It’s an honour for me to rise today and add the voices of the great people of London North Centre to this debate on Bill 142, the Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act. When we look at this bill, any bill that purports to increase protections for consumers is one that is easily supportable, one that the official opposition can easily get behind. Following the hour-long lead for our critic for consumer protection, I’d like to add my words to this.

If we take a look at what experts have been calling for for a number of years, they’ve been calling for regulation on new home sales and their warranties. This bill puts in new provisions for NOSIs, or the notices of security interest, but does not include any provisions on putting in rental hot water heaters in contracts for new homes. This is a situation whereby people will sign the biggest purchase of their entire life, and then, after the dust has settled, once they’ve moved in, once they start receiving those bills, they realize they’ve signed up for something that they didn’t necessarily know they were agreeing to. This is a huge and tremendous concern.

Additionally, this government has taken it upon themselves to talk about talking. We don’t actually see actions within this bill that will take out the beating heart of the situation where consumers are exploited by unethical HVAC companies. Back with the Liberal government, we saw that there was a ban on door-to-door sales. That was good. However, there were no teeth for that legislation, so there really wasn’t much by way of enforcement. This government has heard for numerous years about the pernicious and exploitative actions of many of these HVAC companies.

You see, Speaker, they no longer—in most cases, I should say—sell door to door. Instead, what they will do is they will send an email, they will make phone calls and they will set up an appointment within a person’s home. Typically, these companies prey upon the elderly. They prey upon people living with disabilities. They prey upon newcomers. They engage in high-pressure sales tactics, making claims that are patently false, promising savings that never occur and will often say that this is part of a government program and really misrepresent the services that they provide. If that weren’t bad enough, what they’ll do is they will have a consumer engage or sign a contract which they don’t explain the terms of—and that should be in contravention of the Consumer Protection Act to begin with, because contracts need to be in clear, plain language so the consumers can understand them, but they, in their huckster snake-oil tactics, will absolutely not get into what the details are.

I’ve seen many of these contracts, and I know this government has as well. This government, though, is talking about talking. They want to engage in a consultation period to discuss this issue when the issue is well known. They will have heard it from many of their constituents.

CBC Marketplace has done tremendous investigation on this topic. On January 14, 2022, CBC Marketplace had a hidden-camera exposé on the tactics that these companies will engage in. They witnessed high-pressure sales tactics. They witnessed claims that were not backed up in actual truth. They saw these salespeople engage in what this government should stand up against, yet this government wants to just talk about it. They don’t want to act. They don’t want to actually do the right thing and protect seniors, people living with disabilities and newcomers by cutting out the beating heart of this issue, which is liens attached to property titles.

The CBC Marketplace exposé, for those of you who would like to view it, was entitled Hidden Cameras Capture Decisive Tactics Used to Sell Overpriced HVAC Contracts. In that exposé, they talked about a company called Ontario Green Savings. You see, oftentimes these companies will use the name of the province, so that people automatically think there’s some sort of credibility or some sort of connection to the government when there actually is none—to our knowledge, but who knows; perhaps there is. Maybe this is why we don’t see any action and we see just more talking about liens and NOSIs, rather than actually making sure that they’re not being foisted upon people. In this, Karen Norgaard, of Cornwall, signed two contracts for an air conditioner and a furnace. What will happen in these situations is that they will be sold equipment that is very inexpensive in comparison to what they actually pay.

I want to take a look at a contract that I have. This is from Green Retrofit Program Capital Inc. This contract is in particular for a water heater. It’s—let me see—an electric water heater, and it’s $60 per month; it doesn’t seem unreasonable. I mean, we know that Reliance, which has long had a corner share of the market, costs less. However, much of this is not actually filled in. It’s very strange. We see that after tax, this will cost $67 or $68.

Then, this contract is full of terms and conditions. Within this—and this should be in contravention of the Consumer Protection Act—there is a section in here where it states: “You hereby grant us an exclusive security interest in the equipment as collateral security for the consumer amounts owing by you to us under this agreement,” and it goes on. At that point, the customer is meant to initial, thereby giving away their rights. In that simple initial, a consumer is saying, “Yes, you can issue a NOSI and attach a lien against title.” They’re giving away their right under the Consumer Protection Act, as set out in the contract that they push, badger and berate people until they sign.

In that CBC’s Marketplace exposé, we actually saw some of the tactics of these high-pressure salespeople. We heard from folks who actually had to curse, swear and yell at the salesperson just to get them to leave the home. We know that this is an issue. It has been known for years.

