Perth–Wellington is a place of vibrant energy and growth, and today, I want to celebrate an incredible success story of one of our small businesses.

Last Friday, I had the pleasure of attending the grand opening of GRIT Engineering’s brand new, expanded location in Stratford. GRIT Engineering, founded and led by Montana Wilson, is a shining example of what small businesses can achieve when they combine determination, dedication and vision. They offer a wide array of high-quality services, including geotechnical engineering, civil engineering, surveying and environmental services.

It’s no exaggeration to say that GRIT Engineering plays a vital role in building our great province. It was wonderful to walk through their state-of-the-art facility, witness the cutting-edge technology they employ and meet some of their dedicated team. What’s even more remarkable is that GRIT Engineering is one of the few female-led consulting engineering firms in Ontario. The company also provides 24 individuals in our local community with well-paying jobs, with the majority of employees being under the age of 40. They’re not just building infrastructure, Speaker; they’re building careers and opportunities in Perth–Wellington.

Montana’s recent recognition as the recipient of the Ontario Home Builders’ Association inaugural Service Professional of the Year award is a testament to the outstanding professionalism and integrity that she brings to everything she does. She is truly a role model for young women everywhere.

Speaker, it’s great to see the continued success of small businesses in our rural community. I want to wish Montana, Nick and their whole team much success.

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.

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.

Thank you to the member for his speech. I appreciate that this legislation does talk about and refer to price gouging as something unconscionable. In essence, it defines price gouging as taking, let’s say, a product and comparing the price of the product to the other competitors and then looking at the range. One of the problems or challenges that I see with that is, how do you address industry-wide problems? So if a particular thing that’s being sold by an entire industry, we feel, is too expensive, how do you suggest or would you be willing to look into ways to bring down gouging across entire industries as opposed to punishing individual businesses?

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.