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—

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?

Questions?

Speaker, through you to the minister: Congratulations, Minister, on that one-hour presentation.

Speaker, you should know that the minister has been a long-standing advocate for seniors and other sectors of our community, particularly the vulnerable populations in the region of Durham—that’s on the verge of a million people. I’d like the minister to speak about his views on the impacts of this legislation as it relates to seniors, and in particular, vulnerable populations and those with disabilities.

I thank the member for his question and for his input. I was, of course, present for my deputation to start off the committee’s analysis of the bill, and I was present to observe, as well, some of the deliberations.

One of the amendments that was proposed by the opposition was a plain-language quote. But I submit that this is captured in the existing term “comprehensible” in the provisions that we proposed, so while we welcome the input that was given in the proposed amendments, we didn’t accept the proposals because we believe the act was sufficient in its terminology.

But we welcome further input from all, including the opposition members and including the member himself, with respect to the regulation-making process.

What’s important are the core principles. When the rules are clear, then everyone understands, consumers and businesses. And secondly, when an unscrupulous business attempts to put something in that violates the law, that is in contravention of what is identified as an unconscionable practice or an unfair practice, it’s void—end of story. Caveat emptor is fully abolished by the provisions of this act.

At the same time, there are matters before the courts, both civil and criminal, that I can’t comment on directly, and I have to let those play out independently of my role as a minister and our role as parliamentarians, respecting the separation of powers.

Why now? Because we’ve seen such rapid change in how we interact with each other and how businesses interact with consumers—changes that were never even anticipated just two decades ago. What was thought to be modern legislation has quickly become outdated, and the piecemeal amendments that we could make were just not going to be sufficient. So with the input we received, starting in March 2020, it was thought best to completely replace the existing legislation and allow us to keep up with the times, and keep the legislation and regulations associated with it nimble enough to continue to keep up with times that will continue to change rapidly.

To be clear, the bill applies to most consumer transactions, not all consumer transactions. The member’s colleague on the other side of the House asked about the Home Construction Regulatory Authority and the fact that consumers who purchased a house were left without their deposit or their home. That particular regulatory authority is not addressed in this act. It’s part of consumer protection—it’s within my ministry. We have tried to cover most consumer transactions, but keep in mind that there are 12 regulatory authorities or administrative authorities under my ministry’s jurisdiction, and not everything is covered by this specific legislation. But we definitely cover all consumer protection.

I was very happy to hear the minister say multiple times this afternoon that the law is only as strong as its enforcement, because I have constituents in Ottawa West–Nepean who, five years ago, paid tens of thousands of dollars for deposits for new homes that have yet to be delivered. Twenty-nine months ago, they filed a complaint with the Home Construction Regulatory Authority and have not received any kind of action from the HCRA since then.

They appealed to the former Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery in May and to the Premier in June. They were here in October to appeal to the minister. It’s been six weeks since I sent a letter to the minister with additional information showing how this developer has been skirting legislative requirements, and yet my constituents have not even received a response, let alone any action from this government.

I’m wondering, when can my constituents count on the minister to enforce the law and protect homebuyers in Ontario?

Next question?

I want to thank the member for his remarks.

As I’m looking over this bill, I want to agree with colleagues who’ve said there’s lots that’s supportable here.

I’m wondering if the member could elaborate with his expertise on whether or not the entire payday loan industry may be implicated by this particular bill—payday loans being regulated provincially, the maximum interest rates being set federally. I note in particular that the language in the bill talks about it being an unconscionable act to enter into a contract with a consumer if the person knows or ought to know that there is no reasonable probability the consumer will be able to pay the total amount owing under the contract. I just want to point out to the House that, currently, it is the business practice of this industry to allow for short-term loans of amounts of $1,500 or less, over two weeks, to have interest rates between 400% to 600%.

I want to ask the minister, given his expertise, if he thinks it’s fair, given what Bill 142 has tried to accomplish, to allow this industry to continue to gouge people with disabilities, low-income folks, people who need help. Does he believe the bill provides an—

Thank you to the member for his hour speech—not everybody can just do that. I know the minister is a quick study. I think he was associate minister for a couple of days, and then he jumped into being the minister, and what a great minister he is. I’m very proud to have him leading this charge.

I sat in the committee hearings and listened to our advocates out there—businesses, seniors’ groups, various groups.

My question to the minister: Why should we be doing this now? Why is it important that we get this done today?

Today I rise as the official opposition’s critic for consumer protection and lead response to the third reading of government Bill 142, known as the Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, 2023. This bill received the support of Ontario’s official opposition at second reading. The need for a more modern consumer protection act is essential in this rapidly changing online consumer market and time of increasingly cunning sales practices often targeted at our most vulnerable.

I begin by acknowledging and thanking the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery and all ministry staff. He has said that this bill is the culmination of three years of consultation, and I thank all who have contributed in this process. While much of the legislation we debate here represents anything from minor to major amendments of acts, this bill entirely repeals and replaces the Consumer Protection Act, 2002—certainly no minor task.

There were also 21 written submissions in response to the tabling of this bill. I will now name and acknowledge all of them as follows: the Law Commission of Ontario; the Huron Perth Community Legal Clinic; Community Legal Aid; the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association; the Ontario Bar Association; Barbara Captijn; the Canadian Bankers Association; the Canadian Federation of Independent Business; the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly; the Canadian Telecommunications Association; Canadians for Properly Built Homes; CanAge; Community Legal Clinic-Simcoe, Haliburton, Kawartha Lakes; the Consumers Council of Canada; Reliance Home Comfort; Eastlink; and Nina Deeb.

Furthermore, we heard directly from the following who recently participated in hearings held by the Standing Committee on Justice Policy. Their informative presentations were appreciated and it is important to name and acknowledge them here in this prestigious House of government. I will also be sharing excerpts from some of these submissions within my presentation today. They were Nina Deeb; Barbara Captijn; Marina Pavlović; the president of Canadians for Properly Built Homes, Karen Somerville; and the executive director of the Huron Perth Community Legal Clinic, Jamie Hildebrand.

