I am pleased to be able to read this petition entitled “Expand Ontario Seniors Dental Plan.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas seniors have to access the Ontario seniors dental plan through local public health units;

“Whereas the number of dentists registered with public health units to be covered under the Ontario seniors dental plan is low in northern Ontario;

“Whereas the small number of dentists registered with the Ontario seniors dental plan limits the capacity of public health units to serve their patients in northern Ontario; and

“Whereas the income threshold for seniors to be eligible for the Ontario seniors dental plan is unreasonably low—an annual net income of $22,200 or less for a single senior; a combined annual net income of $37,100 or less for a couple—thus creating a huge barrier for low-income seniors to access dental care;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“—to invest into community health centres, aboriginal health access centres, and public health units to build and expand dental suites and to hire more dentists; and

“—to facilitate the implementation of the federal dental care plan, which covers all seniors with income lower than $75,000, when it becomes law.”

Of course, I support this petition, will affix my signature and send it to the table with page Alina.

I have a petition entitled “Pass the Safe Night Out Act.” It reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas we are experiencing a sexual violence epidemic, with Statistics Canada reporting in 2021 that sexual assault was at its highest level in 25 years and community support organizations reporting more crisis calls than ever;

“Whereas 65% of women report experiencing unwanted sexual advances while socializing in a bar or restaurant, and incidents of sexual assaults involving drugs and alcohol most often occur immediately after leaving a licensed establishment or event; and

“Whereas there is no legal requirement for the people who hold liquor licences and permits, sell and serve liquor, or provide security at licensed establishments and events to be trained in recognizing and safely intervening in sexual harassment and violence;

“Whereas servers in licensed establishments also face high risk of sexual violence and harassment from co-workers and patrons;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately pass the Ontario NDP’s Safe Night Out Act to make Ontario’s bars and nightclubs safer for patrons and staff by requiring training in sexual violence and harassment prevention, by strengthening protections for servers from workplace sexual violence, and by requiring every establishment to develop and post a policy on how sexual violence and harassment will be handled, including accessing local resources and supports.”

I couldn’t agree more with this petition, affix my signature and will send it to the table with page Peter.

Thank you.

Interjections.

Orders of the day.

I return to the minister to lead off the debate.

I return to the minister.

I would like to wish my Uncle Ernie a happy birthday, who happens to be the member from Oxford.

Before you really get into that, you have to understand how time allocation—what it is, how it works. To fully understand that, you have to go back a few more steps on how this House actually works.

We’re here this afternoon. A bill was introduced, I believe, on the PAWS Act by the Solicitor General, and it was introduced for first reading. It’s customary that the first reading is—we all agree to first reading. You want it introduced. A couple of times—one, in particular, I know of that the official opposition, when we were third party, voted against first reading, and that was when the Liberal government of the time tried to sell Hydro One—or did sell Hydro One. We were so opposed to that that we voted against first reading. But normally, you allow legislation into the House.

Then, if it’s government legislation, it’s brought forward for second reading, and at second reading, customarily, you have eight hours of debate. That can be shortened or lengthened, but customarily it’s eight hours of debate.

The bill, now that we have a majority government, is passed by the government, obviously, if it’s a government bill, put forward to committee—committee is actually as important or, in some cases, more important than the debate in the Legislature, because committee is when people who are directly impacted by the bill or who have a special interest in the bill normally get to come before the committee and talk about their interest, their expertise to try to impact the bill, to try to change the bill, hopefully, to make it work better. That’s why this place exists: for the government of the day to introduce legislation for the Legislature and the committees to improve it. Although we may disagree philosophically with the reason for the legislation, it is incumbent on us all to try to make it as good as it can be for Ontarians.

So, the bill goes to committee, the committee hears deputations, and then based on those deputations, the committee members can make amendments, which are either accepted or voted down by their fellow committee members. Then the bill goes back to the House for third reading. Again, it will be debated, and third reading debates usually aren’t as long as second, because we’ve already gone through the committee process. So, let’s be realistic: Not much is going to change in the bill at third reading. Bills that we’re really opposed to—we get to make our points; try to make Ontarians understand what’s wrong with the bill, what’s right with the bill; and the government will try to make Ontarians understand why they’re putting forward the bill. Then there’s third reading—the last vote, the third vote, and then the bill goes for royal assent and is proclaimed.

That’s how it’s usually done, and there’s a few changes, but time allocation changes it totally. So, time allocation: The government decides that one or several of the steps aren’t needed, or they don’t want to deal with several of the steps.

This time allocation motion and the amendment to the motion are quite unique, because in my time here—and I’ve been here 12 years—this is the first time I’ve seen three bills in the same time allocation motion and three bills at three completely different stages, and they’re also treated differently. I’ll have to delve a little bit into the details to try to make people understand.

The three bills that are dealt with are Bill 136, more commonly known, to me, as the greenbelt reversal bill. If you will recall, the government tried to help some speculator friends profit in the greenbelt. Public pressure and the Auditor General, the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and Integrity Commissioner raised big concerns, and the government backtracked. That’s Bill 136, the backtrack bill. We understand why the government doesn’t want to hear a lot more about that. The government has got other problems with that, because the RCMP is looking into that.

Bill 150 is also kind of the same type of situation. It’s on urban boundary expansion. Actually, that was a bigger attack on farmland, on open space than the greenbelt legislation. It didn’t receive as much public response, but actually, it was as big an attack, and the government has been forced to backtrack. So they’ve put forward Bill 150, An Act to enact the Official Plan Adjustments Act, 2023 and to amend the Planning Act with respect to remedies. That’s basically—they tried to overreach, and now they’re having to back up.

It’s interesting, for members who are new to this place, or newer: That’s not something that commonly happens, that governments severely overreach and then have to backtrack.

This government is—remember when they severely, severely overreached and tried to use the “notwithstanding” clause?

Interjection: Oh yes.

I move that, pursuant to standing order 50, and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 136, An Act to amend the Greenbelt Act, 2005 and certain other Acts, to enact the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act, 2023, to repeal an Act and to revoke various regulations, Bill 150, An Act to enact the Official Plan Adjustments Act, 2023 and to amend the Planning Act with respect to remedies, and Bill 154, An Act to enact the Recovery Through Growth Act (City of Toronto), 2023 and the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act, 2023;

That when Bill 136 and Bill 150 are called for third reading, one hour of debate shall be allotted to the third reading stages of each bill, with 30 minutes apportioned to the members of His Majesty’s government and 30 minutes to the members of His Majesty’s loyal opposition; and at the end of the time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of each bill, without further debate or amendment; and

That when Bill 154 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall immediately put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That Bill 154 shall be ordered for third reading, which order shall be immediately called; and

That when the order for third reading is called, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of Bill 154 without further debate or amendment; and

That no deferral be permitted on any votes on Bill 136, Bill 150 or Bill 154.

Speaker, I would like to put forward an amendment to the motion. I move that the motion be amended by adding “and that, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bills, the division bells shall be limited to five minutes” at the end of the motion.

This petition comes from Ontarians. Thousands of Ontarians have been putting this petition forward now for months. It is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Canada Health Act requires provinces to fund medically necessary treatment for Canadians; and

“Whereas a growing number of people in Ontario suffering from Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS) have to seek out-of-country treatment at their own expense because doctors in Ontario don’t have the knowledge or skills to understand EDS symptoms and perform the required delicate and complicated surgeries; and

“Whereas those EDS victims who can’t afford the expensive treatment outside of Ontario are forced to suffer a deteriorating existence and risk irreversible tissue and nerve damage; and

“Whereas EDS victims suffer severe dislocations, chronic pain, blackouts, nausea, migraines, lost vision, tremors, bowel and bladder issues, heart problems, mobility issues, digestive disorders, severe fatigue and many others resulting in little or very poor quality of life; and

“Whereas despite Ontario Ministry of Health claims that there are neurosurgeon doctors in Ontario who can perform surgeries on EDS patients when surgery is recommended, the Ontario referring physicians” often “fail to identify any Ontario neurosurgeon willing or able to see and treat the patient;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Require the Minister of Health to provide funding to hire one neurosurgeon who can and will perform neurosurgeries on EDS patients with equivalent or identical skills to the international EDS neurosurgeon specialists, including funding for a state-of-the-art operating room with diagnostic equipment for treatments for EDS patients; and meet the Canada Health Act’s requirement to afford equal access to medical treatment for patients, regardless of their ability to pay for out-of-country services.”

I want to thank St. Paul’s and the folks across Ontario who are surviving with EDS. I’m glad to see this petition here, and I look forward to supporting them further. I affix my signature and will pass it—

Remember that? And then a few weeks later, the Men in Black bill came: “This never, ever happened.” Remember? It was rescinded to the day before it was passed, and I remember them all—I’m not sure if the member from Oxford did, but I remember everybody else clapped themselves on the back and they were so proud that they implemented the “notwithstanding” clause to override workers’ rights. They weren’t as happy two weeks later when they had to rescind.

Now, both these bills are the same type, Bills 136 and 150, both the greenbelt and urban boundaries retraction acts: “We’re so sorry. The Premier said he’s sorry.” The one thing he didn’t say is, “I’m not going to do it again.” Because when you look at Bill 154, the other bill in this time allocation motion, it says, “Sorry, not so sorry.” That’s what that is.

This time allocation motion actually is Bill 136, “Sorry, we tried, but the RCMP got involved”; Bill 150, “Sorry, we tried, but the RCMP got involved”; and Bill 154, on Ontario Place, is, “Okay, we’re going to try again, but we’re going to change the law so, hopefully, no one else can get involved after the fact.” That’s what this bill is.

In order to do that, the government has now employed the time allocation motion. But Bill 154, An Act to enact the Recovery Through Growth Act—basically the greenbelt; not the greenbelt, the Ontario Place bill. It has only had 6.5 hours of debate on second reading. It hasn’t passed second reading and hasn’t gone to committee, so what the allocation motion is doing is, it’s going to go to second reading vote; no committee; and then direct to third reading vote, no debate.

The government is so sure—no, they’re not, actually. If they were sure that people were actually in favour of this, they would hold committee hearings about Ontario Place in the city of Toronto, and the hundreds of people, the thousands of people who are in favour of this would come and congratulate the government. But that’s not what they’re doing. They’re shutting it down.

Especially the newer members can say, “Oh, well, you know, it’s close to Christmas. We’re done talking and no one wants to hear this.” Regardless of whether you agree that we should spend $650 million on a parking garage for a private spa, or whether you don’t; whether you agree that it’s a good idea to lease some of the best waterfront public land in the province in the city of Toronto to a private spa company for 95 years, whether you agree or not, there are some things in this bill that should cause everyone, agree or not—and especially the members on the government side, it should cost them some sleep at night.

Because at the end of the day we all know they’re going to vote for this. But there are things in this bill where, and I’ll read—I’m not a lawyer; I’m not a legalese person. But “No remedy,” section 2—oh, I just got a note. Okay. Good note.

