practice taking place, consumers would have the right to cancel a contract one year after entering the contract or one year after the unfair practice takes place, whichever is later.

How many people in this room have had people knock on their door trying to sell them HVAC and being told that it’s part of an Ontario government program? I’ve had it happen to myself and to my wife in our house. It’s crazy.

Under the proposed new rules, we would also make consumer consent and choice paramount. The proposed new Consumer Protection Act, 2023, would, once implemented, limit the circumstances under which businesses could make unilateral contract amendments and conduct renewals and extensions without the express consent of the consumer. Any permitted automatic contract renewals or extensions would need to include the right of the consumer to cancel at any stage of the contract.

If passed, the proposed changes under this act would make it easier for consumers to cancel a subscription they no longer wanted. With the changes we are proposing in the Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act and the proposals to be set out in regulations, Ontarians would know that consent is required when businesses unexpectedly increase the price of a service. And if an automatic renewal does occur, the consumer would have the right to notify the business that they would want to terminate the contract because, under the act, there would be an ongoing right to cancel. These are fair changes that support competition and consumer choice.

During the three-year period that we consulted with various people and associations, we heard concerns about time-shares and long-term leases. The new act, once implemented, would address the issue of time-share properties. In cases where consumers find themselves and their families locked into an indefinite time-share arrangement that they can’t get out of, this would change. In some cases, the resale market gives the time-share no value and a time-share operator does not offer a buy-back or take-back program.

Let’s examine the case of a couple who owned their time-share for the past 26 years. As the couple ages, they begin experiencing mobility issues and have not been able to use the property as much as they would like. They’ve looked for a buyer, but without any success. The couple is still obligated to pay annual fees and is stuck with a property that provides them with no enjoyment, no value and, even worse, no ability to exit the contract.

Under the proposed legislation, this couple would be able to exit their time-share after 25 years by paying an exit fee, which would be determined by regulation. There are some details of the proposed changes that would be subject to further discussion to address the ongoing challenges that exist for time-share owners and what they face by offering a new exit option that applies to both existing and new time-share contracts.

Under the proposed legislation, our government would establish new rules for a new category of long-term contracts. This includes long-term leases of heating, ventilation and air conditioning, better known as HVAC, and other home comfort appliances. Homeowners in Ontario are much more likely than people in other provinces and jurisdictions to lease water heaters, furnaces and any kind of home equipment on a long-term basis—I’m one of those people; I rent my hot-water heater. This would include homeowners who have entered into a 10-year lease for a furnace assuming they could buy it out later if they no longer want to lease the product. After trying to buy out the furnace, a company can inform the homeowner that they need to pay all remaining payments of the lease agreement, equivalent to five times the value of the fixture. It is unfortunate that we hear of these situations all too often.

If the proposed legislation is passed and implemented, the people of Ontario would be informed that businesses must offer customers a declining buyout schedule for high-cost long-term leasing agreements. This schedule would set out the cost to the customer to buy out the contract and obtain ownership of the equipment at different points in the life of that contract, and it would decline over time. This schedule would need to be clearly and prominently disclosed as part of the initial contract.

As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, the proposed changes, if passed, would make it easier for businesses to understand and comply with consumer-protection requirements. Businesses, particularly small businesses, would benefit from clearer, easier-to-understand contract rules. In other words, it’s good for small business. Our government is following through on a promise to reduce the burden and complication of extra red tape so that small businesses can thrive.

For example, suppose someone in Ontario intends to launch a new business. In many cases, it can be confusing due to different sets of rules that govern disclosures under the existing Consumer Protection Act, which apply to different contract categories. These contracts encompass a wide range, including agreements for future deliveries and online sales that might even intersect with one another. Under the proposed new act, the prospective new business owner would be able to find and better understand the core set of rules he or she needs to follow as a business when growing their consumer base and confidently launch their new business.

Finally, our proposed changes would provide the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery with stronger compliance and enforcement rules to effectively enforce that act. When you think about it—the fines we have today, the enforcement rules from 2005 to 2023—we need stronger enforcement and compliance rules. These enhanced tools would include revisions to the scope of compliance orders and production orders, as well as information-sharing.

