I want to thank my colleague the member for Spadina–Fort York for his remarks.

One of the issues that has been raised by the official opposition during the debate on this bill is the government’s decision to move many of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, to regulations and also expand with new regulations under this updated act. I wondered if the member has concerns about that shift from legislation to regulation and what that might mean for the effectiveness of this bill and the timelines for implementation of this bill.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today in this fine House. I stand here and I represent the fine people of St. Catharines and of Niagara. It is my duty to ensure that the voices of the residents of St. Catharines are heard.

We are here today and we are discussing Bill 142, the Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, which is a piece of legislation that promises to enhance consumer protection in Ontario. While there are aspects of this bill that are commendable, there are also areas that require careful scrutiny and potential amendments. Consumer protection and the need for clarity are paramount, especially in these challenging times when many of our constituents are facing financial hardships. Everything is going up in cost, and our residents across the province are definitely facing financial hardships.

The bill aims to repeal the Consumer Protection Act of 2002, consolidating provisions and moving others to regulations. But let’s definitely be clear: The people of Ontario deserve transparency. Shifting provisions to regulations raises questions about accountability and about accessibility. We need to ensure that the regulations are crystal clear, concise and easily accessible to all Ontarians, not buried within bureaucratic language—which often they become.

Our seniors across our province, many of whom reside in Niagara—I believe we are one of the most populated ridings with seniors in St. Catharines—are particularly vulnerable to scams and predatory practices, which is a shame. We have seen incidents where elderly individuals are pressured into contracts for goods and services they don’t need at a price they cannot afford.

A few years ago, my neighbour was leaving to go to work. He was rushing out of his door, ran out into his carport and was confronted by a very nice young fellow who explained to him about how he was selling air conditioners and furnaces. He was explaining the whole practice of what would happen and what a great deal it could be. Of course, the great fellow that my neighbour is asked the young individual, “Listen, I’m on my way to work. For this contract, do you get paid by the amount of contracts you get signed today or the amount of people you talked to?” And the young fellow said to him, “Well, yes, of course. If you sign here, then I can say to my boss that you have agreed to talk to me today.” So, okay, sure enough my neighbour, like I said, being the good fellow he is, signed the contract and away he went to work.

A couple of hours later, his wife was in the kitchen and she heard the ruckus of the removal of her two-year-old air conditioner and she went out—“What are you doing?” “Oh, your husband signed here”—and they were put into a very, very hefty contract that they didn’t agree with. You can imagine the complete panic that they went into because they had to pay this company that was basically ripping out their two-year-old air conditioner and there was no buyer’s remorse that they could go to.

The bill addresses misleading practices and unconscionable acts, but we must ensure that these provisions are strong enough to truly protect our seniors, like my neighbour. We need legislation that stands up for our elderly, ensuring they are not taken advantage of and that their rights are protected.

I could tell you several stories about individuals—seniors—that have come into my office that have liens on their houses because they’ve been taken advantage of by predators—not one water filter did they have, they had three. They were told, “This will be better,” and “This will be better,” and “You need it for the water.”

Madam Speaker, St. Catharines is a vibrant community of small businesses that are the lifeblood of our local economy. These businesses definitely need support and protections to thrive, especially in the face of the larger corporations.

Additionally, our region has seen a significant increase in housing prices that has put a strain on many families and individuals, and we need to ensure that the legislation addresses these local issues as well, providing protections and support where it is most needed.

Madam Speaker—wow, the time went by fast. I didn’t think 10 minutes would go by so fast—the bill introduces new provisions related to the purchase of cost-plus lease to door-to-door sales as I spoke about, areas that have been problematic in the past. While these provisions are a step in the right direction, we definitely have to get it right, right now. We must ensure that they are enforced effectively and that consumers are aware of their rights.

The increased fines for violations are a very welcome change, but again enforcement is key. We need to make sure the enforcement is there. We need to make sure the enforcement is there. We need a system in place that holds businesses accountable for their actions and ensures that consumers are treated fairly and with respect. I’ve got to repeat that because it’s so important: that businesses are accountable for their actions and ensures that consumers are treated fairly and with respect.

Madam Speaker, I’m going to conclude, and in my conclusion, while Bill 142 has the potential to—

I’m reading subsection 95(3) of this act, and it says, “The amount of an administrative penalty shall reflect the purposes of the penalty and shall be the amount prescribed by the minister, which amount shall not exceed $50,000.” Now, of course, that’s $50,000 per infraction, so if you have multiple infractions, your fines could go into the millions of dollars.

My question to the member from Spadina–Fort York is, does he think that millions of dollars in fines and penalties is too severe a penalty, too small of a penalty, or somewhere in-between?

Further questions?

Further debate?

I thank the member from Nickel Belt for the question about Ontario Place. It is really a vital place. It was designed to celebrate this province.