So, “No remedy

“(2) Except as otherwise provided under 4, in an order under section 13 or in a regulation ... compensation or damages, including for loss of revenues or loss of profit, are owing or payable to any person and no remedy, including but not limited to a remedy in contract, restitution, tort, misfeasance, bad faith, trust or fiduciary obligation....”

So this bill basically prohibits, under this act, suing the government with respect to anything done under the act, including government misrepresentation, misconduct, misfeasance, bad faith, breach of trust, or breach of fiduciary obligation.

I thought the government was here to make sure that people respected laws, not give yourselves the right to break them or know, with this legislation, that they are going to be broken and you’re trying to stop it from happening—not stop the laws from being broken, but stop from getting caught. Now, I know that most of you—I think that I’m safe to say that all of you did not work so hard to get elected, work so hard to represent your people, to vote for stuff to introduce bad-faith legislation like this. What kind of government puts forward legislation insulating themselves from bad-faith decision-making? Come on.

Once again, I thought this was going to be a boring debate about procedure. The procedure that we’re talking about today is how long we should ring bells.

On the question of tolling the bells, we have rules in the procedural book, which is called the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly. The bells are set out in rule 30 of the standing orders, referred to primarily as “deferral of requested division,” and also, under the same rule, the division bells and how long they should be rung. So it’s worth, first of all, explaining what all that means.

For those who are watching these proceedings and might not know the technical language that’s being dealt with before us, the word “division” refers to, of course, a vote, and that, of course, refers to how the parties divide on a vote—not necessarily dividing along, but frequently dividing along, party lines. Any member of this 124-member House may vote in any way they see fit, and that’s called a division. In our common parlance, it’s called a vote.

It’s called a division because that’s archaic language meaning, “How do you divide to one side or the other?” That reminds me of the favourite song where the line goes, “The parting on the left / Is now the parting on the right,” and that’s from The Who, probably one of the greatest rock bands in the history of rock ‘n’ roll.

We do the same thing here. We call for a division, which is a vote, and people part to one side or the other side. In fact, that was the common way of doing it back before, when assemblies such as this did not necessarily meet in one chamber, as we do on a regular basis, but sometimes met, for example, in an open field, where the king would call an assembly and all of the great powers of the land would assemble, together with their knights and retainers, and they would meet in a field. This was sometimes referred to as a “parlement,” which is an old-fashioned word employed to describe that kind of meeting. If there were a vote in the “parlement,” there would be a parting. Some people would part to the left and some would part to the right, and that’s how you would indicate how you were voting. That parting was called a division, and the division, of course, is, just as I said, an old-fashioned way of talking about how you vote.

The method that we are proposing to resolve the issues before us today is to limit the amount of further debate taken on issues that we’ve already debated an awful long time about. I don’t have the exact time allocations in front of me at this very time, but we can actually talk about each of these previous bills that we’ve already discussed and probably look back through the record and determine exactly how long we’ve discussed each bill.

The three bills were already read into the record. I was personally in this House when we debated all three of those bills. I can tell you that with regard to the greenbelt, I think we’ve had an exhaustively long discussion about that. In fact, it has actually occupied the time and attention of many members of this House, and of course, we don’t need to beat that dead horse anymore. I would imagine that members of this House would be very, very much in favour of limiting any further discussion on that bill, which we’ve already discussed at incredible length. I mean, I can’t imagine any other topic that we’ve discussed more than that. Certainly, the opposition has discussed it a lot as well. So I don’t see any reason for us to really draw that out anymore. There’s other business we need to get along to.

Similarly, on the Planning Act legislation, the same could be said. We’ve beaten that dead horse so much that it’s not to be beaten anymore. I would imagine that members of the opposition would be in a hurry to get that done, right? You would imagine they’d be in a hurry to get those pieces of legislation finalized since they’ve talked so much about it. I do want to go over how much we’ve talked about that in relation to the housing crisis, and so it’s worthy to simply go through the Hansard and see how many times the opposition has talked about the housing crisis.

I can tell you that I’ve had a brief opportunity to go through the number of times that the Leader of the Opposition has referred to the housing crisis. She referred to it most recently on November 29—that is of this year, of course—then again on November 28 of this year. Again, on November 22 of this year, she did so twice—in fact, three times. The Leader of the Opposition talked about a housing crisis again on October 24 a minimum of three times, perhaps even four times. She talked about it at length on October 23, when she delivered lengthy comments to this chamber with regard to that issue. I’m going through the comments now, and it looks like the comments take up at least three and a half pages of Hansard. Again, the Leader of the Opposition delivered a lengthy speech about the housing crisis on October 3 and—just going through the material that I have before me—took up more than four pages of Hansard records with regard to those comments. Again, on September 25, and then again on April 24—on the same date, April 24, she gave a lengthy dissertation on the housing crisis. On March 27, again, she spoke to the housing crisis, then again on March 1.

Going back to last year: On November 17, she made reference to the housing crisis. On September 7, she gave a lengthy address to this assembly of over two pages in length in the Hansard, again on the same topic, being the housing crisis. She also gave a lengthy address to this House on August 11 on the same topic, being the housing crisis.

If indeed we are to take the comments of the Leader of the Opposition at their face value, then we would imagine that the Leader of the Opposition believes that there is a housing crisis in Ontario. One would conclude that she wishes that we would proceed with as much expedition as possible, and therefore, it makes perfect sense that we do so with regard to Bill 136 and Bill 150 and Bill 154, all of which intend to deal with the housing crisis. And the faster that we can get that passed, the better we can tackle the housing crisis, of which the Leader of the Opposition has spoken of so often and at length in this assembly.

I, myself, had the opportunity to be at St. Clair College on Friday of last week, and I had the good fortune of speaking with approximately 75 students at St. Clair College. They appeared to range from the ages of 18 to 19 or 20 or 21. We had a good two-hour discussion. Of course, as is my style, I did not talk during the entire two hours; I invited them to talk to me for the entire two-hour period.

Madam Speaker, let me tell you what these young people at St. Clair College were concerned about. They were concerned about housing and, most specifically, they were concerned about their ability to purchase housing. That, I suppose, would give credence to the Leader of the Opposition and many other members of this assembly, all of whom agree that housing in the province of Ontario has become very expensive and we need to do what we can in order to put that housing back into an attainable situation so that young people, like my friends at St. Clair College, who I spoke to on Friday, can attain and purchase those houses. These young people were in a training course, and their training course was the police foundations course, and they were particularly interested in policing issues and associated issues such as that. But I can tell you, during the entire two-hour discussion, the topic that dominated the discussion was their ability to purchase houses. That was the number one topic, and so, as it is linked to these statutes or the bills that are before us today, the proposal that the bells should be rung for five minutes so that we can expedite the hearing of these bills and pass them into legislation is quite apropos, I would say.

Let’s talk about what these young people at St. Clair College told me on Friday, because, of course, it is directly related to our topic of discussion. They were interested in getting into the housing market. Some of them will graduate from their program and they will get employment and they will start at what I consider to be a very favourable salary, probably with a nice benefits package and a pension to go with it. If they land employment within the policing sector—and, of course, in order to do that, they’ll be greatly aided by other legislation that has already been passed in this Legislature by this government, and that was legislation that provided that people who are seeking employment in the policing field would be able to do so and would be able to do so faster, as long as they could fulfill certain requirements.

One of the other measures that has been taken by this government is to provide enhanced options for people to get into police colleges by waiving the tuition that applies to that college. I’m sure that’s going to be very attractive to those young people I spoke to on Friday at St. Clair College. That’s going to get them into their employment faster; that’s going to get them into a good-paying job faster. And hopefully if we can resolve the amount of supply available in the housing market by increasing the supply by a dramatic point, then those people, like these young people from St. Clair College, will be able to afford that attainable housing which all of us really want to provide.

One of the bills that’s before us is Bill 154, the New Deal for Toronto Act, and I can see that that has received a certain amount of comment since it’s been introduced into this chamber. Now, the New Deal for Toronto Act is certainly an interesting situation. It’s got certain proposals in it. One of those proposals is to return the Don Valley Parkway and also the Gardiner to the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario.

I suppose some people would look at that and ask themselves why that needs to be done or whether or not that’s a good idea or a bad idea. I suppose some people might look at that situation and say that they would like the province of Ontario, perhaps, to take over those highways because of certain reasons related to the number of people who travel into the city of Toronto on a daily basis from the surrounding areas. That is certainly something that members of this assembly know a lot about because the majority of the members of this assembly must travel into the city of Toronto in order to be at this assembly at any given time. I myself have travelled along both of those expressways. They’re no mystery to me, and I’m sure they’re no mystery to many members of this House.

The question is to what extent these are being used by people who don’t reside in the city of Toronto. I suppose there are traffic counts that could tell you the amount of traffic that’s on either one of those. Then you could extrapolate that data and determine how many people are entering the city from the exterior based on the number of people who actually reside in Toronto and also based on statistics which might suggest how many people residing in the city of Toronto actually own automobiles. Then you would have to make an educated analysis of all that data and decide whether or not the amount of traffic travelling along those auto routes is actually traffic that emanates from within the city or emanates from without the city or at the exterior of the city.

I would think that if we had done such an analysis, it would be pretty simple. It would probably demonstrate without any shadow of a doubt that those two auto routes are carrying a considerable amount of traffic that emanates from outside the city of Toronto and for people who are travelling into the city for various reasons, such as employment. That might be used as one justification for saying that the route in question might preferably be operated and maintained by the province of Ontario.

On the opposite side, of course, you could have reasons for not doing so as well, but the whole deal is exactly that: It’s a package deal. There’s give and take in any package deal, and I think that the give and take in this particular package deal is probably something that ought to be very good, not only for the city of Toronto but for the people of Ontario as well, because we want to keep Ontario moving and in order to keep Ontario moving, we have to have the routes that we’re talking about.

So that would be part of the reason why we would want to expedite the New Deal for Toronto Act, which is Bill 154.

Now, I’d like to refer to the amendment to the amendment, which is to change the ringing of the bells from five minutes to 60 minutes. I’m not quite sure why the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane wanted to change that from five minutes to 60 minutes. The debate that we’re going to have on the amendment and then the amendment to the amendment and perhaps even the main body of the motion itself will probably last longer than 60 minutes, so any member who needs to get to this assembly probably has plenty of time to get here, as long as they’re notified that we’re having this debate right now.

I would imagine that each of the parties represented in the chamber is already notifying their members that there could be a potential vote this afternoon, so it, of course, is probably redundant to ring the bells for 60 minutes. In fact, I would suspect that if we had to do so, there would be a lot of standing around. But I’m not entirely committed to not ringing the bells for extended periods of time. I can understand why members might need to have that bell rung for longer than five minutes or for perhaps five minutes. I haven’t heard quite yet an explanation as to why, but perhaps I’ll hear an explanation during this lengthy debate about why we should ring the bells that long. Perhaps I’ll be persuaded during this debate that the bells should be rung longer. I’m not a person who can’t be persuaded. Some people have persuaded me to do things that I thought I would not do. That’s pretty reasonable and fair, to talk about that.