Madam Speaker, I want to stress that the stronger compliance and enforcement measures are not intended to add additional costs or burdens to business. In fact, these proposals aim to reduce the burden and better enable businesses to comply, while supporting competition on a level playing field with consistent rules by targeting and deterring bad actors. Our government will continue to explore and consider more ways to protect consumers.

As the minister stated, we are actively working to address and reduce the misuse of NOSIs, notices of security interest, against unsuspecting consumers. This is the one that bothers me, personally, the most. I was visited by the Waterloo Regional Police. A detective who came in to talk to me about NOSIs showed me videos of confiscated offenders’ phones—what they were trying to do to people. There’s been people that lost their livelihoods, their homes—and the one fellow, they figure that he got away with $150 million and then took his family and ended up in Dubai, and now the OPP is trying to find him. It’s sad. It’s clear there are some bad actors out there who are using NOSIs to exploit homeowners for their own financial gain.

We have seen there has been a sharp increase in the number of consumers adversely affected by having NOSIs on their title and—like the minister said, over 38,000 last year alone—the effect of which usually arises when they are trying to sell their home or access additional financing. The gentleman in Paris, Ontario, I spoke about before—he did not find out he didn’t own the house until he tried to sell it. That’s a sad state of affairs to be in.

We need a solution that keeps the people of Ontario, often our seniors, our most vulnerable consumers, from losing significant sums of money to unscrupulous actors. That is why we are proposing to require a buyout schedule, the details of which will be determined by regulations.

Furthermore, the new CPA proposes to provide consumers with an alternative to existing process in cases where the underlying contract is terminated, cancelled or rescinded under legislation, but the NOSI has not been discharged by the business. 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 proposed new CPA would include provisions that would help to clarify business obligations to discharge NOSIs and allow the government to better help consumers seeking to discharge a NOSI when a business has failed to do so.

But we all know it’s needed beyond the Consumer Protection Act. That is why government is also consulting on a comprehensive range of proposed changes that would help to address the misuse of NOSIs.

Madam Speaker, I have addressed the modernizations led by my Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery and mentioned some that are being led by my honourable colleagues in other ministries of this government. These initiatives are part of a legislative approach to increase consumer protection, encourage market innovation and support small business.

Our government will continue to seek out the best paths for the future of our province. We know that the world has changed significantly in the years since the Consumer Protection Act of 2002 was first introduced, and while the existing act provided a solid foundation for consumer protections, we propose to build on its intentions.

The proposed, new Consumer Protection Act of 2023, if passed, would ensure the people of Ontario are better informed and better protected when they buy goods and services, big and small, by phone, online and in person. These are vital changes that would continue to drive our province’s economic growth forward.

I am proud to be part of a government that is always working to improve consumer protection for its people and its businesses. The introduction of this bill represents years of hard work and I want to thank everyone in Ontario who provided their input into modernizing our consumer protections.

Further debate?

I thank the member from Cambridge for his presentation. I would like the member to talk about the impact of this legislation a little bit more fully on the small businesses in his riding, Speaker, who impact, as he well knows, the local economy.

Questions?

Thank you for the question. I think it would help to promote and encourage businesses that are honest and above board to move further, and they would increase their business load. The whole purpose of this act is to dissuade the bad actors, identify them and move them away, and protect the people of Ontario.

It’s my pleasure to stand here today and talk about Bill 142, the Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, because, as I said earlier, consumers don’t know what they don’t know.

Right now, this bill is going to repeal the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, and this will be the act in its place. The act maintains that many of the traditions in the existing legislations—they’re going to consolidate them, and they’re going to move many of the items into regulation, and consumer protection legislation that covers both the goods and services.

I agree that many times legislation needs to have a review. When we were debating I think it was Bill 139, the red tape bill, last week, the government talked about looking at bills every—I think they said every 10 years to make sure that the regulations are working. If I recall, that’s the timeline. It is welcomed that they are going to be looking at this bill that’s over 20 years ago to make things better for consumers in this province when they are purchasing goods and services.