Now, within this, if I go through this contract—and, of course, this information is varied, but don’t worry, I’m getting to it—much is missing. The UPC code is missing; the sticker from the equipment. And then when you actually look at the payment schedule, Speaker—it’s buried—it is a contract for 144 months. That’s 12 years. They’ve bamboozled elderly folks, they’ve bamboozled people living with disabilities and they’ve bamboozled newcomers into signing a 12-year contract.

If that weren’t bad enough, within the provisions of this contract, the equipment appreciates in value. They charge interest on that, so every year the cost of that equipment, which is not the top of the line—it’s often the bargain basement version that you can get anywhere. They will charge yet more and more and more. Speaker, I don’t have to explain to you compounding interest, but oftentimes, this equipment will cost a tremendous amount of money, so something that would be a $500 water heater will end up costing $20,000, $30,000, $40,000. It just depends on the contract that these unethical businesses will force and cajole and bamboozle someone into signing.

If that weren’t bad enough, oftentimes, these companies will hide from responsibility by selling off that lien to yet another company. In effect, they will distance themselves from legal responsibility. Also, if a complaint is made, the company will say, “Well, that was the salesperson. They’re no longer working with us. We apologize. But sorry, it’s a contract. You’ve signed it.” They will then take that and sell it off to another company, who may in turn sell it off to another company. I’ve seen instances where it’s moved six times. Guess what, Speaker? Every time that contract moves over to a new person, they attach yet more money to it, so that person is being exploited again and again and again.

CBC also had an article. This was from 2018. This was before this government was elected, so they should be aware of this. It’s titled “Homebuyers Feel Duped by Hot Water Tank Rentals Included in Their New Homes”—people finding that they are locked into equipment that they never really agreed to. In this example, for instance, Nadia Mendola is “living with a contract with Enercare that lasts for the ‘useful life’ of the appliance (an average of 14 years), paying” $56 per month. It doesn’t seem unreasonable, but if she buys out the equipment, it’s $3,600, three times the cost of equipment offered in some stores.

In 2016, the Ontario Energy Group was exposed in another CBC article where Taylor Wild found that he owes $20,000 after discovering a lien, because he, unfortunately, signed a contract with Ontario Energy Group for HVAC equipment.

It’s disturbing that this government wants to talk about this issue but doesn’t want to act. The evidence is very clear. The evidence is here before us.

Dennis Crawford has called the lien “the beating heart of this scam.”

A letter to the Ontario Minister of Government and Consumer Services from July 14 of 2020 requested “increased disclosure in rental appliance contracts.” This was from Anthony Durocher, the Deputy Commissioner of Competition of the Competition Promotion Branch. Does this bill, Bill 142, answer this situation, where people are being absolutely exploited, where they are being effectively tricked, having their security taken away?

Imagine that: a senior who is hoping to downsize. Maybe they’re an empty nester; maybe they’re somebody who simply has a home that no longer suits their needs, and they’re worried about their safety. They want to go to something that’s more appropriate, perhaps a condo apartment, perhaps a bungalow, something that would be a little bit more easily manageable and safer. They go to sell, and then they find that a company has taken a chunk out of their house. They’ve put in bargain basement equipment and charged them $20,000 for it. It’s unacceptable. It’s unacceptable that we live in a province where seniors are being exploited, where people living with disabilities are being exploited and where newcomers are being exploited by unethical businesses, such as the ones I’ve just mentioned, and that the government just wants to talk about it.

Now, further, I also wanted to discuss today reforms to Tarion. This government, when they were in opposition, and some would say an effective opposition, talked chapter and verse about how they would overhaul Tarion, how when they were in power they were going to do the right thing. Yet this government, once they assumed power, changed their tune completely. Just like how they were so fond of the Auditor General when they were in opposition and simply loved all of the work that the Auditor General had to do, and when they got into power, suddenly they weren’t friends again. Imagine that; I wonder why.

Also, despite not overhauling Tarion, which is what they had promised, they actually created yet another regulatory authority, the Home Construction Regulatory Authority, almost to confuse things yet further for Ontario consumers. On the side of the official opposition, we’ve called for a public audit into Tarion and the system. We want to see an end to the industry-controlled monopoly. Within the Tarion board, many people who are supposedly consumer advocates also actually work for the building industry. We haven’t seen a proper consumer advocate on the Tarion board.

Now, to turn to the recommendations for the member from Humber River–Black Creek, our critic for consumer protection, I was pleased and honoured to sign on to private members’ legislation calling for the establishment of a consumer watchdog—someone who would actually look out for seniors, someone who would look out for people living with disabilities, someone who would look out for Canadians and the rest of Ontarians who might be tricked into some very shady business practices.