With regard to Bill 150, which is the planning statute law, that is, of course, an issue that we’ve talked about already at length in this Legislature. It’s been the topic of conversation for quite some time, and there’s been a long, long debate about that. I think that people have had plenty of time to say what they wanted to say and get it on the record. If you were in favour of that bill, you could have stood in this House and you could have given a 20-minute speech and let the members of this assembly know how you felt about it.

I had the opportunity to do that myself. I spoke to the planning statute act, which is, at this stage, only a bill. I had my own opportunity to do that and spoke to it for quite some time. During my remarks on that particular bill, I explained the process of an official plan and how official plans are adopted and passed in the province of Ontario. During the course of that discussion, I explained how official plans are the official and basic planning document of any given municipality and that the municipalities themselves go through a very long process with regard to passing their official plans and that during that very long process there’s also a public consultation stage. During the public consultation stage, people are invited not only to send in their comments but at the same time may actually personally attend public planning meetings to give their views at a public planning meeting. That, of course, demonstrates that the opportunity to take a look at planning already has gone through a considerable public consultation process at the municipal stage, which is not to say that it can’t go through another consultation process at other stages or at other levels, but I’m just pointing out that the official plans have already been through a public consultation stage.

Therein official plans are adopted or passed by their own municipal council and then passed up to what is the higher authorizing authority for official plans. In certain circumstances, the higher authorization authority is a regional form of government. It could be a county; it could be a regional municipality. In some circumstances, for other, smaller municipalities, the authorization body is actually the province of Ontario. Those are the two situations that could apply under Bill 150.

As I’ve said, we’ve had a considerable amount of discussion and debate on Bill 150 already, and if the housing crisis, as it has been described, is to be dealt with, it might be a good idea to do it expeditiously and in particular with relation to these three bills that are before us.

I’m not sure, with regard to Bill 136, what more could be said. As I said, Bill 136 had already been the topic of a considerable amount of discussion, and I don’t see any further reason why we would be extending discussion on that any further. I think that all members of this House had more than one more opportunity to speak to that particular bill, and those opportunities were definitely used, and I think that members of this House used them very well.

To speak to the greater issue of housing: I had been talking about the approximately 75 young people that I had been having the honour of speaking with last Friday. Their main concern was getting into the housing market, and one can understand that concern because many of those people were at the age when they were going to get their first job in the relatively near future and start earning money. Perhaps some of them have already started doing that, and perhaps some of them have already managed to save a considerable amount of money and perhaps save up for a down payment.

Of course, in this housing market, to get a down payment is somewhat of a challenge. The typical down payment, if you want to avoid the CMHC financing rules, has something to do with a 20% down payment of the purchase price. If we take a very modest home in the current market and in the current atmosphere that we have today, you might find that a modest starting home might be in the neighbourhood of $500,000. Now, that of course depends on where you are in the province of Ontario, so that’s a somewhat unilateral figure that I’m choosing. If you wanted to put a down payment on a $500,000 starter home, you would need to put a down payment of $100,000 if you wanted to avoid CMHC financing rules.

That was a common thing to do when housing prices were not as high as they are today. Even with regard to today’s housing market, attempting to put down a down payment of 20% in order to avoid the CMHC’s financing rules would be a challenge for many people, because saving up $100,000, even if you have a good-paying job, is not easy to do. It might take you several years. It might take many years for some people. Still, it’s a good goal. It’s a good goal for people to have in mind, and it’s a goal that I know several people have achieved in the past.

One of our goals as a government is to make sure that in the future, going forward, the opportunities that were afforded to those of us in the past who were able to buy houses and get into the housing market are also opportunities that will be afforded to others going forward into the future, and that includes those young people I was speaking to on Friday at St. Clair College in the police foundations course.

Now, there are other rules that can apply. If you don’t attempt to get out of the CMHC financing rules, you can also put 10% down, and 10% down on a $500,000 home is $50,000. That’s a more obtainable objective—certainly more obtainable than $100,000—and that might be the objective that most people are going to try to get to these days. Of course, even if you put the 10% down at $50,000, you would then have to deal with CMHC financing, and that might entail certain conditions that you have to comply with in order to get the mortgage.

I can speak to the issue of many people attempting to deal with the down payment by, I’ll say, reverting to various methods so that they can perhaps get into the housing market earlier, and that’s what these three bills are talking about: 136, 150 and 154. All of these bills have to do with getting housing into the market and increasing the housing supply, so that by increasing the housing supply, the price of attainable housing can move downward.

One of the other things that has forced up the cost of housing supply in the province of Ontario is the increase in interest rates. Now, there was a certain point not that long ago when interest rates had gotten to a point that was so low, nobody believed they could go any lower, and perhaps the people who believed that they could not go any lower were correct, because it appears that they’re not. In fact, interest rates have now started to head in the opposite direction. Interest rates have started to increase and go up. It’s not surprising for a first-time homebuyer to now be seeking to finance a mortgage at perhaps a 5% or 6% or even 7% interest rate. Of course, interest rates are challenging, and all through life we face all sorts of challenges.

I’m about to propose a challenge to the House today, and so I will do so: I move the adjournment of the debate.

Well, it is your birthday.

The Ford government.

Forty-five bills.

The member from Timiskaming–Cochrane has moved an amendment to the amendment by replacing the words “five minutes” with “one hour.”

Further debate?

The ayes are 0; the nays are 95.

An Act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act and the Prevention of and Remedies for Human Trafficking Act, 2017 with respect to certain debts incurred in relation to human trafficking / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les renseignements concernant le consommateur et la Loi de 2017 sur la prévention de la traite de personnes et les recours en la matière à l’égard de certaines dettes contractées dans un contexte de traite de personnes.

An Act to enact the GO Transit Station Funding Act, 2023 and to amend the City of Toronto Act, 2006 / Loi édictant la Loi de 2023 sur le financement des stations du réseau GO et modifiant la Loi de 2006 sur la cité de Toronto.

An Act to amend the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the St. Thomas-Central Elgin Boundary Adjustment Act, 2023 / Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur les redevances d’aménagement et la Loi de 2023 sur la modification des limites territoriales entre St. Thomas et Central Elgin.

An Act to amend the Connecting Care Act, 2019 with respect to home and community care services and health governance and to make related amendments to other Acts / Loi modifiant la Loi de 2019 pour des soins interconnectés en ce qui concerne les services de soins à domicile et en milieu communautaire et la gouvernance de la santé et apportant des modifications connexes à d’autres lois.

An Act to amend various Acts / Loi modifiant diverses lois.

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various statutes / Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires et à édicter et à modifier diverses lois.

I am pleased to be able to stand and get a chance to put some thoughts on the record here as we’re debating a time allocation motion—another heavy-handed tactic of this government, unfortunately, to stifle debate. In fact, we just saw in this Legislature the government move to adjourn the debate and ring the bells for half an hour to further cut into the limited, limited time that has been allocated for any type of discussion on this time allocation motion.

I’ll briefly explain what this time allocation motion is about, but then there are some other issues that we would like to raise about the bills that are included in this time allocation motion. Here we are, discussing something that I haven’t seen in my nine and a half years. While I’ve seen time allocation motions—the Liberals loved them, but this government has perfected them; they are just such an overreach and such a heavy-handed measure.

In this case, this is a time allocation motion that deals with three separate bills. Generally speaking, a time allocation motion is one bill at a time. But, here, we see that pursuant to standing order 50 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 136—which is an act to amend the greenbelt act, and certain other acts, to enact the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act, 2023. Speaker, you’ll remember that’s the bill that the Premier so eloquently said people didn’t “give two hoots about.” However, at committee, the committee room was packed with people who weren’t even allowed to speak because Bill 136, while it didn’t allow public engagement, gave the replacement Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing—the only time of anyone to speak was for the minister, which is also unusual.

But, anyway, here we are, back to the time allocation motion, which addresses Bill 136—about the greenbelt and Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act; and also Bill 150, an act to enact the Official Plan Adjustments Act; and also Bill 154—which is the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act. Those three bills are pulled into this time allocation motion.

A time allocation motion—for the folks at home who are wondering what we’re talking about—gives the government a tool to do something other than what is normal flow and process of this space. So a bill usually, when it gets tabled, comes for second reading; folks debate it. When it reaches its end of debate time, it goes to committee, where hopefully it is thoughtfully addressed, maybe amended, as needed. Then it comes out the other side for third reading, where we’re supposed to debate an amended piece of legislation, or whatnot, and then it passes. But the time allocation motion says, “Nope.” It says, “We’re going to skip those steps. We don’t want those steps.”

In this case, Bill 136, the bill that deals with the greenbelt, which is of significant interest to folks, and Bill 150, the act to enact the Official Plan Adjustments Act—both of those bills will get one hour of debate when they come back to this House for third reading, divided amongst the parties. That’s all, folks.

What’s interesting is, when Bill 154, that third piece of legislation that I’m looking forward to talking a bit about today, is next called, it says the Speaker shall immediately put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment—so, basically, it’s gone. Then, Bill 154 shall be ordered for third reading, all of a sudden, without committee, and then, when the order for third reading is called, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment. Then, no deferral on any votes on these bills—so basically, it is just to take it, throw it through the process and out the other side, without the opportunity for folks to debate or discuss. That is highly problematic. When we put up our hands to run for election, we think we’re going to come to this space and debate thoughtfully, maybe do some homework from time to time, really get into the work of this place. I find it interesting that the government members don’t seem to be upset about the prospect of skipping all of those legislative steps in order to rush things without public access, without thoughtful consideration. I don’t understand, but they’re the ones who have to sleep at night, so hopefully they have found a way.

Speaker, that’s what we’re here talking about—this government time allocation motion. Bill 154, which this motion has said will not be getting committee hearings, will not be going to third reading and back before this House to debate—Bill 154 is the Ontario Place redevelopment stuff.

This government, lately, has been operating under a huge cloud of suspicion for all sorts of things. Right now, they’re under criminal investigation by the RCMP. During question period, when this comes up, the government points to the Liberals and reminds the Liberals that their former chief of staff went to jail—and this Premier is like, “David Livingston, here, hold my beer.” Everything they do is under a cloud of suspicion.

You’re under active criminal investigation by the RCMP—first of all, not a good look, but not a good practice. There are steps that have been taken to get to this point. I raise that because this bill is about Ontario Place and the redevelopment. There are so many questions about Ontario Place, and here we are rushing through the process so that that bill can’t go to committee. Why not? Who is this government afraid to hear from? Do you not think that it would be a packed house in that committee room? Why wouldn’t you want to find out? What on earth do Ontarians have to say about Ontario Place? Let’s ask them. Just kidding. Time allocation: There shall be no committee, there shall be no third reading—no consultation. That case is closed. It is happening.