One of the things that I wanted to talk about was with regard to when someone purchases a good, for an example. Now, many of you know that last week the organic organization was in the Legislature. They were hopefully meeting with every MPP and explaining what some of their hurdles are in the organic sector. One of the things we know is that food is obviously something we all need to sustain ourselves. One of the messages they came to talk about to MPPs was that the organic industry needs to be regulated.

Right now the enforcement is through the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, so any agricultural product that’s labelled organic is regulated by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. However, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency does not typically investigate complaints about misuse of the terms unless the product: (a) bears a Canadian organic logo or (b) carries an organic claim and is being sold outside of the province of its origin. You see, there is a problem in this process here. When we’re talking about consumers accessing products and services, the organic sector has rightfully pointed out that they need to be regulated, because what happens is somebody who gets into the organic business, they can just slap a label on their produce and the consumer at the other end will not even be aware of what those standards are that enable that label to be organic. So they’re buying something, quite frankly, that could be not organic and that’s what those representatives were telling us.

We need to have regulations in Ontario about why—when we buy something, that it is actually organic. So why do we need Ontario organic regulations? They told us that it’s to protect organic farmers who have worked so hard to meet the standards. You’re not just protecting the people who are buying the produce, but you’re also protecting the farmers who are supplying that produce. It’s to reduce the consumer confusion and maintain food integrity by protecting consumers from misleading use of the term.

Again, we’re talking about Bill 142, how to protect consumers. This is something that the organic sector has been asking for quite some time, and it would be very important to look at that. I know there was a bill through the Legislature—the member from Danforth brought forward the exact bill about regulating organic food in Ontario. The representatives I’ve talked to said that unfortunately that hasn’t—you know, the government hasn’t taken that on to pass.

By regulating the organic industry, it also strengthens the organic brand in the system while continuing to improve it. It’s giving farmers and, quite frankly, the producers—I met with a woman named Julia. She would obviously receive the produce from the farmers and then she actually manufactures it. She was saying, as a young woman entrepreneur, that in order for us to create more jobs in the organic field that are—first of all, the organic sector is regulated, but also financing and helping with funding with entrepreneurs that are starting to develop and manufacture those organic products.

In many ways, it’s a great thing that this bill has come forward and is protecting consumers, but there is a product right in front of this government. It’s about food. It’s about food security. We need to make sure that we support our farmers when they decide to go into a different range of food and go the organic route. Quite frankly, it’s consumer choice. When people go to the grocery store, they often want organic. They know they—for whatever reasons: They want to make sure that they’re healthier, so they believe buying organic is going to give them a better quality of product. There are going to be less chemicals and pesticides used. They want to support organic farmers.

If the government is changing regulations, if the government is talking about better consumer protections, then having the organic sector regulated would be a good step in complementing what the government wants to accomplish by cutting red tape and also by protecting consumers in the Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act. That’s just my opinion. I think that there’s lots to be done under this government that could improve access to organic food and making sure when people spend that money—because it does usually cost a little more to buy organic—that they are getting what they pay for, because they are saying that part of this bill is informing consumers, making sure they’re not getting gouged. To me, that is an important piece.

The other group that came in last week was the kinesiologists, and there were many colleagues in that area in the reception room meeting with the kinesiologists. One of the asks that they were asking for, again, was to create regulations, and one of them was they wanted to have kinesiologists actually regulated as a health practitioner agency or health care provider service, because when there are car accidents, they’re not a regulated health care provider for those treatments. So, again, many people could be accessing kinesiology under accident benefits, not realizing that they’re not a regulated health care professional under the accident benefits which means that they would have to probably pay out-of-pocket if they’re not regulated. So they wanted to be a part of that team. Many times, the conversations when we talk about consumer protections, the sector of the product people are buying or the service they’re accessing is not regulated.

So I think this is a good bill, as our critic has said. Overall, it includes encouraging improvements to the things that people are trying to access. One is the time-share example. I had a constituent come into my office years ago and, unfortunately, there was very little that we could do but refer him to legal counsel in order to resolve their dispute—or, actually, they wanted out of the time-share.