I will say one thing about those 1,500 trees that imminently could be cut down by this government: They came from every provincial park in this province, so some of them came from Nickel Belt. The idea was that for everybody coming from any part of Ontario, this was a place to celebrate this province, and you would recognize the trees at Ontario Place.

These trees have matured over the last 50 years that Ontario Place has been in existence, and so you’ve got a mature forest. You’ve got 125 bird species. You’ve actually got mink and beaver living at Ontario Place—and this is not Nickel Belt; this is downtown Toronto waterfront. This forest, this mature beautiful forest, has to be kept for future generations. That’s why we’re asking the government, don’t cut down those trees. Investigate the deal with Therme, because it seems to be as dirty as some of the deals with the greenbelt.

In my own riding, there have been people demovicted, people illegally renovicted. Thousands and thousands across this province are being renovicted and demovicted. The doubling of the fines—it may be a good talking point, but if they’re never applied, if they’re not actually a deterrent, then they’re not actually protecting consumers.

This is a real concern. Most people—and people watching—probably don’t know the difference between legislation and regulation and even a memo, right? But legislation is a bill, and it becomes law. It’s debated in this Legislature. We have a democratic right to analyze it, to debate it, and then we vote on it here in the Legislature. That’s the democratic process.

A regulation is something that the minister just does. He can make a regulation to implement—and the idea is that this is to actually develop the implementation plan for the bill, for the legislation. But what has been happening over the last—and it’s not just this Conservative government; it’s the previous Liberal government, as well. They keep moving more and more powers into regulation.

This government has taken out sections of the Consumer Protection Act from the act and they’ve put them into regulation, so that the people will never have an opportunity to listen to a debate about those consumer protections and whether they’re good or bad.

Taking pieces of the Consumer Protection Act out of legislation and putting it in regulation actually is a concern to us on this side of the House, and it should be a concern for all consumers in Ontario.

To the member for Ottawa West–Nepean: Is the member aware that in addition to section 60 of this act, which is the first attempt by way of legislation to deal with notices of security interest and having a period of 15 days proposed to have them discharged when a consumer withdraws from a contract or cancels a contract, parallel to that as we debate here today, there’s a window for consultation specifically on what we can do in the here and the now to tackle the bad actors on notices of security interest between now and December 1?

Is she aware of that, and will she participate, to her point of co-operation, in assisting us and finding immediate solutions in the here and the now?

Pardon?

In conclusion, while Bill 142 has the potential to enhance consumer protection in Ontario, there are areas that require further examination and potential amendments. As representatives of the people, here in this House, it is all of our duty to ensure that this legislation truly serves the best interests of Ontarians, protecting them from unfair practices, and ensuring that their rights are upheld. So I do, Madam Speaker.

At this time, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to carefully consider the implications of this bill and to work together to strengthen its provisions. Good things happen when both sides of the House work together. And we can protect our seniors, the most vulnerable in our communities. Make sure that these predators are not driving them out of their homes because they have put in, as I said, air conditioners that were not needed and made them get liens on their house, water filters that—again, thousands and thousands of dollars in liens. They can’t go to the bank and get a loan on their house because they’ve got liens on it from these predators.

So again, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to carefully consider the implications of this bill, and let’s work together to strengthen its provisions. The bill aims to tackle unfair business practices, but we must ensure that it also provides a level playing field for our small businesses, for our seniors and for the communities that we live in.

The problem is that the protection is not retroactive. We can work together to make sure that guidelines are put in place so that seniors are protected for the retroactive part that the predators have already taken advantage of and basically robbed the seniors and residents. Like I said, my good neighbour who works for a living and now has thousands of dollars can’t go retroactive on what this predator has taken from him, from his life savings, actually. So you can imagine the anxiety of these residents in your riding as well. We can work together to make sure all our ridings across Ontario—

Keep going.

I am rising today to speak to Bill 142, Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, and I have to say there are certainly things in this act that I really applaud and find interesting.

For example, it adds language barriers as a reason a person may not be able to understand a consumer contract and therefore could get out of that contract. I think that’s a very important provision. Also, it’s an unconscionable act to enter into a contract with a consumer “if the person doing so knows or ought to know that there is no reasonable probability that the consumer will be able to pay the total amount owing under the contract.” That really stands out to me as an important change.

But what is interesting for me—now, I spend a lot of time in a particular seniors residence, a commercially owned seniors residence—I went through the bill, just doing a search looking for the word “seniors” and it actually doesn’t appear anywhere in the bill. Now, maybe that’s fine. We refer to vulnerable people getting taken in by unscrupulous actors, so perhaps it’s fine that it doesn’t mention seniors, but I really worry about seniors.