We have a minister of mega spas and a legacy project. We’ve got an unbelievable obsession with this luxury mega spa in this province, which is absurd. People cannot find affordable housing. People cannot afford to feed themselves. And while the government can talk about their affordability measures or their stickers on cars or what have you, real people need real solutions to really be able to get through the day and survive—forget thrive; right now, people are looking to get by. They are not making their plans, not even likely in the next 95 years, to spend a day at the luxury spa.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the minister knows something we don’t, but because they are so short on details about how this is going to meet the needs of Ontarians—their business case that we’ve been begging for: I stood in this House, and I said, “I don’t believe she has one.” Well, then we got one. Well, what a load of malarkey. That business case—to call it that, I think, is being awfully generous—is insufficient.

So, Speaker, Bill 154, which doesn’t get its day in court, which doesn’t get its day in committee, which doesn’t get to come back for third reading because of this time allocation motion, allows the minister to do all sorts of stuff. The Minister of Infrastructure, whose baby this is—this is her legacy project, or the Premier’s; I’m not sure. We don’t get to really know what on earth is driving this. But schedule 2 of this bill enacts the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act. It gives the government extraordinary powers over the Ontario Place redevelopment. It gives them legal indemnifications that go much further than previous bills to fast-track construction projects, and much further than previous bills. It is an overreach.

Again, this allows the Minister of Infrastructure to issue minister’s zoning orders. Why? It gives this Minister of Infrastructure the power to unilaterally rewrite Toronto’s official plan with respect to the Ontario Place site. The minister can ignore the provincial policy statement and provincial plans. The Environmental Assessment Act does not apply to any undertaking of the Ontario Place site or any infrastructure projects outside the Ontario Place site that further the Ontario Place redevelopment, including water or sewage projects, highway projects or parking facilities.

The Environmental Assessment Act does not apply—and this government thinks it doesn’t deserve time in committee. This time allocation motion says there will be no third reading debate.

The Ontario Heritage Act does not apply to the Ontario Place site or to any buildings or structures on the site. Cabinet can prescribe land, buildings or structures within the Ontario Place site to which the Ontario Heritage Act does apply, which may include the Cinesphere and the Pods—may or may not. The Ontario Heritage Act does not apply to the Ontario Place site or any of its buildings—well, it used to, and now it doesn’t. And I believe that the minister who would be making the decisions around which parts are heritage and which parts aren’t is the minister responsible for heritage, even though it’s not in his portfolio title because they’ve rebranded all of the ministries and it’s the Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism—we don’t even say the word “heritage” anymore—but he gets to decide. It’s the Premier’s nephew, the Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, who gets to decide which parts are worth it, I guess. What a load of nonsense.

So here is, from the article—no, excuse me; I’m going to read more about heritage. “Architectural Conservancy Ontario strongly opposes the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act....” And I will note that our critic responsible for heritage, among other things—oh, hi; nice to have you here—is not only keeping me company but has been raising this in this House and we still haven’t heard anything from the government.

And these folks, I’m willing to bet, would have loved to come to committee. But what they have said is, regarding Bill 154, “To plow ahead with developing the highly criticized Therme Spa, the Ontario Heritage Act says the Ontario government would need to prove this development would not harm the cultural significance and heritage value of this internationally renowned site.

“For months, Architectural Conservancy Ontario ... has been saying the Ontario Heritage Act won’t permit this to happen.... Rather than argue their proposal to cut down 850 trees and build a mega spa does not undermine the designated heritage features of Ontario Place—an argument they would surely lose—rather than play according to the rules the provincial Legislature passed for the protection of Ontario’s cultural heritage, this government just says, we’ll change the rules.

“Not only that, we’ll give our Minister of Infrastructure ... the right to make up her own rules, via ministerial zoning orders, as she goes.

“By exempting Ontario Place from the protection of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act not only threatens one of Canada’s most important contributions to modern design, it threatens all provincially owned heritage properties.

“If the OHA can be tossed aside for such a frivolous, irresponsible project that Ontarians clearly do not want—and that will embarrass us all in front of the world—then all provincially owned heritage properties are at risk.

“Where is the minister responsible for the protection of Ontario’s heritage in all this? ... Ever since he was appointed, ACO has been trying to meet Minister Ford. To date, we haven’t even had any acknowledgement of our requests.

“ACO deplores this act of cowardice....”

That is from the media release regarding Bill 154. That’s Architectural Conservancy Ontario. These are folks who would have loved the chance to come to committee, but they don’t get to have that chance, because this government, in its heavy-handed time allocation motion, says nobody is allowed to weigh in. I wonder why.

Also regarding Bill 154, John Lorinc has written, “In it, the province re-gifts itself powers it already has, enlarges loopholes it had already created, and effectively guts the provisions of any kind of environmental or heritage oversight as they might apply to this tiny yet contentious corner of Ontario.”

“It’s difficult to think of another instance when a government made the conditions for a private sector company quite as easy as” these “Tories have done in this spot. Subsidies? Check. Enabling infrastructure? Check. Regulatory approvals? Well, if you want to call them that, check.

“As far as I can see,” writes John Lorinc, this act “also kicks the struts out from under the Ontario Place for All lawsuit, the gist of which was that Infrastructure Ontario hadn’t obeyed the province’s own environmental assessment rules. Given that those rules have been reverse gutted, the logic of the application seems to fall apart.

“Hard to imagine how Therme could now fail to deliver what the Premier so desperately craves: a giant water’s edge monument to his time in office, which will sit there like a misshapen glass boulder for time immemorial, or at least until that moment off in the middle distance when all and sundry realize that this edifice is simply too expensive to operate in a climate crisis.”

Speaker, folks do not support the government’s move to do such irreversible harm to one of Ontario’s treasures that we see at Ontario Place. This luxury spa is almost like a snow globe. Like, we all picture this big glass dome. The Minister of Infrastructure had the—the audacity? The nerve? I don’t know. But she stood in this place when I raised that it was a 50-year-old cement structure, the Ontario Science Centre, and that minister suggested that 50 years was a long time for a building, that we all needed to acknowledge that 50 years was, I guess, beyond its prime. Well, Speaker, how well do we think a glass-and-water structure on the water’s edge is going to fare after 95 years? If you’re going to use logic, let’s walk that all the way through.

Speaker, I will continue with this article from John Lorinc. “To fully grasp the significance of this move, it’s worth briefly revisiting the history of the garage. The original 2019 call for proposals made no mention of new parking; in fact, bidders were told they’d have to make do with whatever was on or near Ontario Place. Then Infrastructure Ontario—or someone!—selects Therme, and suddenly we’re talking about indoor underground parking.”

Speaker, the parking garage is its own fascinating story, its own interesting journey. There’s a lot of money that the province is throwing into this, in public funds—a lot of money. And we don’t have a copy of the lease. We don’t get to know the details of this, which is why the Auditor General is now looking into it.

From a CBC article on November 3:

“The province’s auditor general is moving ahead with a value-for-money audit of the Ford government’s controversial Ontario Place redevelopment.” They’ve “also said the office would be auditing the Ontario Science Centre, which is set to be moved to the Ontario Place grounds in 2025.”

The Premier “and his government have faced considerable public opposition to their Ontario Place plan, which includes a long-term lease on the site’s west island for Austria-based company Therme to build a sprawling, private indoor water park and spa....

“The province has earmarked some $650 million in public funds for infrastructure upgrades across the Ontario Place grounds and a new 2,000-space underground parking garage”—underground at the water’s edge. Is it underwater, or do we wait and see? I don’t know.

What’s interesting about this bill—the one that doesn’t get to go to committee, the one that doesn’t get to be amended, the one that doesn’t get to make it to third reading—is there’s a lot of protections in that bill for the government. We’ve raised it in this Legislature, just how problematic that wording is. The government gives themselves all sorts of fun protections and basically makes it law that they can break the law. In section 17, the “no remedy” part of this bill is really something else, basically protecting themselves:

“If any, no costs, compensation or damages, including for loss of revenues or loss of profit, are owing or payable to any person and no remedy, including but not limited to a remedy in contract, restitution, tort, misfeasance, bad faith, trust or fiduciary obligation, any equitable remedy or any remedy under any statute, is available to any person in connection with anything referred to in subsection ... against any person referred to in that subsection.”

Lots of words, but the key ones there are “contract, restitution, tort, misfeasance, bad faith, trust or fiduciary obligation.” What on earth are you protecting yourselves from? What irons do you have in the fire? What is already under way, or what are your plans? How is this okay? What do you need this for? Nobody trusts you already, and that doesn’t help.

Speaker, I do recognize, though, that we have an injunction in the works. Here in an article from November 23, Jack Hauen had written:

“A citizens’ group is turning to the courts to try to trip up the Ontario Place spa project.

“Ontario Place for All ... has asked the Superior Court for an injunction that would stop the Ford government from making progress on the Toronto waterfront project until it completes an environmental assessment of the area....

“‘Ontario Place for All is committed to using all possible avenues to hold the provincial government accountable for their actions at Ontario Place, and ensuring that they follow the proper process which would involve public consultation on the west island,’ the group’s co-chair, Norm Di Pasquale, said at a press conference at Queen’s Park on Tuesday.

“The government has done an environmental assessment of the site—but it didn’t take into account the creation of a mega-spa and water park”—what? “The project was exempted since it’s a private project on government land.”

Interjections.

Mr. Leardi has moved adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed to the motion, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1416 to 1446.

Mr. Leardi has moved adjournment of the debate.

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

All those opposed to the motion, please rise and remain standing to be counted by the Clerks.

I’ll give members a moment to leave the chamber before we proceed.

The government members on the opposite are highlighting the political affiliations of folks that I’m reading about—okay. I’m standing here as a New Democrat, and I also support an injunction or using the courts. I would say, “Use this building,” but we can’t because we have a time allocation motion that says, “Shut ’er down,” that says we can’t go to committee, that says how dare we bring this back for discussion.

So, yes, people in the community—some of them are New Democrats, but I think you’re probably also losing a lot of your base, because there are such people as Conservatives who like to spend time at their public treasures like Ontario Place, like the Ontario Science Centre. I thank the member for reminding me of that. That was a good point to have made.

I had mentioned earlier about the business case and the parking garage, and I have put on the record about the process with the parking garage and the redevelopment of Ontario Place, because I sat at estimates committee, and I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Infrastructure a number of questions. I took the opportunity to ask Michael Lindsay, the CEO of Infrastructure Ontario, all sorts of questions. I found out that there had been no fairness monitor in the process, which is highly unusual. The, sort of, feeling of “Just trust us. Don’t worry. It was a fair and equitable process,” but no fairness monitor? In terms of scoring of the criteria, there was no scoring. What was the criteria? I was told—and you can review the Hansard; it was back on June 7, 2023, at infrastructure estimates—that there were folks in the room who discussed it. I asked who the folks in the room were, and it was like, “Oh, we’ll take that back and see if we can provide that to the committee.” We’re still waiting. But that’s how business gets done? Like, that’s wild.