From the Law Commission of Ontario, we heard from executive director Nye Thomas and legal counsel Ryan Fritsch. From TransUnion Canada, we heard from director of government relations Clarke Cross and managing counsel Johanna FitzPatrick.

The Ontario Bar Association sent their chair of the business law section, Dan Edmondstone; secretary of their board and counsel, Mohsen Seddigh; and member of their property security committee, Jennifer Babe. Representatives of CanAge were as follows: CEO Laura Tamblyn Watts; senior policy and affairs specialist, Nathan Welch; and policy officers Borana Demaj and Aiman Malhi.

As well, we heard from Graham Webb, executive director of the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly; the Consumers Council of Canada, represented by their president, Chris Ballard and executive director Kenneth Whitehurst; and Angelina Mason, senior legal counsel and vice president of the Canadian Bankers Association. Finally, the committee heard Lilian Bahgat from Community Legal Aid, University of Windsor, and the Canadian Prepaid Providers Organization, who sent their executive director, Jennifer Tramontana, and legal adviser, Tracy Molino.

Most written submissions and committee hearing presentations stated that this new consumer protection act would in fact strengthen protections, but most also recommended that still more legislative work was required for better consumer protection, especially for the most vulnerable. When asked at justice committee whether this legislation went far enough to ideally protect consumers, virtually all said no.

As a strong example of the thought, work and relevant experience that these submissions represent to the bill-drafting process, I will now share some of the highlights of the submission from the Law Commission of Ontario, beginning with their rationale, methods and aims. Many of our amendments came from the LCO submission, and I highly recommend everyone read them as well as all other submissions to the committee.

The Law Commission of Ontario was established in 2008 and is a premier law reform agency here in our province, where they broadly consult Ontarians on law reform issues and have completed several major projects in a wide variety of legal issues: “The LCO’s key recommendation is that Bill 142 be amended to establish a modern and flexible legal framework to protect Ontario’s consumers from the well-documented risks and business practices in online ... contracting. Online consumer contracts are the most significant new form of contracting for Ontario’s consumers since the CPA was passed more than 20 years ago. Bill 142 gives the provincial government the singular opportunity to modernize Ontario’s consumer protection legislation to address these risks.

“Fortunately, the reforms and measures needed to address many of these risks have been researched and tested in many other jurisdictions. As a result, the LCO is recommending several practical, targeted and proven amendments to the current bill.”

Further on, they list their recommendations: “LCO Recommendations to ... Bill 142:

“The LCO commends the province for adopting several recommendations the LCO identified in its consultation paper and submission to Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery, including:

“—expanding the right to cancel contracts if notice/disclosure do not comply with the CPA;

“—adding a ‘discoverability doctrine’ for unfair terms and practices;

“—limiting business’ ability to unilaterally amend, extend or renew contracts without express consumer consent;

“—prohibiting contractual terms or punitive actions that limit online reviews;

“—expanding some forms of consumer remedies;

“—enacting more penalties and fines, including new administrative fines and court-ordered penalties.

“These provisions will improve consumer protection in Ontario, improve clarity and compliance for business, and ensure greater accountability and transparency for consumer rights in Ontario.

“The LCO also agrees that Bill 142 establishes a framework that, as” the minister “suggests, ‘can better adapt to today’s evolving marketplace’ and ‘make it easier for businesses to comply with consumer protection rules in our increasingly digital-first marketplace.’

“Notwithstanding these reforms, the LCO believes Bill 142 does not go far enough to protect Ontario’s online consumers and businesses. As a result, we recommend several practical, targeted and proven amendments to the current bill:

“—including more explicit recognition of online contracting and establish an explicit authority to prescribe regulations governing online consumer contracts;

“—eliminating the CPA’s monetary threshold unless explicitly exempt by regulation;

“—improving consumer protections against unilateral contract changes;

“—improving notice and disclosure for online consumers;

“—prohibiting the use of ‘dark pattern’ practices designed to deceive Ontario’s consumers;

“—including stronger protections against unfair or unconscionable online practices;

“—including stronger enforcement by government and remedies for consumers.

“The LCO believes many of these reforms could be achieved through legislative or regulatory measures....

“The LCO recognizes that effective consumer protection reform depends not just on legislative amendments but regulatory guidance and other initiatives.

“The LCO understands there is likely to be an opportunity in 2024 to comment on potential regulatory reforms and other initiatives. The LCO’s final consumer protection report will address these issues.”

The LCO also submitted a list of the amendments they referenced in this letter, as well as their June 2023 consultation paper, entitled Consumer Protection in the Digital Marketplace.

As you can see, they clearly stated that this newly proposed consumer protection act still requires more protection.

Speaker, similar to the LCO, most presentations to committee, whether written or verbal, requested changes to this legislation, with many providing detailed amendments to further build on the consumer protection aims of this bill. We in the official opposition poured through these submissions and tabled 34 amendments in justice committee to further enhance consumer protection within this legislation. Again, I will be sharing many of these amendments within debate today, and I would like to again thank those presenters who made these excellent amendment suggestions, as well as a special thanks to my staff, legislative counsel and our brilliant researcher, Caitlin Hipkiss.

Consumer protection is and should be a non-partisan issue. The official opposition recognize the improvements to consumer protection contained within this new act and, as such, supported it at second reading. But as with all bills, the committee process allows for changes and improvements to legislation at the clause-by-clause stage. There, bills go through final refinements and improvements before they are retabled for the third and final reading.

The 34 amendments tabled by the NDP official opposition were crafted with the weight of the experience and wisdom of the experts who participated, such as the Law Commission of Ontario, the bar association and many others. I will now summarize the NDP official opposition amendments to this proposed consumer protection act and present them to you within the framework of the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery media release on October 23, at the time of the bill’s first reading.

The ministry distilled the bill down to five highlights of how they intend to improve consumer protection with their new act. You will now see how each of our amendments provided even further, much-needed consumer protection in these areas.

(1) “Prohibiting unfair business practices such as taking advantage of a consumer’s inability to understand language in a contract.”

We proposed amendments to ensure that contracts were not only comprehensible but that they be written in plain language. We called for the use of key disclosure boxes that summarize the key points of a contract, adding better clarity for consumers, and we also called for contracts to be properly accessible, including having the right to a free paper copy and ensuring that consumers who required necessary accommodations during the contracting phase would receive them. Finally, we tabled an amendment that would ensure any contract with a consumer who is mentally incapable at the time the contract is made should be presumptively void.