For example, I’ve seen, in this particular commercial residence, that the contract is not being met in terms of the food service that’s offered and promised. There are supposed to be three highly nutritious meals a day and yet often they are being served hot dogs and wieners, frozen hamburgers—a lot of things that really don’t qualify as nutritious food. So what does a senior do in that circumstance? Who do they go to? They can complain to the home, but things just don’t change. That is something I worry about.

Also, what I’ve seen are increases in rent by 7.5%. Over a couple of years, two rent increases, the cost has gone from $5,000 to $6,000. That’s a very significant increase and, again, I worry: Where does a senior go to complain? There is the seniors’ bill of rights; there’s a phone number you can call, but you will sit on hold forever and you’ll wait forever for somebody to call you back.

In this instance, I’m actually thinking back to the idea of having a seniors’ advocate. I also know that when people reach a certain age, they’re no longer confident about picking up the phone and making a lot of different phone calls to try and figure out who on earth is available to advocate on their behalf. This also brings me back to the idea of the consumer watchdog, so that people are not flipping through their phone books or going to their friends and saying, “Do you have any idea how to address this problem?” If there’s one place they can go and know that they can get good advice, I think that’s very valuable. Knowing that there are all kinds of particulars in the bill, these clauses and so on that might be get-out-of-jail-free clauses—they’re not accessible. They’re not easily accessible to people, so there needs to be a central place.

I want to add to that a comment that, again, when we’re thinking about seniors, what we have seen is the transition of almost every single government service into an online platform. Again, I know many seniors, including my mother who is 96, who is fluent on the computer—

Interjections.

I am looking at the act itself and section 102 describes offences and the penalty for those offences. One of the penalties reads as follows: “An individual who is convicted of an offence mentioned in subsection (1) is liable to a fine of not more than $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day.”

My question to the member is this: Does she think that sending somebody to jail for “two years less a day” is too severe a penalty for contravening this act?

Thank you to the member from St. Catharines.

Further questions?

Further questions?

The member from St. Catharines.

So let’s just be very clear here. What the member from London North Centre was talking about are two very separate items. You’re talking about a notice of security interest, which is, quite frankly, an unscrupulous way of taking advantage of vulnerable people in our society and, absolutely, we’ll agree that there’s a lot of work that needs to be done there. But when we’re talking about legitimate contracts, which is what that 10-day cooling-off period and the ability to exit out of those contracts quicker—these are two very separate things, so let’s just be very clear about that.

I do want to ask the member from St. Catharines a little bit about notices of security interest. We’ve heard about it today and she did mention some folks in her riding that have had these types of things perpetrated against them. I’m certainly of the mindset that we absolutely need to close these loopholes and we absolutely need to do something about this issue. And whether or not she thinks that we should just be going ahead and doing this, or whether we should have a full consultation with other legitimate businesses, might I add—there are legitimate businesses that take part in this as well—to make sure that they have an opportunity to recoup costs if someone doesn’t pay their bills, whether or not she thinks that the consultation is something she thinks we should be doing or whether she thinks we should just go ahead and unilaterally—

Thank you to my colleague. Yes, we’ve been partners in crime, I guess, in politics for a few years. I thank you for that question, from the member from Niagara Centre.

It’s very concerning when we have and I can just—I won’t use his name, but he came into my office in tears. He was disabled and he lived in his home. He had been taken advantage of by this predator that actually put in a lien against his home for, like I said, three to four water filters, a furnace and an air conditioner. The lien was against his home. He couldn’t get a new scooter that he needed because he couldn’t get the loan from the bank because of the money that he owed these predators that kept taking advantage of him and kept going back to this elderly gentleman’s home and saying—and may I say that it’s unfortunate—

I think that it should be retroactive. If they’ve already taken advantage of an individual of anyone’s riding in this House, any senior or any individual, they should have to—

There is never enough protection for our seniors when it comes to their life-savings and when it comes to a lien on their home and when it comes to what they have in the community. As we see in other bills and legislation, they want to stay in their homes and they feel, where their memories are, that they’re protected and they’re safe and there are safeguards. But when it comes to the bad actors or, may I say, the predators that come and make them sign—

The bill aims to tackle unfair business practices, but I guess we must ensure that it also provides a level playing field for small businesses at the same time. So, yes, we have to make sure small businesses are protected.

Thank you to my friend and colleague from St. Catharines for her thoughtful presentation. I am just wondering, I know that her office—because we’re in the same region and we talk a lot—deals with a lot of folks that are victims to these kinds of scams, especially door to door.

What are some of the most serious issues that her office deals with that this bill could have helped with?

I would like to thank the member from St. Catharines for her presentation and for truly listening to the seniors in her riding who have truly been exploited by this industry. They have engaged in hideous tactics, whereby selling a $500 water heater for upwards of $400,000 is completely unconscionable. Here on this side of the House, we would call that unjust enrichment.

