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—

Questions?

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 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?

Further questions?

All those in favour of the motion, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This is a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1743 to 1813.

Ms. Smith has moved the adjournment of the debate.

All those in favour of the motion, please rise and remain standing to be counted by the Clerk.

All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing to be counted by the Clerk.

Second reading debate adjourned.

Report continues in volume B.

It is my great honour to rise and speak to this bill, the Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, 2023. I would like to extend my thanks to the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery for bringing this bill forward.

Speaker, this government and this Premier strongly believe that Ontarians deserve to feel protected when spending their hard-earned money, and this legislation, if passed, is a testament to our government’s promise to always listen to the needs of Ontarians. The new act is the first update of Ontario’s consumer protection legislation in nearly 20 years. After years of insufficient attention by the Liberal Party, in 2019 our ministry embarked on a long and extensive consultation journey, conducting a comprehensive review of existing legislation by gathering feedback from stakeholders, consumer groups and advocates, the legal community and everyday Ontarians.

The new act is the first update of Ontario’s consumer protection legislation since 2005. The Consumer Protection Act, 2002, in its current form defines the rights and requirements for most personal and household transactions between consumers and businesses in Ontario, and its regulations establish and protect basic consumer rights, prohibit unfair business practices and set out contract regulations. Our government is now proposing measures that will ensure a fair and competitive economy based on insights discovered from the process. With this legislation, we’re building a safer, more fair and stronger economy.

In 2002, not every home had a computer. Contracts were pieces of physical paper that were signed in-person. There were very basic avenues for doing business, and therefore fewer avenues for scammers. Today, the opportunities for bad business practices are overwhelmingly numerous, and consumers need updated protections that reflect the realities of an online world and dynamic marketplace. They need protections that address high-impact consumer harms.

I’m sure everyone in this chamber would agree that when consumers feel confident and protected, everyone in our economy thrives. This bill, if passed, will create those protections. The proposed bill would strengthen consumer rights, empower consumers, and give the ministry stronger enforcement powers to crack down on bad actors—keeping in mind that most business people are honest and hard-working, and as a government, we strive for the protection of the people of Ontario, including the businesses. It would also address the concerns and harms of our most vulnerable citizens, especially seniors, when facing contract amendments, subscription traps, high termination costs in long-term leases and unfair business practices used by door-to-door sellers. It is our government’s goal to protect Ontarians with common-sense policies that reduce red tape and make it easier for consumers and businesses alike.

Let’s look, specifically, at what this legislation will do. Firstly, if passed, this bill will create consumer protections by targeting unfair business practices. In law, to have a contract, there’s something called consideration, and each contracting party must exchange something of value, in the sense that the act or the promise of one party must be bought or bargained for for the act or promise of the other; basically, one party gets something in consideration for someone else’s in this situation. This bill closes the inequity that can sometimes exist between parties in an unfair agreement.

The bill will also clarify and strengthen prohibitions against unconscionable conduct by explicitly prohibiting specific unfair business practices, such as price gouging and profiting off of a consumer’s inability to understand a language in a contract. This is important on a few fronts. Firstly, Ontario is a medley of multiculturalism, and there are many people for whom English is not their first language.

Recently, a constituent came into my office, a lovely gentleman; I met him at St. Joseph the Worker Parish in my riding. He told me his English was not so good and that he was worried about installing a new accessible tub in his house. He couldn’t understand what the company he was speaking with wanted from him, and he was worried that he was going to get scammed. All he was trying to do was make his home safer for his wife of 50 years. This gentleman will be one of the many people who will benefit from this new legislation.

Speaker, many homeowners in Ontario lease or rent water heaters and furnaces. This bill would establish specific rules for a new category of long-term leases for heating, ventilation and air conditioning called purchase-cost-plus leases. 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. It would establish a 10-day cooling-off period and would set limits on termination costs for purchase-cost-plus leases if a consumer wishes to end a contract early.

Consumers should feel safe when making purchases. Unfortunately, we’ve seen a rise in suppliers who create contracts that are difficult for consumers to exit, and that’s not okay. This bill will protect Ontarians.