(2) “Limiting when businesses can make one-sided contract amendments, renewals, and extensions without express consumer consent.” We sought the clear establishment of a good-faith requirement on unilateral contract changes, which are prevalent.

(3) “Prohibiting businesses from creating unnecessary barriers when consumers are trying to cancel a subscription or membership-based contract.” We proposed expanding the cooling off period from 10 days to 30 days. We also recognized that dark patterns have emerged as a dangerous trend that pose a threat to consumers, and proposed amendments to prohibit their use.

(4) “Providing fairer exit options to consumers and their families who find themselves locked indefinitely into a time-share contract as well as homeowners tied to long-term leases for home comfort appliances like HVAC systems.” We tabled an amendment to further improve the exit option for time-shares from the proposed 25 years down to 10 years. We also called for goods and services to be clearly separated in purchase-plus-cost leases, that these leases automatically be discharged if the contract has been performed or forgiven, and that credit reporting agencies be notified of the termination.

(5) “Providing stronger enforcement powers to better enable the ministry to hold bad actors accountable includeing doubling maximum fines to further deter offences and egregious business behaviour.” We proposed amendments to the types of damages that could be used as court remedies, including statutory and disgorgement damages. We also suggested that rebates, in addition to prizes, as mentioned in this bill, be included as prohibited representations. As well, we tabled an amendment that would ensure the Consumer Protection Act would always apply, regardless of the value of the transaction.

As you can see, these amendments would strengthen and improve this newly proposed Consumer Protection Act in all of its highlighted areas and more. So I will now provide you with details on many of these amendments and inform the House on whether the government decided to include them in the final copy of this bill that we are debating here today.

Let’s begin with our amendment intended to improve the government’s aim to introduce a new Consumer Protection Act that would “prohibit unfair business practices such as taking advantage of a consumer’s inability to understand language in a contract.” Okay, so let’s begin with our amendment requiring that disclosures be clear and not misleading. This amendment came from the Law Commission of Ontario, who stated: “Section 8(2) para 17 makes it an ‘unfair practice for a person to make a false, misleading or deceptive representation ... using exaggeration, innuendo or ambiguity as to a material fact or failing to state a material fact if such use or failure deceives or tends to deceive.’

“The need to ensure clear, comprehensible, and prominent disclosure is acute in online consumer contracts. Accordingly, section 4(1) should be amended, or regulations prescribed, to require disclosure in online consumer contracts to be ‘clear, comprehensible, prominent and not misleading.’” The government voted this down.

How about requiring them to be accessible? Our next amendment was to ensure that disclosures of information must be accessible. Similar to the previous amendment, this was also suggested by the LCO, who noted, “The need to protect vulnerable consumers is acute in online consumer contracts. Accessibility should be a ‘core protection’ in contracts, consistent with the Ontario Human Rights Code and Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Whereas ‘accommodation’ is typically made individually and on request, ‘accessibility’ confirms the duty to create an inclusive environment for all.” An accommodation can take many forms. The spirit of this important amendment is in line with Ontario’s commitment to human rights and the AODA. Unfortunately, the government voted no to this as well.

So how about placing key information sections in a prominent disclosure box for online consumers? Since the government was unwilling to include additional language to ensure that disclosures be clear and not misleading as well as accessible, would they at least agree to ensuring it would be placed in a way that a consumer could not miss? We would all benefit from this requirement as we have all faced terms of service and other disclosures added as an incomprehensible wall of text, both difficult to read and comprehend. Imagine key information presented in bullet form right there, front and centre, highlighting the key obligations for consumers. This, in fact, would benefit honest businesses from any headaches that could arise from unintended disputes.

In the words of the LCO, “The LCO recommends two important strategies to improve notice to consumers in online contracts: (1) specifying ‘key information’ that must be disclosed in online contracts and (2) requiring a ‘prominent disclosure box.’

“‘Key information’ would relay the practical risks and consequences of an online contract to consumers in plain language and do so prominently. This is the original bargain at the heart of standard form contracts. It puts risks and consequences to consumers upfront in a simple bullet list, rather than buried in the confusing language of contract drafting.

“‘Key information’ disclosure is also crucial for other consumers: Youth, the elderly, and other vulnerable groups need to understand what they are agreeing to. Key information is particularly supportive of parents, relatives, or friends to better assist vulnerable consumers.

“‘Key information’ will help ameliorate the use of buried, implied, and vague terms typical in most online consumer contracts. It will also encourage a marketplace where suppliers compete on terms and to the benefit of consumers.

“Consistent with s.17(1) and (2), ‘key information’ would be made available before entering a consumer contract and with the express option to decline it. These rights should be precedent to any consumer disclosure of personal details, contact information, credit card information, and the like.

“Key information and prominent disclosure boxes have proven to a very effective consumer protection. Current examples include banking disclosure requirements mandated in Canada and the ‘Schumer Box’ that summarizes credit card terms in the United States. In consultations LCO heard from several businesses who use prominent disclosure boxes voluntarily and find them effective for both parties.”

“Development of a category or categories of ‘key information’ will also be able to target well known and concerning practices in the digital marketplace while leaving honest businesses without further regulatory burdens. These require both explicit notice and consent, and may also identify issues that are, or may be, unfair or unconscionable to consumers in an ever-evolving digital marketplace.”

This too was voted against, so we tried asking that contracts and disclosures be written in plain language. Now, the new act called for language to be “comprehensible,” but remember, what is comprehensible to a nuclear physicist might not be comprehensible to an everyday consumer. According to plainlanguage.gov, plain language is “communication your audience can understand the first time they read or hear it.” The audience is the everyday consumer.

Further, this comes from the International Plain Language Federation: “A communication is in plain language if its wording, structure and design are so clear that the intended” audience “can easily find what they need, understand what they find, and use that information.” I believe we can all agree that this requirement would represent an even higher and much-needed standard for consumer protection.

