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.

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.