This government has talked about extending a cooling-off period, but does that cover those individuals who don’t find out about the lien until many months later, that they were never actually provided with a notice of security interest? Is that actually going to cover them, or is this government simply not standing up for seniors?

Questions?

It’s great that the member from Thunder Bay–Superior North talked a little bit about some of the contracting that goes on within this legislation, which, of course, is looking to establish a 10-day cooling-off period and also trying to help people get out of bad contracts earlier; a lot of these revolve around HVAC systems or hot water heaters that are powered by natural gas and oil.

My question to the member opposite is, will she stand up for the people of Ontario? Will she call her federal counterparts in Ottawa and ask them to scrap the carbon tax?

Yes—but still gets overwhelmed by these long forms and all these things that you have to fill out. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if you called and a human answered the phone, and it was for a government service, and you actually could speak to someone?

That is something I’ve put out there as something for the government to think about, that when we’re actually implementing things, to be thinking about the human side: How do people find solutions? What’s the easiest for them without people feeling overwhelmed? Because the other thing I’ve seen in this particular home is that people often just kind of shrug their hands and say, “Oh, well. I can’t do anything about it,” when, in fact, there probably is something they could do but they don’t know where to reach out for that.

I do have concerns about shifting everything into regulations, and my example for that is ODSP, where there are 800 regulations. There’s a regulation in there that says if you live with somebody else, your money will be clawed back. In other words, the money that is there is not to support you with your disability. As soon as you live with somebody else, you start to lose that support.

Now, I think if the people of Ontario actually knew that that was in the regulations, they would reject it, because I think it’s a human rights violation. The problem is, you put so many things into regulations, there’s not the kind of scrutiny that needs to be there, and it does put an enormous amount of power into the minister and the ministry. Again, it doesn’t have that level of scrutiny.

Again, to mention the ODSP situation, no other person is denied the ability to pool their resources with someone else, but if you’re poor and you’re disabled, you are not allowed to pool your resources with somebody else. That just shouldn’t be. So that’s fair warning that things happen in regulations that don’t come under scrutiny but have a very, very serious impact on people’s lives.

I’m quite interested and, frankly, very happy to see changes to time-share contracts. I’m of an age when people were really excited about time-shares. It seemed like this great deal, and you were going to be able to go and visit these places. Of course, much later, in the fine print, it said you’re obliged to keep them for 50 years and your children will inherit the debt—you’re going to have to keep paying and paying forever.

I see that there are some ways of ending those contracts, but I also see that there’s a termination fee and other requirements, and I’m just hoping that when this gets to committee, that could be looked at more closely, to look at the specifics. I have been looking at time-share contracts, and it seems to me that, first of all, they’re hard to get out of, but that the termination fees could be very, very high and disproportionate to what actually should be there. So it’s my hope that that comes up in committee.

The thing—and it has been mentioned before—that does worry me is that there are no provisions in here for price gouging, where collusion is taking place in industries. We know that in the grocery industry there are very few players, and they have made a practice of colluding with each other, and they’ve been caught once or twice. I remember when we got these little $25 gift certificates to make up for everything that we’d overpaid in bread. I also remember when people on ODSP and people in food banks were saying, “Would you mind donating those $25 vouchers, because people really need help.” It’s another reminder of how many people are struggling—that was quite a few years ago, as well—but it’s also a reminder of how common it is for collusion to take place when there’s really minimal competition amongst those industries.

Finally, the concern about new homes and the lack of proper oversight by Tarion—and I think we’ve been hearing these concerns for quite a few years. We’ve all been hearing horror stories about people losing buckets and buckets of money and never actually getting the home that they’d been promised—or they get the home and it’s so poorly built that they can’t live in it. So I do think that Tarion needs to be looked at vary critically, to make sure that it’s not industry insiders who are populating that organization. It needs to be people who don’t have any kind of vested interest—they’re not friends here, friends there. It needs to be a group of people who can think like consumers, who can think like first-time homebuyers, and can protect people from some pretty awful things that we’ve seen going on over the last few years.

I want to thank everyone for the opportunity to speak to this bill. I’m happy to take any questions.

That’s a great answer.

I’m going to go back to, actually, the bill, just to be refreshing. You referenced a really important issue that this piece of legislation misses entirely, and that is around price gouging.

We all remember the Premier of this province vowing to crack down on price gouging during the pandemic when it was $29 for a box of Lysol wipes. I think we remember this.

And then you quite rightly referenced the price-fixing of bread between the large grocery stores—and offering $25 vouchers to people, as punishment.

Madam Speaker, this bill is not going to address price gouging. Price gouging is happening right now in the province of Ontario. We all understand that there is an affordability, cost-of-living crisis right here, right now. The bill is before us right now. Why do you think this government missed such an opportune moment to address price gouging?