Now, I’m sure you’re all convinced that this is an improvement, but let’s hear the rationale of the LCO for this amendment. They stated, “Plain language requirements are understood as being more than ‘clear and comprehensible.’ Plain language requirements connote action. In contracts, it could help consumers find what they need; understand what they find the first time they read it; and use what they find to meet their needs.

“This would concisely communicate the consumers’ risks and consequences if they enter into a contract. It reduces the need for consumers to complain or litigate when terms are later discovered.

“Business would also benefit. A plain language requirement would protect businesses from void terms and contracts under section 5 (where contractual ‘ambiguities are to the benefit of the consumer’). Plain language requirements” are “increasingly legislated in the United States, such as the federal Plain Writing Act of 2010.”

Yet again, the government struck down this plain-language-requirement amendment in committee.

We then submitted an amendment to ensure that consumers be provided information in paper-based written form when requested and that it be free. While those who communicate exclusively online trends ever upward, there are many who still require and prefer hard-copy information for a variety of reasons. The reasons may be rooted in accessibility issues, including access to reliable internet or a computer altogether, and many more. Many are our elderly. When debating this in committee, my colleague and seatmate from Toronto Centre rightly pointed out to look around the room at the papers on all of our desks, and I can say the same right now here in our chamber. The government also said no to this, as well.

We also submitted another suggested amendment from the LCO that would require necessary accommodations to a consumer who requires it during the contracting process. The LCO stated, “Section 9(2) para 1: Make it an unfair practice to ‘take advantage’ of a vulnerable consumer ‘because of disability, ignorance, illiteracy, inability to understand the language of a consumer contract or similar factors.’

“Disability advocates strongly recommend that the CPA additionally reflect language of the Ontario Human Rights Code that would make it a violation of consumer rights to fail to accommodate consumers throughout the contracting process. It was emphasized the CPA could provide more immediate, practical and appropriate remedies for vulnerable consumers than litigating through Ontario’s Human Rights Tribunal.” Again, the government refused this.

It goes without saying that all these suggested changes were fair and represented an improvement to the government’s aim to “prohibit unfair business practices such as taking advantage of a consumer’s inability to understand language in a contract.” Yet, all of these amendments were refused.

That leads me to the final amendment for this first highlighted section. This essential amendment was requested by the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, known as ACE, a community legal clinic for low-income seniors across the province. This clinic is among the longest-running legal clinics in Canada to specialize in legal challenges faced by seniors. Speaker, this amendment would presumptively void “any ... contract entered into with a consumer who is mentally incapable at the time the contract” is made, and voidable at the sole prerogative of the consumer and/or their decision-maker without any time limitations by operation of statute.

In the words of ACE, “In view of the rampant financial abuse of low-income, cognitively impaired, community-dwelling older adults, these amendments would further reflect the nature of the marketplace and are immediately necessary to ensure the fair administration of justice and the enforcement of consumer rights.” Speaker, the government voted this one down, as well.

What is worse than a predatory salesperson preying on our most vulnerable—perhaps an elderly widow on a meagre pension and living with early dementia? Often, it is the children of such elderly parents who discover that their loved one was scammed into a contract they didn’t have the capacity to understand, signed up to a product or service they couldn’t have possibly agreed to. This is the one powerful amendment that would have enabled those affected individuals and their families the right to have these contracts easily declared null and void, no matter what length of time that had passed since they were signed. The government wouldn’t even support this.

So let’s move on to the next highlighted section: “Limiting when businesses can make one-sided contract amendments, renewals and extensions without express consumer consent.” Speaker, we tabled one amendment applicable to this highlight. This amendment would establish a good faith requirement and unilateral contract changes to balance consumer interests with routine business practices. Here was yet another reasonable amendment ensuring that once a contract has been signed, any changes to the contract must be balanced and in good faith. Imagine signing a contract and, after the fact, having the other side unilaterally change a fundamental aspect like price, delivery date or other terms without your consent.

The rationale of the LCO for suggesting this amendment is as follows: “Section 19 should establish a ‘duty of good faith’ in relation to unilateral contract changes to balance consumer interests with routine business practices within reasonable standards of fair dealing. The LCO recommends the approach endorsed by the American Law Institute (ALI) (5th Restatement on Consumer Contracts, 2022 at chapter 3). The ALI sets out four requirements allowing unilateral changes to a consumer contract:

“—notice of the unilateral changes;

“—a chance for the consumer to exit the contract;

“—a requirement for affirmative consent to the modified services/product; or

“—minor amendments can be made ‘in good faith.’

“This amendment improves consumer protection while allowing suppliers to make minor amendments that would otherwise ‘spam’ consumers with inconsequential or routine changes.” Yet again, the government voted down this amendment.

I will now move to the next highlighted section: “Prohibiting businesses from creating unnecessary barriers when consumers are trying to cancel a subscription or membership-based contract.” Speaker, the cooling-off period is a common part of consumer rights legislation and exists in many jurisdictions, allowing consumers to cancel a purchase and return supplied goods for a full refund. We asked for it to be increased to 30 days, which was promptly rejected.

Now I will move on to the next amendment involving what are called “dark patterns,” also referred to as “deceptive design patterns.” These are online user interfaces created to trick users into things like signing up for something they don’t want, and yes, they can make it difficult, prohibitive or even seemingly impossible to cancel a subscription.

In their 2023 report, the Law Commission of Ontario discussed the need for the regulation of dark patterns. In their own words, “‘dark patterns’ are practices that aim to obscure information and coerce or trick consumers into consenting to” terms of service “and other business practices without understanding what they are consenting to. Leading studies suggest the ‘core of dark patterns is their objectionable effect on consumers’ ability to make free and informed choices, with the likelihood of entailing consumer detriment.’”

This suggests that dark pattern practices play a role in subverting the effective operation of consumer protection principles, including fundamental principles like notice and disclosure. In response to these impacts, leading studies further find that—and again, from the LCO:

“—Market forces alone are unlikely to address dark patterns effectively and may further incentivise use of dark patterns;

“—Disclosure and transparency measures are not sufficient in isolation to protect consumers from dark pattern coercion;

“—The effectiveness of certain kinds of disclosures is mixed and strongly dependent on their design. In some contexts, disclosure requirements may harm consumers by, for example, burdening them with ‘consent spam’;

“—Complaints-based mechanisms are too narrow, reactive and slow to effectively regulate practices as varied and widespread as dark patterns;

“—Priority should be given to regulating ‘quick wins’ for easily defined and obviously deceptive dark pattern practices—like hidden information, false hierarchies, consumer option pre-selections and choices that are hard to cancel/opt out—while further investigating more subtle and challenging issues.”