The other part of this bill—I noticed that they are going backwards on it. They are retroactively doing that, and that’s very important because one of the things I think we’ve talked about is protecting seniors. Many people who are younger get time-shares, absolutely, but, generally, the population that look at time-shares are people who are more mature, and they might have that extra time that they can flex off because they’re not working and access their time-share that they purchased. So having it be retroactive is a very important piece, I think, in this legislation.

I think the 25-year limit is also a fair step—that if you enter in a time-share, people are aware that their commitment is 25 years and then after that, they have a responsibility to do as they wish with that time-share, and they’re not locked in, because oftentimes people get—maybe they’re not well, they get sick and they can’t use a time-share. Then you’ve got to run around and look for somebody to take your time-share, and bottom line, you still have to pay for that time-share. It’s not an easy thing to be strapped with, held down on, if you don’t have the means to get there for health reasons, and then, again, as you age, you’re not interested, maybe, in going there for the rest of your life. A lifetime commitment is a lot to ask for for a time-share, so I’m glad to see that that is in there.

The other one that I wanted to chat about was the NOSIs. I was here when the minister gave his speech, and he talked about the increase in how many NOSIs have been registered, and I believe he used the number 38,000 NOSIs have been registered in a very short time. For those that don’t know what a NOSI is, it’s a notice of security interest. These are relatively new and, quite frankly, very bothersome at this point, when someone can basically—I’ll call it a lien on your property because it is a notice of securing some financial interest on your property.

The interesting part that the minister alluded to was that because they go through the land registry, land registries can’t differentiate if they’re actually a NOSI or if they’re actually a true lien on someone’s home, or a mortgage for that matter. As we have all had many examples of NOSIs on properties, I’m glad to see that they are going to be addressed as a serious problem, because everyone needs a furnace, let’s say, and the fact is that you may be financially in a precarious situation, so you might have to take it out as a lease.

Again, as the bill points out and many examples talked about, people are paying far more than the product is actually worth. To me, that’s unconscionable. The government talks about unconscionable deals and those NOSIs—when people have to pay double or triple or even just are under the gun when they have to sell their home and have to pay a bill when they had no idea that there was a NOSI registered on their property, it’s quite disturbing actually.

Then, even if the people can pay that NOSI, it’s a big financial hit because it’s quite—thousands and thousands of dollars. Many people are on fixed incomes. When you sell your home, you’re maybe relying on the sale of your home for some financial security. It may be your retirement. To have to pay a NOSI and come up with $10,000—in some examples we talked about, people were paying NOSIs of $60,000. That’s just ridiculous. So it’s good to see that the NOSIs are in this legislation and that the government acknowledges that they have to be dealt with.

The other part of the consumer affairs—they talked about cancellations. I was a broker in my previous life. We would send out—automatically, you would renew house insurance and car insurance. When I worked in insurance, it was a paper, a paper document that you mailed out. So we would mail out the renewals. Now, I don’t know if they offer them electronically; I certainly get mine still in the mail. But every renewal would have, on the back, a cancellation clause.

The renewals generally would go out 30 days ahead. People would know what the price was, and then people would know when the renewal date was. Then, they could decide if they wanted to cancel, but they did have to sign off the cancellation and mail it back to the broker before the renewal date. Then, they could get what they call a flat cancellation, which means there’d be no fee beyond the renewal date because the previous period expired as of the renewal. If you mailed in your cancellation after the renewal date, they would cancel it on a short-rate cancellation, which meant they would retain a penalty for that cancellation—an administrative fee, so to speak, but most people had no idea that would occur.

Again, this is where the cancellation fees, products—people have to be informed of what they’re getting into. Insurance is one of those products and services that many people buy at the time not understanding a lot of the—in this example, the cancellation clause.

I actually want to talk about also Rogers. You know, the Internet—people have talked about how digital services are changing and how consumers buy services and products. Rogers, you know, they’re Internet; they’re cable. I have an example of a constituent who purchased Rogers cable and Internet. What happened was—it’s a very reasonable monthly fee, but unfortunately that person sometimes would not pay it on time, and they’d maybe get three months behind. They would eventually catch up, but the issue was they didn’t get notified that their service would be cancelled. There was no notification. Finally, when the person went to reconcile with the accounts, they expected to pay the three months plus some late fees. However, they found out—and again, this is what kind of gets disturbing when it comes to business practices. Rogers is a big conglomerate, right? They should have informed this constituent of the fact that when they don’t pay, not only do they get late fees, but they also get what’s called a “suspension fee.” And that suspension fee prevented Rogers from cancelling their service.