We see businesses, individuals and even entire industries taking advantage of consumers within this province, and this government has failed to act yet again. It can be extremely difficult for folks to pursue justice. In the example of all of these HVAC liens and the NOSIs—for consumers to actually achieve justice, they’ll often have to pay a lawyer, and paying thousands of dollars to have the services of a lawyer may not get back the actual money that they are owed. It’s shocking to think that people are really only able to achieve justice in this province if they have money. It’s a clear separation, it’s a classist separation that folks are unable to achieve justice, simply because they can’t pay the lawyer fees.

Dennis Crawford has done wonderful work on this file, and I must commend him. He’s a Stratford-area lawyer who has really called out the issues that have been created by government neglect, by government’s ignoring the needs of people and allowed an exploitative industry to take hold and to become extraordinarily rich on the backs of people who simply wanted to improve their home.

You know, our consumer watchdog was meant to be sort of a one-stop shop where people could register complaints. It would hold the power to investigate businesses. It would also be able to uphold these consumer protection laws. You see, the contract that I showed you earlier is in contravention of consumer protection laws, but do we see the government acting on that? No. They simply want to talk about talking. Talk is cheap. The consumer watchdog would also release public reports similar to the Auditor General or the Ombudsman of Ontario. They would be able to levy fines and other penalties against businesses that are found to not have acted in accordance with consumer protection legislation.

I wanted to add some quotes from consumer protection advocates who were very much in support of a consumer watchdog. There’s Ellen Roseman, who is a former consumer advocate columnist for the Toronto Star. Ellen states:

“When I started my journalism career in 1975, I decided to focus on consumer issues and advocate for people who needed help resolving problems with large companies that were shutting them out. I’m semi-retired now, but I still hear from desperate people seeking advice. Many of us find it hard to avoid losing money to misleading online pitches, service suppliers that promise refunds and never pay up, multi-page legal contracts that are impossible to understand and too-good-to-be-true credit deals full of hidden fees.”

Ellen heartily supported our Bill 77, the Ontario Consumer Watchdog Act; this government voted it down.

Barbara Captijn, who is also a consumer rights advocate, states:

“The Ontario Consumer Watchdog Act is a light for consumers in the current feeble state of consumer protection in Ontario. The patchwork of legislation, regulations, and legal grey areas in the current landscape is difficult for consumers to navigate.

“This bill addresses a much-needed area for modernization, and can help fix injustices and imbalances in the current system, and could help improve the lives of everyday Ontarians.”

Dr. Karen Somerville, who is the president of Canadians for Properly Built Homes, enthusiastically supported our consumer watchdog act. Karen talks about the decline in consumer protections across the board in Ontario for a number of years. She states:

“It’s obvious to most that Tarion is beyond repair. And now, the new Home Construction Regulatory Authority (HCRA), known broadly as ‘Tarion II,’ displays many of Tarion’s problems.”

Speaker, while I am in support of increased protections for consumers, there is much missing from this Bill 142, Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act. I would like to see this government stop talking about talking and actually get to the work of protecting consumers, stopping NOSIs and liens against title, and making sure that they are looking out for seniors, people living with disabilities and newcomers from falling prey to these terrible schemes.

It is a pleasure to rise today to participate in this debate on Bill 142, the government’s consumer protection legislation entitled Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act. I want to start by commending the critic for consumer protection for the official opposition, the member for Humber River–Black Creek, who spoke for an hour on this bill yesterday and set out the need for strengthened consumer protections for people in this province, and also identified some of the gaps in this legislation, some of the work that still needs to be done to make sure that consumers in this province are protected.

Certainly, having this debate today in the context of an affordability crisis that has significantly challenged people in this province, especially people who are on low income—we are hearing every day from constituents, the people we represent, about concerns as to whether people will be able to make their paycheque last the week, whether they will be able to put food on the table, whether they will be able to pay their rent. Particularly, tenants who are living in apartment buildings or units that were constructed since November 2018 do not have any rent control on the units that they occupy, so every year when the new rent is announced to the tenants, they worry about whether they will be able to continue to live in the unit that they call home.

We know affordability is a challenge. We hear also from people about their utility bills, the cost of Internet access, cellphone bills. All of this in today’s economy has really created huge pressure, so consumers need to be protected, because dollars are scarce and they want to make sure that when they purchase something, they will be treated fairly.

One of the issues that my colleague raised when he spoke to this bill yesterday was about the fact that the government has moved many regulatory provisions of consumer protection legislation from bill form or from the legislation into regulations. The member pointed out yesterday that this can be a problem because it can delay the implementation of the legislation. It can delay making sure that those protections are put into place.