Speaker, dark patterns are on the rise. I think that we can all imagine a time when we had great difficulty trying to unsubscribe from a service, leading to even greater frustration.

As I’ve mentioned earlier, we have all faced a wall of incredibly long text that is required to be accepted before proceeding to a sale or enter into an agreement, but how many of us, if any, actually read, let alone comprehend, the terms?

Dark patterns also occur at the retail level. Price comparison prevention refers to when a retailer makes it difficult to compare the price of an item with another item. Online, obscured pricing is when the total cost of the product or service is hidden until the last step of the checkout process. Sometimes additional items may appear in the checkout cart, like insurance or similar services without your knowledge. Hidden costs like shipping and handling can also appear to be added at the last and final stages of a checkout screen. All of these tactics are what are referred to as dark patterns, requiring consumers to be more vigilant than ever.

As the LCO pointed out, “A 2021 OECD survey of online shoppers in 13 countries reveals that around 70% of consumers who have faced a problem in e-commerce simply trust the terms and conditions of an online purchase to be acceptable, rather than to actually read them before every online purchase.”

Speaker, we called for these dark patterns to be reined in, but the government disagreed and the amendment failed.

The next highlight was “providing fairer exit options to consumers and their families who find themselves locked indefinitely into a time-share contract as well as homeowners tied to a long-term leases for home comfort appliances like HVAC systems.”

We tabled an amendment to further improve the exit option for time-shares from the proposed 25 years down to 10 years. We also called for goods and services to be clearly separated in purchase-plus-cost leases and credit score protection when these leases are terminated.

At justice committee, Graham Webb, representing the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, said that when it comes to time-shares, 25 years can be a life sentence. Speaker, many who enter into time-shares are seniors. Many of us have heard of stories of couples locked into time-share agreements that they couldn’t get out of after suffering a personal tragedy or health issue that compromised their ability to enjoy the property.

Allowing consumers an automatic exit option at 25 years, as suggested by this bill, is an improvement, but is it enough? The Advocacy Centre for the Elderly noted that “25 years in relation to an older adult is a very long period of time. Someone who buys a time-share in midlife or while nearing retirement may continue to be saddled with the time-share obligation well into retirement and after their health and financial conditions have fundamentally changed. A shorter period of 10 years would more closely reflect the dynamic health and financial conditions that are incumbent on older adults as they pass from midlife to early and late retirement. A 10-year limitation of time-share agreements would more accurately provide the type of consumer protection that older adults tend to require.”

We in the official opposition agreed with this recommendation and tabled an amendment to reduce the automatic exit option to 10 years. The government again said no.

Now, I will move onto two recommended amendments suggested by the Ontario Bar Association. Established in 1907, the Ontario Bar Association is the largest and most diverse volunteer lawyer association in Ontario, with close to 16,000 members practising in every area of law in every region of the province. Their submission was “prepared by a working group composed of members of the OBA’s business law, class-action law and civil litigation sections in addition to members of the personal property security law subcommittee and other subject matter experts. Members of these sections include barristers and solicitors in large, medium, and small firms, and in-house counsel across every region in Ontario. These members have deep experience and expertise in dealing with matters related to consumer protection.”

The OBA asked that the cost of goods and services should be clearly separated in a purchase-cost-plus lease. Their submission stated, “The introduction of a regulated buyout schedule is a positive addition to the act. We recommend mandating that suppliers separate the cost of goods and services, and that the buyout figure for the goods factor into depreciation and the amounts already paid, excluding the cost of services that would never be provided after termination.

“Requirements around a buyout schedule are important, as this is a favoured tactic by bad actors to pressure consumers into paying unreasonably large sums to terminate their leases (and in many cases, to discharge the associated NOSI on their title). It is often the case that consumers are unaware that a NOSI has been placed on their property until they are the midst of selling or refinancing, and therefore under external pressure to quickly resolve the issue. The details of the buyout regime are not included in the act and will instead come through future regulations, so we are not able to comment on the particulars of the buyout schedule at this time.

“We do want to note that these future regulations should factor in the common situation where the costs of goods and services are blended together, making it impossible for the consumer to know what the actual price of the goods is aside from the services. The cost attributed to services can often far exceed the value or payment of the goods itself, yet the consumer is unaware of the situation. When considering a buyout, it is not fair for a consumer to pay for the price of services that they will never receive in the event of a buyout. To this end, we recommend mandating that suppliers must separate the costs of goods and services, and that the buyout figure for the goods factor in depreciation and the amounts already paid and exclude cost of services that would never be provided after termination.”

Again, the government did not support this amendment, and it failed. As you’ve just heard, this amendment involves notices of security interest, known as NOSIs, a type of lien that many unsuspecting consumers find on their home after interacting with a home equipment salesperson, very often involving HVACs. In recent years, many consumers have been preyed upon in increasing numbers by HVAC salespersons and their companies, ending up with several NOSIs on their properties totalling tens of thousands of dollars or more. As you can expect, many consumers find themselves on a wild goose chase trying to discharge these NOSIs, often being forced to unjustly pay. I shared examples of this harm during the second reading of this bill, and since then, I continue to hear more stories of affected consumers.

As is known, the government is currently holding a consultation on NOSIs running parallel to this bill. I again urge the government to consider all options in protecting consumers against NOSIs. Increasingly, we are hearing from consumer protection advocates, lawyers and consumers calling for an end to NOSIs altogether, especially on HVAC sales.

I recently spoke with an experienced lawyer who referred to these NOSIs as nothing more than “extortion tools” and called for their ban, stating that the companies using them have other options to protect themselves.

This leads me to the next Ontario Bar Association suggested amendment, which could improve the current situation with NOSIs. This amendment added language that purchase-cost-plus leases be discharged if the contracts had been performed or forgiven.