Something else that I will go back in time—here’s the question I asked about Mark Saunders. Some of you may remember that Mark Saunders had been special adviser or whatever his title was on Ontario Place. He made like $70,000 for the year and four months that he was employed as the special adviser on Ontario Place.

I asked, “Can we have copies of the reports or recommendations from Mark Saunders, as the special adviser on Ontario Place redevelopment?”

The minister said, “He fulfilled that role. We can take that back and respond.”

I said, “I’ll take from that that there were reports or recommendations from his work.”

The minister said, “It was largely before my time as minister. My understanding is, his preliminary role was really to be a liaison with the city of Toronto.”

I asked, “Were there formal recommendations or reports? If so, can we have them?”

And Mr. Michael Robertson said, “My name is Michael Robertson. I’m the assistant deputy minister of the Ontario Place Redevelopment Secretariat in the Ministry of Infrastructure.

“As the minister has said, Mr. Saunders was a special adviser on the project and provided his advice directly to government. The ministry does not have any reports that he may have made. As for his contract with the government, this was through an order in council. We can get that information and provide it to the committee.”

Guys, this is how business gets done. He’s a liaison. He’s not responsible for producing anything. He gets 70 grand for a year and four months of what?

Interjection: Sign me up.

So the business case is the next chapter that I want to talk about here. The business case I’ve been begging for, for quite some time. I’m the critic for infrastructure in the province, and I had asked why the Ontario Science Centre needs to be moved to Ontario Place, and, Speaker, there’s no rationale that has been thus provided.

I’ve looked at the business case for relocating the Ontario Science Centre that they just released the other day. Here’s from an article from Canadian Architect:

“Scratch below the surface, and there’s some clear problems with the province’s math....

“The new science centre is proposed to sit on top of a 2,000-space underground parking garage, which, if built, will cost about half a billion dollars. If the parking moves to a different location ... the science centre will need to build its own basement and foundations—at a cost of perhaps some hundreds of millions of dollars.”

Beyond this, it “also excludes the cost for a 150-metre-long underground, two-level link between the new Science Pavilion on the mainland and the bridge to the pods—an enormously expensive component of the project due to its proximity to the waterfront, and an essential element for allowing ticketed visitors to move from the main science pavilion to the Pods and Cinesphere,” which is just not included, just not there.

“On the other side of the equation ... the science centre’s required repairs result from the government choosing not to invest in the building over many years. Someone will need to pay for those repairs eventually, should the building continue to be used, either as a cultural building or for another purpose. ‘If it survives, the province is saving money by dumping perhaps $300 million in liabilities on the city. It’s a shell game, nothing more,’” they write.

“The business case’s costing for the relocated Ontario Place omits the costing for the rehabilitation of the pods and Cinesphere”—it’s just not in there; shh, don’t talk about it—“as well as the cost for building the underground Science Link, shown in the site plan above, and detailed in the test fit documents as a two-storey underground link.”

“It doesn’t include most of the renovations to the heritage pods, including the $25.5 million currently being spent on recladding those structures....

“There’s also a human cost to the math. The government’s case for relocating the Ontario Science Centre is strongly based on the efficiencies of a smaller facility, but also on its ability, paradoxically, to attract more visitors. It estimates that 1.15 million people will visit the relocated science centre in its first years. It also expects to accrue cost savings through staffing reductions: The estimates count on laying off 53 people, or one out of every six people who currently work at the science centre.”

For the people, eh?

“Of course, it’s not surprising that the business case contorts itself an attempt to justify the relocation.... the provincial government had already determined, more than two years before any public announcement, that it was determined to relocate the Ontario Science Centre to Ontario Place. The business case was specifically constructed to justify this decision....

“While we may take it for granted, there is value in taking care of what we have: a magnificent, much-loved museum at the Ontario Science Centre that is in need of some TLC. The value of such a gem isn’t something we usually quantify, but if we did—in a neutral way that accounted for cultural value, economic value, social value, and sustainability—it’s clear how the business case would land.”

That was a thoughtful piece by Canadian Architect.

Basically, when we have looked at the mess that has been this process, the need for FOIs, the need to try to get answers at committee, we have seen that this government has not been forthcoming with any actual numbers. We have seen that this is hidden, that the lease is not allowed to be for public consumption, that this bill is not allowed to go to committee; we cannot hear from people.

What on earth this government is hiding from—you’re literally hiding from the people, which is shameful. And if you think you have such buy-in, if every single mom with three kids that the Minister of Infrastructure talks about all the time, that she just wants a day at the wellness centre—she wants to be able to feed her kids. She wants her kids to go to school and have the supports that they need. She wants a place that she can afford. She wants rent control, in all likelihood. I’m sure that everybody could use a day at the spa, but I don’t think that this is what this is about.

We don’t know anything about the deal. I know that I have stood in this Legislature and asked what the government can point to to ensure that the financing is even there. Therme has made promises all around the world, pledging to spend billions on new luxury spas. Therme promised to invest $350 million in Ontario, but we have seen that it’s Ontario taxpayers who are going to be paying $650 million for a new parking garage, new water infrastructure and other site prep for public land that Therme is going to be in control of for 95 years. I wonder if spas are still going to be a thing in 95 years. Maybe. Honestly, is this like the fountain of youth? With the way the minister of mega spas, or Minister of Infrastructure, is all about this project—what’s in the water? Speaker, 95 years is a really long time, and a really long time when Ontarians don’t get to see the numbers, don’t get to see the lease. Therme was on the brink of bankruptcy only three years ago. We don’t even know if they actually have the money. And 95 years is a long time for a company that barely made it through the decade.

So we’ve asked the Premier—I stood in this House and I asked the government to prove to the public that any due diligence has been done to confirm the source of Therme’s financing. Crickets—and not to say crickets are financing it; I’m saying that’s all we’ve heard, is nothing. You don’t have to justify yourself to anyone—no committee, no answers. We’re not the boss of you; we get it. But you still are the government in the province of Ontario, and you owe Ontarians some kind of accountability.

A lot of other folks have been looking into Therme’s financing, and it is a convoluted, tangled, interesting web. It’s four pages of who knows who in all of the different—I will read this piece, also from John Lorinc. He examined how the company behind the Ontario Place mega spa makes money.

He said, “What’s apparent from the company’s nested corporate and philanthropic relationships is that it is exceptionally well connected to the worlds of art, philanthropy, finance and real estate....

“What’s less clear is the origin of Therme’s capital, and, in particular, the funding required to build an almost half-billion-dollar facility on the west island at Ontario Place. Given that the Ford government is executing a 95-year lease through a process overseen by Infrastructure Ontario, it would seem prudent for provincial officials to know precisely who it is dealing with, the ultimate source and terms of the firm’s financing.”

But we don’t get to know, and here we have a time allocation motion which says, “Shh. There’s no committee. No one gets to come and ask questions. There’s no third reading debate.” This is the last chance that we’re going to have to talk about Ontario Place in terms of the piece of legislation. It’s my remaining six minutes to talk about the fact that I only have six minutes, because of the time allocation motion before us. It’s something else.

We’ve got a conversation about Ontario Place and a conversation about the Ontario Science Centre. The Ontario Science Centre is a beloved piece of public infrastructure. People love to go there. We’ve had letters written in about people who have been going there for a generation. They remember going there as kids. I remember being there as a kid. Moriyama had said that with proper investment, it would last over 250 years. Well, guess what? We didn’t have that proper investment. Do you know why? Because Infrastructure Ontario is the landlord. This province is the landlord—

I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but pursuant to standing order 50, I am now required to interrupt and put the question.

Mr. McCarthy has moved government notice of motion number 20.

Mr. McCarthy then moved an amendment to the motion as follows: that the motion be amended by adding “and that, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bills, the division bells shall be limited to five minutes” at the end of the motion.

Mr. Vanthof has moved that the amendment be amended by replacing the words “five minutes” with “one hour.”

Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr. Vanthof’s motion carry?

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

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until the next instance of deferred votes.

Vote deferred.

Mr. McCarthy moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 142, An Act to enact the Consumer Protection Act, 2023, to amend the Consumer Reporting Act and to amend or repeal various other Acts / Projet de loi 142, Loi visant à édicter la Loi de 2023 sur la protection du consommateur, à modifier la Loi sur les renseignements concernant le consommateur et à modifier ou abroger diverses autres lois.

It is an honour, Speaker, to rise to begin third reading debate with respect to our proposed Bill 142, the Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, 2023. This important piece of legislation would, if passed, modernize Ontario’s consumer protection legislation, creating stronger safeguards for consumers in our modern marketplace. Clarifying consumer protection laws for both the public and for businesses would make it more difficult for those few bad actors to take advantage of vulnerable members of our communities. Simply put, consumer protection is integral to building consumer trust, and it is a cornerstone of a competitive and vibrant economy.

Our government has an obligation to all Ontarians to ensure that they are protected against unfair business practices, aggressive sales tactics and misleading or false claims. At a time when many families are struggling to pay for household essentials and to make every dollar count, we must make sure they do not face unnecessary hardships and challenges.

Our proposed legislation would better protect consumers in the marketplace, strengthening their rights and their confidence, and make it easier for businesses to comply with consumer protection rules. In addition, our proposed changes to the Consumer Reporting Act would improve and clarify that act, while helping Ontarians monitor and protect and access their information and their credit scores. Together, these landmark proposals would position Ontario as the leader in consumer protection.

I want to talk a little bit about the history of consumer protection legislation in our province, and in doing so, I want to reiterate a few points I have referenced during the second reading debate, such as the old common-law doctrine of “caveat emptor,” and why these updates to our consumer protection legislation are so important, even less than 20 years after the Consumer Protection Act of 2002 came into force. Just for the record, it’s clear that although that act is called the Consumer Protection Act of 2002, it was not ultimately proclaimed until 2005. And so much has changed in less than two decades, in our digital economy and our modern world of 2023.

There is a doctrine at common-law—or there still is, technically, this doctrine, although it has been watered down over the years by case law and legislation. The common-law doctrine that I reference, “caveat emptor,” which means “let the buyer beware,” provides that absent fraud, mistake or misrepresentation, a purchaser takes something that that purchaser is buying as the purchaser finds it, unless the purchaser protects himself or herself by asking for a contract that contains terms governing the quality of the goods or services. Over the years, this doctrine, although softened, still exists. It has been softened by certain concepts like implied warranties. An example of this, in terms of legislative implied warranties, is the Sale of Goods Act, which establishes that goods supplied by a business must be reasonably fit for their intended purpose.

The Consumer Protection Act has always stated that businesses are deemed to warrant that the services supplied under a consumer agreement are of reasonably acceptable quality. The Consumer Protection Act also prohibits businesses from including terms in contracts that attempt to negate any implied conditions or warranties; in fact, the Consumer Protection Act provides that any such terms are deemed to be void.