Now, in some ways, they’re maybe protecting them from not having any service at all. But when the person was ready to pay their outstanding bill, they noticed that the amount was extremely high. It wasn’t the regular amount plus, you know, $5 or whatever the service fee was for late fees, and they questioned it. That’s the only way they found out that they were getting this suspension fee. And then they were furious, and they wanted to cancel the service. So they talked to the representative at that point—well, first, they were talking to the account representative, who transferred them to the cancellation or the service department, whatever it was, and they explained the situation. They explained they weren’t happy and that they wanted to cancel their Rogers service. They wanted out.

Speaker, have you ever tried to cancel a Rogers service? I see you have a little grin on your face. Trying to cancel any online kind of service, whether it’s Internet or cellphone—they try to upsell you, they give you discounts, whatever, extend your contract with lower rates. It’s so hard to cancel your service.

The government talks about the cancellation of services in here, and subscription is one of the examples they used, but I’d love for this to be something the government takes on and that we can actually reply by email to these companies like Rogers, where there is a record of the person asking for that cancellation—because the constituent was kept on the phone for so long. What happened is they were kept on the phone for so long that they got frustrated, and they hung up. So how is it that a consumer decides that they want to cancel a service, and they don’t have access to doing that efficiently?

I use the example of myself as an insurance broker. When someone would call you and say, “I want to cancel my insurance,” you would give them the instructions on how to do it, and you would say, “Well, did you get your renewal policy? It’s on the back.” They would say, “Well, I got it, but I can’t find it.” Because we’re registered brokers of Ontario, we were obligated to send them a form—an actual cancellation request form. We weren’t let off the hook because they didn’t find the form, or we didn’t try to stall them—yes, we did try to give them some feedback about the service we provided and the coverage they have: “When you go somewhere else, make sure you get the same coverage”—because, again, you could go to another business and they could undersell you. Maybe they didn’t give you the loss of use. Maybe they didn’t give you the income enhancement, and so you’re thinking, “Oh, I’m getting the same insurance coverage and I’m paying less somewhere else, and that’s why I want to cancel today.” And then the other piece was, also, we would tell them about the short-rate cancellation.

Under this act—again, overall, it’s an improvement. It’s supportable in second reading. I know the critic is going to want to give feedback during committee of how to make it better, and we talked about the consumer watchdog that’s been proposed in this Legislature. But there are lots of things that when a consumer asks for something—because there are things that we get when we don’t ask. You get something in the mail. You think, “Well, I didn’t ask for that,” and it’s already been sold to you without you knowing.

But when you want to cancel a furnace lease, when you want to cancel your Rogers, when you want to cancel life insurance, gosh, anything—when you want to cancel something, you need to have a direct avenue to put it in writing, because there is always the case where you phone in and they say, “Well, we don’t have that note here on the computer,” and that’s not good customer service. That’s not good consumer services—and that happens. People don’t record it, and then you end up getting another bill and they say, “Well, so sorry, there is no note here,” and then you are, again, chasing the tail of getting it cancelled. I see some of my colleagues nodding because that does happen.

So the Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act is a good start. There is a lot there that we agree with, but I would hope that it makes it easier for consumers, when they don’t want a service, that they have access to that pathway and that businesses aren’t giving them the runaround and there’s documentation on it.

I wanted to raise the issue that the member from Humber River–Black Creek has proposed, last session and then this session, which is the idea of a consumer watchdog. While you have put a lot of new legislations and regulations in place, how is this government going to have an overall sense as to whether they’re having any impact, and whether there are actually positive outcomes for consumers, particularly vulnerable consumers? Similar to the Auditor General or the Ombudsman, you would be able to have a sense of the industry at large. Can you comment a little bit on the notion of a consumer watchdog that would be a complement to these regulations and legislations that you’re putting in place?