In the words of the association, “The OBA strongly supports the addition of a statutory requirement for suppliers to discharge NOSIs on cancelled contracts. Lingering NOSIs was a problem in the old act that could only be dealt with through the Superior Court of Justice. This section could potentially be expanded to include all cancelled, terminated, or otherwise concluded contracts. This is a problem for many contracts (including, for example, high-interest loans) and should have broad application.”

Yet again, the government voted no.

How about the OBA’s request that “suppliers should be required to notify relevant credit reporting agencies about the subject consumer debt and security being terminated or satisfied, so that the consumer’s credit reports are cleaned.”

Again, the government would not support this.

Speaker, I ask you, how does rejecting these sensible amendments help consumers?

Finally, I will now move on to the final highlighted area of this newly proposed Consumer Protection Act, entitled, “providing stronger enforcement powers to better enable the ministry to hold bad actors accountable including doubling maximum fines to further deter offences and egregious business behaviour.”

At the end of the day, all of these new powers hinge on enforcement. A government can set up all the new rules and laws it wants, but without strong deterrence, bad actors will continue their bad business as usual.

Firstly, we tabled an amendment that would ensure that the Consumer Protection Act would apply regardless of the value of the purchase or transaction. This amendment would remove the $50 monetary threshold for the CPA to apply. The rationale for this sensible amendment is provided by the Law Commission of Ontario as follows: “LCO consultations broadly supported elimination of CPA minimum monetary thresholds. British Columbia and other jurisdictions do not have a monetary threshold, ensuring all digital consumers are protected. This is an important reform because:

“—many of the largest platforms and most common services used by Ontarians are provided on a low- or no-cost basis. These are some of the biggest services used by consumers and should not be exempt from consumer protections.

“—Ontarians may be required to use online products for work, school, or to access government services with no option to accept or reject the terms of service.

“—many Ontarians also rely on online products in which small ‘microtransactions’ fall short of minimum monetary thresholds but have significant value over time.

“Experience in jurisdictions with no minimum threshold—such as British Columbia and elsewhere—demonstrates the risks to businesses of this change are minimal and that trivial complaints go through ministry complaints process or courts, both of which dissuade vexatious complaints.

“For clarity and certainty, the LCO recommends that the CPA 2023 specify there is no minimum transaction threshold unless the threshold is otherwise exempt by regulation.”

The government disagreed, and its members voted this down too.

The Ontario Bar Association also suggested an amendment that would expand the list of false and misleading practices to prohibit the misuse of rebates. Bad actors sometimes lure consumers by offering or misrepresenting prizes or rebates with purchases. For example, a consumer might be led to believe that they were eligible for a large rebate when in fact they were not. The association wrote, “The OBA supports the expanded list of false, misleading and deceptive practices in section 8 of the act and would recommend adding explicit mention of rebates to the list of examples in section 8(2). While the general categories in section 8(2) may be broad enough to capture rebates, it would be beneficial to specifically mention this as reference to such rebates is a common deceptive practice used by bad actors. By way of example, bad actors will tell consumers that they will receive substantial government rebates in order to mislead consumers as to the actual amount they will be paying out of pocket.”

The government voted no again.

Finally, we tabled amendments that would expand consumer remedies by allowing a court to order statutory and disgorgement damages. Statutory damages would allow a consumer to opt for damages defined in legislation and regulation as an alternative to court-ordered damages. This makes enforcement faster and more predictable and clarifies non-compliance risks to businesses. Here’s a quote from the LCO on this matter: “LCO consultations demonstrate support for adopting a model of statutory damages into CPA 2023. Statutory damages would allow a consumer to opt for damages defined in legislation/regulation as an alternative to court-ordered damages.

“This makes enforcement faster and more predictable and clarifies non-compliance risks to businesses.

“The LCO also heard that existing damages for consumers—including exemplary and punitive—set a high legal and evidentiary bar and are often of such a low amount that the consumer has little incentive to act on their rights.

“A scheme for statutory damages could also mirror regulations governing fines and penalties issued by the minister (as prescribed under s. 108) and better ensure the ability of consumers to pursue rights where the minister may not have the capacity or desire to investigate and issue orders.

“The best-known statutory damages scheme in Canada is the Copyright Act s. 38.1, which has been in operation for over two decades. The LCO’s recommendation proposes to establish a statutory right to damages in legislation while leaving prescribed amounts to regulation.”

The government voted no.

With regard to disgorgement, the LCO stated, “CPA 2023, s. 69(2-3) specifies that a consumer who successfully brings an action under the act may seek: court order to recover ‘full payment’ to which they are entitled; ‘three times the amount of refund;’ and/or ‘the court may order exemplary or punitive damages or such other relief as the court considers proper.’

“The LCO heard that damages available to consumers are generally for low amounts, while punitive damages set a high legal and evidentiary bar for consumers to meet (such as having to show clear intent and gross negligence) and are only available by court order. Consumers consequently have little incentive to act on their rights in most transactions. In fact, for many consumers and transactions, it would be a disproportionate personal expense to enforce their rights. In addition, these types of damages may not address practices and online contracting that impact consumer interests but which do not cause direct losses.

“Disgorgement is a type of damages based on ill-gotten gains rather than causing a measurable harm. Claimants can seek damages not just for how much they’ve been harmed, but also in some proportion to how much the offending party gained or profited from the infringement.

“US states that have disgorgement damages see it as an effective way to systemically discourage unfair practices that may not result in loss or cost to an individual consumer. In the digital marketplace, for instance, a disgorgement remedy might be available where a platform profits from deceptive software or contract design practices resulting in unwanted purchases. Another example might be a platform that uses a consumer’s likeness in advertisements targeted at their friends. A legislative amendment would help clarify competing case law.

“To be clear, damages for disgorgement would be court-ordered.”

And yet again, the government voted no.

Speaker, as you can see for this section, seeking to deter bad actors, the official opposition tabled amendments to expand the act to cover all purchases, regardless of value, expand the list of misleading practices and award additional types of court-ordered damages as a consumer remedy. All of these would surely further deter bad actors, but the government still voted against them all.