Our proposed, new Consumer Protection Act, 2023, if passed, would carry forward those important protections for consumers. Of course, the act will ensure that consumers continue to be protected from unscrupulous individuals who may try to take advantage of them—especially vulnerable consumers, such as the elderly and newcomers to our province. The proposed legislation would also set out baseline disclosure requirements and protections that apply across all consumer transactions. This will ensure both fairness to consumers and a level playing field for businesses.

Consumers are encouraged to do their research and learn more about the many excellent businesses that operate in our communities across Ontario. They should do that research and then decide to purchase goods and services for themselves and their families, based on the best choice available. I might add that while this is proposed legislation that is designed to enforce the law against bad actors, I can say proudly that most businesses, large and small, are good businesses who put their customer, the consumer, first—recognizing, Speaker, that we all are consumers at one point or another.

Both the federal and provincial governments do share responsibility for consumer protection in Canada, but consumer protection legislation is largely the purview of the provinces. Municipalities and other organizations also have a role in protecting consumers.

The journey of this act here in the province of Ontario began almost 60 years ago when this House passed the Consumer Protection Act of 1966. Early consumer protection acts such as that piece of legislation were initially focused on door-to-door sales, consumer credit and repossession. Other legislation passed by the provinces included provisions providing relief from unconscionable transactions and restricting certain business practices.

The current Consumer Protection Act, the one I refer to as the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, which was proclaimed in force in 2005, is entitled the Consumer Protection Statute Law Amendment Act, the CPSLAA, 2002. At that time, it was implemented to modernize and harmonize consumer protection laws to better serve and safeguard Ontarians for the world as it was two decades ago. That, I might add, is before the iPhone in the late aughties, which is the primary device that’s used by so many consumers to enter into a number of transactions, including consumer transactions.

The 2002 legislation consolidated six different pieces of legislation that had been developed between the first Consumer Protection Act of 1966 and other legislation up to and including legislation dating from 1994. These different pieces of legislation included the Business Practices Act of 1974, the Consumer Protection Act of 1966, the Consumer Protection Bureau Act of 1966, the Loan Brokers Act of 1994, the Motor Vehicle Repair Act of 1988 and the Prepaid Services Act of the same year, 1988.

The 1966 and 2002 Consumer Protection Acts were statutes that were clearly for the protection of Ontarians and—I might add, proudly so—they were introduced by Progressive Conservative governments in this House. Our current proposal, the Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, 2023, is a continuation of this great legacy, a legacy of putting Ontarians’ well-being at the forefront and ensuring that our fellow citizens and residents have the protections needed in our rapidly evolving economy.

Speaker, since the current act came into force in 2005, the existing Consumer Protection Act, having been that major consolidation of six statutes over a period of 40 years at the time, was designed to bring the law up to date, but it has quickly been eclipsed by massive changes in the consumer market and the economy generally and in terms of how we ourselves, our fellow citizens and residents, conduct business online. And so, after less than two decades, updates to this legislation are long overdue, and rather than have piecemeal amendments proposed to this House, it was thought wise and prudent that this Consumer Protection Act, the current one dating from 2002, be entirely replaced by a 2023 statute. I’m proud to say that it was unanimously passed by this House at second reading before going to committee, and we are addressing this piece of legislation, this proposed legislation, having received some amendments from the committee process.

The legislation that will remain in force unless and until it is replaced by this proposed bill still defines rules for consumer protection in Ontario and contains many amendments since it was passed. It remains, and will remain until the regulation-making process is complete, the key consumer protection framework that applies to most transactions between consumers and businesses.

With our increasingly online world, consumer habits and business practices have evolved rapidly. Stronger consumer protections and better compliance by businesses would help strengthen confidence in the marketplace while supporting Ontario’s continued economic growth. E-commerce and other digital transactions mean that consumers have more choices at their fingertips and the chance to navigate the marketplace with greater freedom and security.

With so many more ways for businesses to connect with consumers, they have more avenues to advertise and to sell their products and services and become even more successful in the process. However, this has also made those interactions between consumers and businesses much more complex. That is why my ministry, the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery, has a duty to enforce consumer protection legislation and safeguard our fellow citizens and residents from those who would try to take advantage of them and not comply with the letter and spirit of the law.

Whether they are entering contracts to buy a water heater, join a gym, subscribe to a weekly publication or have their roof replaced on their home, Ontarians need to know that their government has their backs. To do so, we need modern tools in place, tools that can help us protect consumers from harm whenever they purchase goods or services. Whether shopping in person or online, consumers and businesses need to have clarity about what the rules are.

With consumer transactions, we must ensure that they are focused more and more on digital service delivery. The rules defining our interactions therefore need to be brought into the modern age, an age that was not envisioned even when the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, was proclaimed in force in 2005. That is why, I submit, Bill 142 is essential legislation for this, the third decade of the 21st century, to keep up with our ever-changing world.

It’s aptly named, I submit, the Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, 2023, because it is. It has that balance. It is a comprehensive response to years of feedback received from the public and stakeholders about harmful, misleading and costly business practices.

Ontario needs to protect the most vulnerable consumers and support a fair and competitive economy. This includes seniors, new Canadians, families struggling to keep up with their monthly bills and small businesses facing an ever-more-challenging economy and ever-changing conditions.

Bill 142 would repeal the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, in its entirety and replace it with stronger protections for consumers. By adapting to address changing technology and marketplace innovations, we can add streamlined, clear requirements to improve consumer understanding and business compliance.

It is important to note that the new proposed Consumer Protection Act, 2023, would not be proclaimed into force until regulations are developed and approved. Until then, the existing Consumer Protection Act, 2002, will remain in effect.

As we move into 2024, my ministry plans to begin stakeholder consultations on draft regulations. These consultations will include businesses large and small, the legal community and the public. These will begin upon passage of the new act, if this House sees fit to pass it on third reading and if royal assent is then granted. These consultations would continue through the regulation-making process through to 2025, followed by the filing of final regulations. The proposed new act and its regulations would then come into effect on a date to be set by proclamation.

Ontarians agree, I submit, Speaker, that this legislation is a step in the right direction and I believe that all members of the House, by the vote on second reading, share that view. We heard loud and clear in presentations during public hearings last week—and I began that process with my remarks to the committee before that—the need to move in this right direction to strengthen consumer protection, to modernize the laws surrounding consumer protection that reflect our modern world. We heard all of this at the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, which considered amendments and proposals for amendments after the bill passed second reading in this House.

I want to thank the many individual consumer and advocacy groups, particularly those who are standing up for the elderly, new Canadians and the vulnerable. I want to thank all of them for taking the time to share their suggestions with the Standing Committee on Justice Policy.

Stakeholders, representatives from the legal community and industry and members of this House have all made important contributions to what is before us today. I sincerely appreciate the support and thoughtful consideration given by all who examined this comprehensive piece of legislation, and for the useful recommendations that were shared to improve upon it.

From all of our consultations, to drafting and work at the committee, I would like to recognize and thank Kelly Houston-Routley and her team at the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery for their hard work and dedication in helping us get Bill 142 to third reading. There was a series of particularly long days on weekends and evenings while the bill was being considered at committee and when many suggestions were made, so I salute the team, the entire team, both the political staff and the professional ministry staff, who worked hard to get us to this point today. I know our committee members are very grateful for all of their guidance and their support throughout the process of public hearings and the clause-by-clause process. We could not have gotten this far without each and every one of you, and I salute you all and thank you for your dedication.

As many of you in this House know quite well, as bills move through the legislative process, the support from stakeholders can play a vitally important role. I would like to take some time, Speaker, to express my gratitude to some of our stakeholders who dedicate themselves fully for the service and protection of the most vulnerable in our communities, organizations such as the Huron Perth Community Legal Clinic, Elder Abuse Prevention Ontario and the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, as well as community legal aid. I want to thank them for all that they do for our province as well as for their feedback and insights on what needs to be done to strengthen our consumer protection efforts. My ministry and I look forward to working with each one of them as we develop regulations in the upcoming months to support our shared goals to make sure that our most vulnerable have the protections they need as they interact with the marketplace.

For important and targeted next steps to protect homeowners against the fraudulent use of notices of security interest, or NOSIs, we greatly appreciate in particular the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly and its support in the efforts to target those unscrupulous bad actors engaged in harmful tactics, while at the same time enhancing consumer protection and confidence.

The Waterloo Regional Police Service have also provided invaluable feedback and information to our examination of solutions with respect to these unethical and fraudulent practices. My ministry looks forward to continuing the ongoing work with them as we move into the regulatory consultation process.

The Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, 2023, will also provide Ontarians with modern and enhanced tools for managing their credit information: The kind of changes that will continue to empower consumers and that will, with the support of credit reporting agencies like TransUnion, most certainly better serve Ontarians, if these changes are approved by this House.

Under the leadership of Premier Ford, we are ensuring that our seniors, vulnerable groups and, indeed, all Ontarians are receiving the consumer protections they expect and deserve. My ministry has been receiving positive feedback for Bill 142 and for the critical steps it takes and proposes to protect vulnerable consumers to benefit businesses, and in doing so, providing for both sides of transactions in relation to consumer goods and services clear and streamlined regulations to provide our government with modern and enhanced tools to stop those few bad actors in the marketplace.

However, recommendations to enhance the bill included the need to go further in addressing consumer protection. Stronger enforcement of existing and proposed laws also was a common thread running through numerous submissions and amendments proposed during the deliberations of the Standing Committee on Justice Policy. The law, after all, is only as strong and effective as its enforcement.

Those recommendations highlighted the critical need to address the impact of unfair business practices on those citizens and residents of our province who are least able to understand the increasing complexity of contracts, especially in this digital age. We heard of the need for greater awareness and education for consumers on their rights and for businesses on relevant requirements to ensure compliance. Business and legal representatives that we have worked with believe that enhanced consumer protection will help reduce legal and reputational risks, promote fair competition and promote regulatory compliance. Again, enforcement is a concern with many businesses, who point to unfair competition if regulatory obligations are not imposed on less-compliant suppliers and vendors.

Speaker, overall, I am very pleased to report a strong engagement involving Ontario’s legal profession, community associations, law enforcement industry and consumers with respect to this important legislative package. I also note their willingness to work with our government as we develop the regulations in the months to come, beginning in early 2024.

At the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, members discussed and debated 31 motions brought forward by government and opposition. In the end, I believe we have placed before this House a comprehensive legislative package that is consistent with the intent of protecting consumers, while also making it easier for businesses to be in compliance with the law.

There is one motion, in particular, that I want to highlight, and that is motion 23: amendments passed during clause-by-clause that would improve our government’s ability to enforce the offence provisions in the act against the officers or directors of corporations to hold the unscrupulous accountable. This means that corporate officers or directors would be required to provide evidence in their defence that they took all reasonable care to prevent the corporation from committing any offence under the Consumer Protection Act, 2023.