The PAWS Act: Many members in this place may remember the debate on that legislation for the protection of animal welfare. When the PAWS Act moved provisions from legislation to regulation, it caused considerable delay in getting the bill enacted, because there had to be the consultation done on the regulations and sometimes that process takes time and delays the enactment of the bill.

Further to that, Speaker, there’s not only the concern that there may be a delay in getting these protections in place, but we have seen examples of legislation that is designed to protect consumers and citizens in this province—legislation that is debated in this House, goes to committee, gets public input, comes back to this House for third reading and actually gets royal assent, but then is never proclaimed. I want to use the example of an act called the Access to Consumer Credit Reports and Elevator Availability Act. That was legislation that the Liberals brought in in the dying days of their mandate in 2018. The bill went through all of the stages required by the legislative process. It got royal assent, but it has never been enacted.

I have a situation right now in my riding in London West where people have been harmed because that legislation, the Access to Consumer Credit Reports and Elevator Availability Act, has not been enacted, so the protections in that bill, even though it has had royal assent and is waiting to be put into force, are not available to people in this province. And the particular concern in London West right now—I know in ridings across this province, many MPPs will have heard this—is around elevator maintenance and repair. There is a building in my riding, 1 Andover Drive, where it’s a four-storey walk-up and it is occupied by many, many seniors—vulnerable seniors, seniors with mobility issues—and their elevator is out of commission. They have been told that it could take up to four months to get that elevator repaired, and there’s no legislation on the books to require the building manager or the owner to make those repairs in a timely fashion.

Seniors from that building have contacted my office and they’ve talked about the fact that they feel that they “are being held hostage.” An email I received just last week says that the fact that it could take up to four months to repair the elevator is “unacceptable, grossly negligible and quite frankly feels like we are being held hostage in our apartments ... we are looking at” having to spend maybe the entire “winter being locked in.” Speaker, you can imagine for vulnerable people, for seniors who have medical needs, the impact of the loss of access to the elevator.

One senior who lives on the third floor uses a cane and can’t use the stairs. He said that he has had to cancel medical appointments that he had scheduled for an upcoming knee operation, so he’s not able to make it out of his apartment to get to those necessary medical appointments. Another tenant said that he has had to cancel a dialysis appointment because he can’t manage to get up and down the stairs. This is an important protection that people in this province need to feel assured of, and there is legislation that would offer that protection. It would require the elevator to be repaired in a timely fashion, and that protection, even though it’s on the books, isn’t enacted. That legislation is not in force.

So that is definitely what we do not want to see happen with this piece of consumer legislation. We want to make sure that when it moves through the legislative process, moves through the regulatory consultation process, once those stages are complete, the legislation will be not only passed and get royal assent but that it will be enacted for people in this province.

Some of the provisions of this bill speak directly to some concerns that I have heard from constituents in London West. I want to talk about the issue of time-shares. I was recently contacted by a constituent who said he had signed a time-share contract in 1999 when he and his wife were in their late fifties. The duration of the contract was 50 years, which they felt was too long, but they were assured that if they wanted to terminate the time-share contract, the time-share company would buy it back from them or they could sell it on the open market.

Subsequently, they discovered that there never was a buy-back option available from the company. They said that “it is impossible to even give the time-share away for free on the open market.” They raised the concern that they are essentially on a fixed income now as retirees, yet the maintenance fees for the time-share are increasing by at least the cost of living every year. They advocated for an exit clause to be available to all time-share owners and resorts in Ontario. He says, “Over the years, we have met many time-share owners and most want to terminate their contracts.”

This bill, by putting in place an ability to terminate a time-share contract after 25 years and making that retroactive—there’s no question that that will assist many consumers in this province, like my constituents in London West who are in a time-share agreement that they want to get out of.

However, it’s unfortunate that the government didn’t strengthen consumer protections for other issues related to home ownership and property ownership. In particular, I want to talk about Tarion. There is a real problem that the government did not do anything to strengthen the Tarion provision for new homeowners.

The organization Canadians for Properly Built Homes has been advocating for better protections for new-home owners for years. They raise the concern that the legislation that’s before us today does not address many of the key concerns that they have raised that are necessary to help purchasers of newly built homes. They argue that the government has a responsibility to ensure that the largest purchase that most people ever make in their lifetime, a home, is good quality and that it meets basic code provisions. They note that the bill fails to address the ongoing serious shortcomings of administrative authorities that are supposed to be providing consumer protection oversight, such as the Home Construction Regulatory Authority, the Ontario Builder Directory and others.

Of course, I’m very proud of the work that the NDP has been doing to push for the necessary reforms to Tarion, to push for a full public audit of Tarion and to strengthen protections for new-home buyers. I’m also very proud of the work that the NDP has done to—