This bill proposes regulations that would, once approved and implemented, also prohibit businesses from creating unnecessary barriers when consumers are trying to cancel a contract, particularly a subscription or a membership-based contract; for example, a gym membership.

Over the last few years, many constituents have described how difficult the process was for cancelling their gym membership. Some of my constituents were forced to pay the monthly fees until the end of their contract agreement. Some received notification of unpaid dues even after their memberships had been cancelled. One told me she had to physically mail a cancellation form to a gym’s head office in order to cancel their membership. In this day and age, with phones and Internet, that’s simply not acceptable. Under the former rules, that individual would be in a position where they would have to pay for that benefit that they were not receiving and, sadly, they would not be able to rebut this continual payment that would be tested against their credit card. This improved legislation would prohibit businesses from creating unnecessary barriers when Ontarians are trying to cancel their contract, reinforcing consumer rights and choice.

This legislation would also provide more fair exit options for time-shares and long-term leases of work-related equipment.

On the discussion of time-shares, it’s a common story—people who have purchased time-shares, sometimes older and vulnerable, in a property many years ago, and they’re no longer able to use their property. I’ll give you an example. It has been several years since Corinne, 83, from my riding last visited a time-share her late husband purchased many years ago. At more than $600, the annual maintenance fee was unnecessary, and Corinne, a grandmother, worried about burdening her adult children with a property they didn’t want to inherit. She became very concerned.

If the new amendment is passed, it would provide time-share owners with the option to terminate that contract after 25 years. It would also provide authority, including regulation-making authority, to provide certain persons with a right to terminate a time-share upon that time-share owner’s death. It would also limit the cost that a consumer or other specified person may be charged for exercising an option to terminate a time-share contract, with specific limits to be set out in regulation. This legislation would make the proposed new termination option apply to both existing and new time-share contracts. As part of the regulatory development, the new CPA would further improve disclosure requirements for time-share contracts, to help ensure consumers are better informed about the long-term implications of these contracts.

This bill would also clarify the obligations for businesses to discharge the NOSIs—those are the notices of security interest—for consumer goods registered in the land registry system when a contract is cancelled or rescinded in accordance with the new CPA or when a purchase-cost-plus lease is terminated. It would authorize the director to issue a document that the consumer can register on the land registry system to facilitate the discharge of the NOSI. And the new CPA would provide authority to develop regulations that would, if necessary, extend the new rules relating to NOSIs to other prescribed registrations, notices or instruments in the land registry system or other registration systems, like the personal property security registration system.

This bill additionally addresses the Consumer Reporting Act, the CRA, which regulates consumer agencies such as Equifax and TransUnion, and sets out the rights of consumers and obligations of businesses to address the transparency and accuracy of consumer reports. Now more than ever, consumers recognize the importance of being able to access credit to participate in the market and monitor their overall financial well-being. The amendments to the CRA would improve outcomes for consumers while minimizing impacts to industry.

This bill, if passed, would have a substantial regulatory development phase that would include opportunities for further consultation with stakeholders and the public, with more detailed requirements to be set out.

This bill, ultimately, is a solid bill. I support it, and I move to adjourn this debate. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your input and thank you for bringing the story. I know the St. Catharines MPP also brought her story from her constituent’s perspective, and the MPP from Waterloo also brought stories. Thank you for bringing those stories. There are similar stories in my riding as well—how we can protect vulnerable and marginalized people in our community and in our riding.

Could you elaborate—I know, as the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery said, stepping in the right direction allows our government to give even more protection to the consumers and our residents. Could you tell me what else we should be doing to protect our consumers in Ontario?

The ayes are 41; the nays are 0.

Thank you for the question. I can’t really answer why. I wish that the government had addressed price gouging, because it really is such a central area where people are being ripped off. I don’t think that it’s an easy thing to fix, because those corporations are extremely powerful, but it is the place of government to be protecting all of the people of Ontario from that kind of price-fixing.

Thank you very much for your question.