So there you have it. I presented to you in the government’s own words their five highlighted areas of the bill to improve the new Consumer Protection Act. For each of these worthy areas, experienced and concerned stakeholders requested changes and further consumer protection. These suggestions were well-thought-out and were created based on years of experience and consultation. And from these important improvements, the official opposition tabled amendments to enhance this new piece of legislation. Unfortunately, thus far, the government voted against every single one I’ve so far discussed. Now, at least for some of these amendments, the government pledged to consider these improvements at the regulatory stage, but of course, this is not binding.

In the previous 42nd Parliament, the government consulted on new home warranty reform in Ontario. Out of this consultation came legislation that made changes, including the creation of an entire new regulatory body, the HCRA. At the time, the official opposition requested that the government prohibit builders from using the furnaces in newly built home during the construction phase, due to the ensuing damage it can cause. The ministry indicated to me, at the time, that they would indeed consider making the change during regulations. Of course, this has yet to happen, prompting Dr. Karen Somerville, president of Canadians for Properly Built Homes, a trusted non-profit organization that has been a strong voice of consumer experience and advocacy for 19 years, to appear in committee hearings and ask for this to be considered yet again. We agree with her and call on the government to make this regulatory change.

Speaker, there were additional amendments that go beyond the highlights I have just shared. A home is often the biggest consumer purchase a person ever makes. Esteemed consumer advocate Barbara Captijn spoke about the dire need for better protection for consumers when it comes to making the biggest purchase of their life: a new home. She points out that new-home purchase contracts are often filled with weasel clauses, making it all too easy for a bad builder to leave new home owners out in the cold. We have heard about builders cancelling contracts or demanding more money after the fact.

As such, based on the request by consumer advocate Barbara Captijn, realtor Nina Deeb and CPBH, a further amendment was tabled to include newly constructed homes within the Consumer Protection Act to provide greater consumer protection. This would allow purchasers of newly built freehold homes access to the cooling-off period provisions of this bill, as Barbara Captijn is strongly advocating for. This right already exists for newly built condominium purchases through the Condominium Act. This too was refused by the government.

As I said earlier, the official opposition tabled 34 amendments to further strengthen this legislation. But the government did not vote against every single one. They did in fact support one of them. This legislation puts in new language that no contract can include parameters that would limit a person from joining a class action lawsuit. Our amendment maintained this right but struck the reference to the Ontario Class Proceedings Act.

Stakeholders have noted that changes in recent years to the act make it hard to access. As a result, most class actions are launched in other jurisdictions. Again, I would like to thank the government for supporting this important amendment, suggested by Marina Pavlović, faculty member at the Centre for Law, Technology and Society and an associate professor within the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa, as well as the Law Commission of Ontario and many other legal experts.

This brings me to the final part of my presentation today. At second reading, the official opposition acknowledged that this newly proposed Consumer Protection Act improved consumer protection in Ontario. As such, we voted in support. But just like the vast majority of stakeholder submissions, we also stated that further consumer protection was required.

If this act were to receive royal assent and become law, consumer justice would only be available to most through hard-fought battles in the court. This is because widespread industry issues will continue to be ignored by the ministry, which is either unwilling or unable to take them on.

As I’ve said many times, industry bands together and has powerful associations to protect them and lobby governments to either change laws to their favour, or at least turn a blind eye. Who does the consumer have? The occasional attention of media to shame a bad actor into compliance and consumer protection laws that still require further improvement, as pointed out by stakeholders, ultimately leaving many outgunned in the courtroom. Too often, it is a battle of David versus Goliath.

As such, the final amendment I will discuss today is our amendment calling on the government to create a consumer watchdog in Ontario—an amendment that the government promptly rejected, just as they voted against it when I tabled it as a private member’s bill in the 42nd session of Parliament. I’ve re-tabled a strengthened version of it, known as Bill 122, the Ontario Consumer Watchdog Act, 2023.

When asked in committee, all presenters said that the creation of a consumer watchdog warranted further exploration, with most vigorously supporting it. In fact, many came to committee asking for its establishment. CanAge, a national seniors advocacy organization that works to improve the lives of older adults through advocacy, policy and community engagement, listed the creation of an independent consumer watchdog as one of their five recommendations to improve the new CPA legislation. They pointed out that one in six Ontarians are victims of elder abuse and an expected one in four fall prey to financial exploitation. They said:

“CanAge supports the establishment of an independent consumer watchdog organization as proposed in Bill 122, Ontario Consumer Watchdog Act, 2023. Such an organization would allow for the unbiased handling of consumer rights violations and appropriate complaints, could aid in advocacy assistance of consumers, provide educational resources, and could conduct systemic investigations into common issues and practices.

“A government-backed watchdog would have both the means and the authority to support and protect consumers’ rights and interests as well as provide meaningful judicial pressure to businesses or individuals seeking to undermine or subvert those rights and interests.

“CanAge supports the establishment of an independent consumer watchdog organization as proposed in Bill 122, Ontario Consumer Watchdog Act, 2023.”

As well, the Consumers Council of Canada, a strong and tireless voice of consumer protection here in Canada, provided written submissions to this bill as well as spoke in hearings. They have long asked for the creation of the office of the consumer advocate and strongly support the creation of a consumer watchdog here in Ontario.

I also had the opportunity to speak with Nathaniel Welch from CanAge regarding consumer protection within the European Union. This region is known as being a gold standard of consumer protection and has powerful and active consumer protection bodies and offices that help establish powerful laws and punish bad actors. Nathaniel drafted a submission to me that described some aspects of consumer protection law there that we would be wise to follow here. He began by referencing transparency.

“Transparency: EU law mandates that business transactions conducted in the digital marketplace have minimum transparency measures in place such as the status of any sellers. Anyone offering a product or service online must declare whether they are a trader (registered company or individual) or a private seller. EU consumer protection legislation applies only to transactions between a consumer and a trader, and digital marketplaces must warn consumers about these risks when performing transactions with private individuals.

“Digital fairness: The EU commission launched a public consultation and a ‘fitness check’ of EU consumer law on digital fairness in 2020, and published a report of their findings in 2022. The investigation evaluated whether or not consumers were treated equally, and whether their rights applied to the same degree in physical and digital marketplaces.