Speaker, let me remind members of this House of the broader aims of this proposed legislation, which we will be voting on, hopefully, this week. Schedule 1 of the proposed Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, 2023, would build on existing protections to strengthen consumer rights and better protect and empower all Ontarians. Additionally, it would, as I’ve indicated, streamline and clarify the rules and the requirements to make it easier for businesses to understand and follow the law. That means not increasing red tape and regulation, but streamlining and clarifying the core values and rules of consumer protection so that businesses big and small can more easily comply. And, very importantly, to deal with those few unscrupulous individuals and businesses, the bill, if passed, would introduce new enforcement powers to better enable my ministry to hold those bad actors accountable and support consumers in the meantime.

As I’ve said, Ontario needs consumer protection regulations for the new modern times we live in. We need to modernize contract rules for the digital and e-commerce economy as well as adapt to changing technology and innovations in the marketplace. This legislation would address consumer concerns and harms from unilateral contract amendments, renewals or extensions.

It bears repeating that our proposed legislation is not intended to place extra burdens on Ontario businesses who treat their customers fairly and honestly. We know that the vast majority of businesses large and small are compliant and want to have the great reputation that comes with putting the customer first. However, we know that there are some—very few—bad actors with unscrupulous practices that can cause real harm to our fellow citizens and residents.

To provide some examples: Punitive exit options for time-shares can no longer be tolerated. High termination costs for leases on home-related equipment if a consumer wishes to end the contract early cannot be tolerated. Unfair practices such as aggressive sales tactics and misleading claims and difficult-to-understand contract terms will not be tolerated. That is why Ontario needs legislative and enforcement powers to curtail all of these practices.

We need to simplify and clarify the rules governing consumer contracts with a single set of core values and rules. By establishing clear and prominent disclosure requirements for businesses in our province, as well as easy-to-understand, fair and transparent contracts between businesses and consumers, this will ensure greater compliance and greater fairness.

Consumers also need a better understanding of the rights they have under this proposed legislation. This applies to a range of products and services, including gift cards that we are all snapping up at this festive time of the year. With the upcoming holiday season, this is of particular concern. Our proposed act makes it clear and would enshrine in law that the gift cards that we so often purchase for our loved ones and for friends in our community cannot expire. Regardless of how gift cards are purchased—in store, online or via an app—they can never expire, and we would make sure both buyers and sellers are aware of this core rule or core value.

Ontario consumers should never feel trapped in contracts when businesses have decided to unilaterally amend, renew or extend without their express consent. This is another area of harm that is addressed by this proposed legislation. Under the current Consumer Protection Act, 2002, proclaimed in 2005, businesses are allowed to amend, renew or extend most contracts by simply providing a notice to a consumer, and the act then allows price escalation clauses where charges paid by consumers can increase during the contract. As part of the regulatory development process, our government will consider how to make consumer consent and choice the number one consideration by limiting when businesses can make unilateral contract amendments and conduct renewals and extensions.

We also propose to develop regulations to make it easier for consumers to cancel subscriptions and memberships when they no longer want to utilize them. These changes are good for consumers’ pocketbooks. They increase consumer choice, and they encourage businesses to compete in a thriving economy.

Speaker, I said earlier that our government has a duty to safeguard our fellow citizens and residents from those few unscrupulous players in the marketplace, and through the development of this legislation, we have heard time and again from individual consumers, families, law enforcement, legal groups and consumer advocacy groups of the need for these proposed changes.

I am certain that members across the aisle and on this side of the aisle have heard countless stories from their own constituents of some salespeople who are out there thinking it is fair game to make false claims of government oversight or authorization, or to make bogus prize offers. The changes we are proposing under this bill would specifically target and prohibit these unfair practices. Our proposed legislation would clarify and strengthen prohibitions against unconscionable conduct by explicitly prohibiting specific unfair business practices that involve taking advantage of a consumer’s inability to understand language in a contract. In the event that a business engaged in an unfair practice, the new act would give consumers the right to rescind a contract for one year after entering the contract or one year after the unfair practice takes place, whichever is later.

Furthermore, we are strengthening consumer rights against businesses that do not provide refunds when the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, would require it. For example, a consumer buys a water purifier from a supplier for, say, $600. Soon, it’s found out that the supplier lied to them about the purifier’s capacity. Under the changes we are proposing, the consumer would have the legal right to rescind the contract because of the unfair practice and obtain a refund of $600. However, if the business refused to provide the refund within the 15-day period that would be required by the act, thinking that the consumer will simply drop the matter because the refund amount is too small and not enough to take the matter to Small Claims Court, under the new act, it would give the consumer the right to sue to enforce such payment and, if successful in Small Claims Court, could triple the amount owed to $1,800. The courts could furthermore provide for exemplary or punitive damages to a consumer—depending, of course, on the particular facts of a case before the court.

And I know and trust in the discretion and wisdom of deputy judges, having served as a deputy judge in the Small Claims Court myself in Durham region for almost a decade, from 2002 to 2011.

This triple refund would be a deterrent, both specific and general, to businesses refusing to provide a statutory right of refund to a consumer. More importantly, I want to reiterate that this is not about punishing business. Most businesses do not go out of their way to deceive their actual or potential customers. It is about zeroing in on those few non-compliant businesses that do operate with deceptive practices and encouraging them to do the right thing by refunding the consumer the money that that consumer is owed, or otherwise face paying triple the amount, plus punitive and exemplary damages. That’s an important remedy that, depending on the facts of the case, could be granted by a deputy judge of the Small Claims Court.

To keep these matters out of court—because there’s always going to be a delay, Speaker; there will, because of this, always be a delay between someone being aggrieved and the seeking of a remedy and the granting of a remedy in court—the $600 refund, a relatively small amount, could be granted sooner rather than later. But if the delay is caused by an unscrupulous business, they would face those civil consequences of triple the damages plus exemplary and punitive damages. And, of course, decisions of the Small Claims Court, like any other court, are published and those involved are named. It acts not only as a general deterrent but, of course, as a specific deterrent.

Our proposed new legislation under Bill 142, Speaker, also addresses what I would call the predatory practices of some suppliers of long-term leases on items like water heaters, furnaces and other home comfort equipment. In Ontario, it is much more common for homeowners—more so than those in other provinces—to lease or rent water heaters, furnaces and other home services equipment on a long-term basis. The terms in these long-term leases can be complicated to understand, and the actual cost of renting as opposed to purchasing an essential piece of equipment like a water heater can be hard for a homeowner to calculate. It can even be trickier for seniors and newcomers to our province.

The existing 2002 Consumer Protection Act already restricts door-to-door sales of items such as furnaces, water heaters, air conditioners, and water filtration systems. It is clear, though, that we still hear about homeowners who felt that they were persuaded or misled by aggressive salespeople into signing long-term, expensive contracts due to high-pressure tactics. These salespeople may not be going door to door; however, they have now migrated to Web and telephone marketing. The aim is the same: to get into your space and get you to sign up, even if they’re not at your doorstep. The cost to terminate these leases early is not always made clear to homeowners, and once signed up, some suppliers make it exceedingly difficult and costly for consumers to exit these long-term contracts.

Our proposed changes under the new act would also establish specific rules for a new category of high-cost leases that would include leases for home comfort appliances like furnaces and water heaters. Businesses would need to provide consumers with a buyout schedule where the cost to buy out the contract and obtain ownership of the equipment would decline over time to zero, and there would be a need to disclose this schedule early, clearly, and prominently in the initial lease.

The proposed act would also maintain a 10-day cooling-off period and would set limits on termination costs for these high-cost leases if a consumer wishes to end the lease early. Our focus is always going to be on Ontario consumers getting the clarity that they deserve and choice when they make these kinds of important purchases—real choice that includes that cooling-off period based upon full disclosure at the outset.

We are also tacking the issues related to time-share properties—a topic that has received a good deal of media coverage due to the high level of consumer harm associated with it. There are consumers who have bought into time-share properties only to find themselves and their families locked in indefinitely. This can cause real concern if an owner’s travel or financial situation changes. Some can no longer afford the recurring fees of a time-share, and some no longer get to use or enjoy any of the time-share, but they find it impossible to exit from the unending time-share contract. Similarly, or alternatively, if an original time-share purchaser passes away, the time-share contract is left to their children to deal with, again, indefinitely. It is understandable that Ontarians have good reason to be frustrated, then. That is why we have listened to consumers and time-share providers about these long-term, indefinite time-share contracts.

Our proposed act would provide consumers with the right to exit a time-share contract if they so choose, after 25 years have passed since entering the contract. This would apply retroactively, therefore, to new and existing time-share contracts. The time-share exit proposal is unique to Ontario and would be the first initiative of its kind in North America. It would also provide a similar exit option for the owner’s heirs upon a time-share owner’s death. There would be limits placed on the costs that a consumer may be charged for exercising an exit option, with details to be determined in the regulation consulting period.

Additionally, we are proposing to develop improved disclosure requirements for time-share contracts to help make sure that consumers are better informed about the long-term implications of time-share agreements.

Speaker, I believe the name of this bill, as I’ve said before—Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, 2023—does accurately reflect how the changes we are putting forward and propose in this bill will benefit both consumers and businesses. The bill has been years in development, responding, I believe, to the real needs of Ontario consumers and Ontario businesses. During consultations on this landmark legislation, over a three-year period starting just before COVID restrictions were imposed, just before March 2020—this included online and written submissions and round tables over the past three years, before the bill was introduced at first reading. In that time, we heard and received submissions from individual consumers with personal anecdotes, families of those affected, law enforcement, legal groups and consumer advocacy groups, as well as specific groups representing the elderly.

We also heard from business groups and from some of the businesses that would be directly affected by the proposed changes. We heard about regulatory burden and the need for clear rules to avoid inadvertent non-compliance. Some businesses felt they needed time to adjust before new rules would come into force and have been asking for more consumer and business education, and better enforcement of existing rules. Those very same comments are also coming through loud and clear from our stakeholders and consumers, and that was as recently as the consideration of amendments during the recent Standing Committee on Justice Policy public hearings.

Speaker, the changes we propose respond, I submit, to all of the concerns raised. A streamlined act would make it easier for businesses to understand and comply. Businesses, in particular small businesses, would benefit from clearer, simpler contract requirements and, of course, consumers, likewise, would as well. The consolidation of contract disclosure rules could reduce the burden on those businesses that enter into contracts with consumers through multiple channels.

In some cases, our proposals would reduce burden for businesses and actually help level the playing field by targeting the few unscrupulous actors and avoiding unnecessary regulatory burden for the good actors. As we move forward, businesses would be consulted on the specifics of regulations and on the amount of time needed to bring their operations into compliance.

Our overall government strategy, as we make these proposals, Speaker, then, is that this proposed bill, this proposed legislation, is part of our government’s overall strategy for building a stronger Ontario—one that supports a fair and competitive economy, while also improving services and protections for consumers, for Ontarians. This is done by responding to market and technological changes, supporting longer-term economic growth and job creation by strengthening consumer protections and confidence in the marketplace. As I’ve said, after all, we are all consumers.

We know Ontario’s businesses are a key driver of the economy in that they create well-paying jobs for workers and growing communities all across our province. That is why our government has taken significant action to lower costs for businesses to help them compete, grow and weather today’s economic uncertainty. As my colleague the Minister of Finance outlined in the recent fall economic statement, in 2023, our government is enabling an estimated $8 billion in cost savings and supports for Ontario businesses, of which $3.6 billion would go to small businesses.

Reducing red tape is a key part of building a stronger economy, and since 2018, under the leadership of Premier Ford, our government has saved businesses, not-for-profit organizations and the broader public sector almost $1 billion—specifically, $939 million in gross annual regulatory compliance costs have been saved by reducing red tape, without impacting public or workplace safety.

We continue to introduce new tools to help build critical infrastructure faster and smarter, to attract investments and to attract more jobs and, at the same time, providing better services for our people as our population grows by at least 500,000 newcomers each year. We are on track for a population of 20 million Ontarians before this decade concludes. By remaining laser-focused on building a strong and resilient economy, we can roll out initiatives like the new Ontario Infrastructure Bank and a strengthened Invest Ontario Fund. In doing so, we help attract more leading companies to our province, we further support businesses already here and we create well-paying jobs in communities in Ontario.

Another critical element of our proposed legislation is the enhancement of enforcement powers to ensure the measures under the act are successful. That is what the rule of law is about. As I’ve indicated, any statute, any law is only as strong as its enforcement.

The Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, 2023 would maintain the current law’s intent and consumer protections, while better empowering and protecting consumers by allowing my ministry to have stronger enforcement powers against the few bad actors. The key is to target those unethical business practices without adding regulatory burden on the compliant, excellent business enterprises, large and small, that serve the public and provide value in goods and services sold to consumers.

In keeping with the principles of a modern regulator, my ministry takes an evidence-based and proportionate response to business non-compliance that focuses on addressing consumer harm. Before using its strongest enforcement tools, my ministry would need to be satisfied that there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe an offence under the proposed new act has been committed and that the public interest requires further action to be taken. That’s a conjunctive test that would be proposed—that would be the law if this proposal, this bill, is passed by this House.

Now, there are cases where a business uses an intermediary, like an online platform or a billing service. This effectively supports the business’ contravention of the act. A consumer may sign a contract for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning—also known as HVAC. The consumer may sign a contract for such services, goods and supplies by an aggressive salesperson who misrepresents the genuine costs of the contract. When the consumer realizes they have been a target of such an unfair business practice, they turn to the government and the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, to attempt to rescind the contract. However, the business continues to collect monthly payments through a third-party billing service. That is what is permitted and possible currently. So my ministry then could only issue compliance orders against those persons who are contravening the act, not the intermediaries. That means we cannot issue a compliance order against the billing agency directing it to stop collecting payments on behalf of that non-compliant business. Our proposed changes therefore would extend enforcement powers to cover the actions of intermediaries, like the billing agency, that assist the business in the contravention of the act.

Further, proposed changes, if passed, would assist my ministry in those cases in which a third party might be willing to co-operate with our efforts to address contraventions of the act by another business, but are hesitant to provide information voluntarily without a court order. Under the current act, my ministry would have to apply to the court for a search warrant. The execution of a search warrant by the ministry can be a highly disruptive process for the third party. The proposed changes, therefore, would authorize a justice of the peace to issue a production order upon application by an investigator to collect evidence. A production order puts greater control of the collection and release of information in the hands of the third party and is much less disruptive to the third party’s operations.

The new act would also allow for the sharing of information obtained over the course of exercising a power or carrying out a duty related to the administration of the Consumer Protection Act, 2023, with other government regulatory entities, and that would apply whether they are involved in consumer protection or not. So to be clear, that duty related to the administration of the act would allow for sharing of information with other government regulatory entities, consumer protection-related or not.

Let us remember that, under the proposed changes, businesses would be prohibited from including certain contract terms that could mislead consumers about their statutory rights. Similarly, the proposed changes could prohibit contract clauses that prevent consumers from sharing public reviews about a business’s products or services or seek to limit the business’s liability for damages arising out of its failure to deliver goods or services of a reasonable quality.

I want to stress that these stronger enforcement measures are not intended to add costs or burdens to businesses, particularly to the vast majority of businesses that are compliant and take pride in excellence and fairness in dealing with all of us who are consumers. Most businesses do provide that excellent service. They do take pride in their work, they value their good reputation and they want it to be shared with other customers. That is simply good business practice.

Schedule 2 of this proposed legislation addresses the Consumer Reporting Act. We know Ontario’s economic outlook is strongly affected by high inflation, along with the Bank of Canada’s rapid interest rate increases over the course of this calendar year. These are factors weighing on the provincial budget for the rest of this year and into the near and distant future. As our province faces economic uncertainty, so are all Ontarians, collectively and individually.

Along with the proposed new Consumer Protection Act, 2023, our government continues to find even more ways to protect consumers. Now more than ever, consumers recognize the importance of being able to access credit, to take part in the market and to monitor their overall financial well-being. Our proposed legislation has not only the first schedule dealing with the Consumer Protection Act overhaul but also a second schedule that addresses the Consumer Reporting Act. We are proposing to make amendments to the Consumer Reporting Act to provide all citizens and residents of Ontario with more tools to help them better protect their consumer or credit scores. This would provide consumers with easier access to their consumer reports and scores, along with additional tools to prevent the serious harms resulting from identity theft. These changes would particularly help seniors, newcomers and vulnerable Ontarians who may be more susceptible to identity theft.

The Consumer Reporting Act governs consumer reporting agencies, also known as credit bureaus or agencies. There are 29 such agencies or bureaus registered under the Consumer Reporting Act. Equifax and TransUnion are two of the largest. These agencies supply information about consumers’ credit histories, such as their borrowing and bill-paying habits. They provide those histories to third parties, and they include creditors, insurers, employers and landlords.

The amendments to the Consumer Reporting Act would, if passed, improve and clarify that act. Consumer reporting agencies would be able to effectively implement improved versions of provisions that were passed as amendments to the act in 2018 but have not yet been proclaimed in force. Those amendments made changes related to consumer access, to consumer reports and scores, security freezes and ministry enforcement powers. Consumers would be able to deploy more tools to correct and protect their information and seek recourse when agencies operate in contravention of the act and its regulations. My ministry would be able to enforce the act more effectively through enhanced compliance and enforcement tools.

Ontarians would also be able to receive free electronic access to their consumer reports and credit scores once per month, for free.

In developing these proposed amendments to the Consumer Reporting Act, ministry staff met with key stakeholders representing consumer reporting agencies, consumer groups, creditors, legal professionals and other industry groups to ensure additional changes would enable more consumer choice and clarity for reporting agencies. Upon passage of this bill, additional consultation would be needed to ensure that regulations are developed in a manner that works for both industry stakeholders and consumers.

Now, I want to talk about next steps and regulation development as I near the end of my submission today, Speaker. Bill 142 sets out a new framework for consumer protection. A significant portion of the act would require that new regulations be developed with the details of these requirements. As I mentioned earlier, the new act would not be proclaimed into force until these regulations are developed, consulted upon and approved; until then, we would still have in place the Consumer Protection Act of 2002, in force for the last 18 years.

By proposing to set out detailed rules on contract disclosures and amendments in regulation, we are providing ongoing flexibility to respond to emerging issues and market trends in the future because there are rapid changes as we speak, quarter by quarter, year by year. This also means wanting to know how rules can be enhanced and work better for everyone.

The many stakeholders affected by the 2023 proposed bill are aware that my ministry will be consulting them on draft regulations, and we will be continuing further discussion on implementation timelines. Given the vital importance of this legislation to both consumers and businesses, I know stakeholders will be highly engaged throughout this process. We will consider ways to ensure the best feedback possible. We want to listen, we have listened, and we will continue to listen to strengthen consumer protections in our province as much as possible.

Speaker, before I wrap up completely in my time here—and I thank everyone for their patience because I know this is a one-hour submission—I would like to raise another important matter. I’ve spoken in this House about our government’s commitment to address and reduce the misuse of notices of security interest, or NOSIs. These are instruments that are used abusively and as a form of blackmail against unsuspecting consumers by a few bad actors. This has been the subject of ongoing police investigations and has had significant media coverage; I spoke to CBC News about it just today.

We know that those few bad actors who use NOSIs to take advantage of vulnerable consumers are getting bolder by the day. So, on October 17, 2023, until last Friday, December 1, I launched public consultations on this issue. Our goal is to develop a comprehensive approach to address the misuse of NOSIs, which could include proposing changes to legislation or regulations, operational changes or other recommendations.

A NOSI is a notice that can be registered on the land registry system by a business when it finances or leases goods or services installed on a property. The usual use is associated with a water heater or a furnace, but it has been more widely used in an unfair and inappropriate way, even a way that rises to the level of criminal fraud. We have seen a massive increase from just over 400 NOSIs registered in the land registry system in 2001 to over 38,000 in 2022.

It’s important to note that this is not a lien. This is not an interest in land. It does not give the lenders or lessor an interest in or a claim against the land, but it is leveraged by bad actors to extort exorbitant fees and high interest and sometimes have the NOSI replaced with a registered charge or mortgage.

During our consultations, we received many submissions from affected consumers, and we will continue to study all of the submissions that were made by individuals and groups up until last Friday. Through submissions on the new Consumer Protection Act, we heard from groups like Ontario’s Advocacy Centre for the Elderly and from police services about the improper use of NOSIs. We have not yet decided what specific action to take with respect to NOSIs in the here and now, but the purpose of the consultation period was to determine what we can do now under existing legislation and regulations, bearing in mind that section 60 of the new act of 2023 does contain reforms that will be of great assistance when proclaimed.

Speaker and members of this House, the legislation we have presented, I submit, is comprehensive. I know it has taken a good deal of time to digest it and understand it. I appreciate the support on second reading from all members of the opposition. I appreciate the work of my ministry team and all who made this possible and all who have consulted on it and submitted on it. I hope and believe that this deserves unanimous consent of this House.

I want to first begin by congratulating the minister and his ministry on this legislation and also congratulating him for personally taking the entire lead to describe and discuss this bill that I know he’s worked hard on.

As he’s discussed, he’s reviewed the submissions. There were 21 submissions that came on this legislation and pretty much all of them suggested that this was definitely supportable, but that more work had to be done, that more work needed to be done with regard to this. As a result, we drafted in the opposition 34 amendments to this legislation, of which 33 were rejected.

At justice committee, government members did suggest and state that they would very strongly consider and look at these amendments and recommendations in the regulatory phase and the further consultations on this bill. Will the minister confirm that he, in fact, will be doing so?