“Recommendation: Ontario should incorporate mechanisms into consumer rights legislation that will regularly evaluate the conditions of physical and digital marketplaces to ensure that consumers’ rights are adequately and equally protected across all business environments.

“Pricing and payments: EU consumer protection law helps prevent traders from charging unfair, hidden or discriminatory prices. All prices must be listed as the total price including all taxes, fees, and additional charges. Additionally, additional fees for the use of credit or debit cards is forbidden, with only a few exceptions that include corporate/business cards where the consumer is not billed directly. Any additional charges for a product or service must be explicitly consented to by the consumer through an opt-in process such as a checkbox in an online form (pre-ticked boxes are specifically forbidden).

“Recommendation: Require that sellers of products and services, especially those on a digital marketplace, display both the flat price (current model) as well as the point-of-sale price (adjusted to include taxes, fees, or other charges) at all times. Consumers should not be expected to be able to presume and calculate all additional charges based on a sticker price.

“Personal information and data privacy: In addition to the standard personal data protection rules laid out in EU law, providers of free online services are obliged to inform consumers on how any personal data they have collected is being stored and used. They must also provide information on the right to withdraw and contract termination conditions in addition to the default 14-day withdrawal period.

“Recommendation: Strengthen consumer data protection, especially for free online services, and require that consumers be explicitly informed about how their personal data will be used, by whom, and to what extent, before they are asked to consent to these terms. Additionally, implement a time limit on how long businesses may retain consumer information after a transaction has been concluded, and require consumers to re-consent after the same period for continual-use services/subscriptions.

“Guarantees and returns: The EU mandates that sellers must repair, replace or refund (either fully or partially) a product if it is faulty or does not work/look as advertised. All EU consumers have the right to a minimum two-year guarantee, at no cost. Additionally, any purchase can be returned within 14 days of purchase without justification (some exceptions apply).

“Unfair contracts: ... The EU Consumer Rights Directive ensures that consumers across EU hold the same rights and are provided similar information before the purchase of goods or services along with their rights to cancel online purchases.

“Recommendation: In the revised CPA, Ontario should include legal interpretations of practices in digital markets, including dark patterns, data-driven personalization, influencer marketing, along with the obligation of sellers on online marketplaces in order to protect consumers from exploitation and unfair practices.”

Speaker, to end, I stated in the preamble of the Consumer Watchdog Act, 2023:

“Consumers should expect to be treated with fairness and honesty by the businesses and other entities that interact with them. However, anti-consumer activities or practices on the part of some businesses and other entities is a real and serious problem in Ontario. Challenges to consumers include price gouging and other forms of unfair treatment, a lack of transparency in the marketplace, products and services that fall short of expectations in terms of value for money and quality and consumer protection information and remedies that are not available, accessible or reliable.

“Consumers must be confident and aware of what protections are available to them when making purchases. Businesses and other entities must help to maintain a fair marketplace for consumers. To ensure both consumers and businesses and other entities know their respective rights and responsibilities, it may be necessary to put certain processes in place including investigating potential predatory and illegal behaviours of businesses and other entities, providing for a consumer complaints process, imposing penalties and other remedies on bad actors and maintaining a public website on consumer protection matters.

“The current level of consumer protection in Ontario is not adequate. The establishment of a consumer watchdog organization may fill that gap by serving as a comprehensive consumer protection organization that is dedicated to consumers and that will provide consumers with the confidence that their rights are protected. A consumer watchdog organization of this type has never existed previously in Ontario and now is the time to establish one.”

Speaker, the legislation before us represents improvements to consumer protection here in Ontario. The official opposition agrees with the strong sentiment of those who have weighed in on this new Consumer Protection Act calling for greater and much-needed protections, especially now in this rapidly changing online consumer environment and a time when bad actors continue to find sneaky and harmful ways to exploit us, especially our most vulnerable.

I hope that the government will be true to their word and explore our amendments at the regulatory stage. They will only strengthen the act by doing so. Again, these amendments were drafted through the work and the thorough thought of experts. You’ve received those submissions; you’ve heard them in hearings. These are definitely improvements to consumer protection in Ontario.

Again, it is time for the government to begin the creation of a consumer watchdog here in Ontario. It is the right thing to do and will help bring us to the gold standard of consumer protection. Again, in committee, every single person I asked in the hearings said this warranted a further look. And most said this is something we should have and something we should do. In fact, as I had mentioned earlier, many came at the hearing already asking for it, and many have been calling for its creation for a long time.

Let’s face it: The ministry here is not going to change large-scale bad practices of entire industries. They are just not equipped to do so. Those same industries have entire associations right at their backs. They pay money to them, and those associations in turn lobby governments. In fact, many consumers themselves are confused about these associations. They’ll often call these associations asking for help, not even understanding that they’re reaching out to essentially a lobbying arm of the industry itself.

This act improves consumer protection and, as such, we voted for it at second reading. But as you have all heard, consumer protection advocates, experts, legal experts and more are calling for more to be done. It is supportable. It is an improvement. But more work is required. We as legislators owe it to the people of Ontario—consumers—to deliver to them a gold standard of consumer protection. This standard exists in other jurisdictions around the world. This standard is great for consumers and great for honest businesses too. It is truly a legacy of which this government could be proud if they bring it into effect.

So I again call on members of this House and this government to bring into effect and begin the plan for a consumer watchdog here in Ontario, to bring consumers the next standard, the gold standard, of consumer protection in Ontario. It’s the right thing to do. Let’s get it done.

I want to thank the member opposite for his comments. He went the full hour, and that was a nice counterpart to the minister going the full hour. I don’t know if we need a members’ protection act about the length of speeches, but I’ll leave that to people smarter than me.

I also am a member of the justice policy committee, so I had heard the member’s comments and we had extensive hearings there. I think that the member is correct: I think there’s agreement on both sides of the House that the act is old, the act needs strengthening, and that this takes significant steps forward to do that. It may not have everything the opposition would like.

My question is simple: My question to the member opposite is, will he support this bill on third reading?

I thank the member from Humber River–Black Creek for his thoughtful comments during this debate.

I want to ask the member, with regard to prepaid cards—prepaid cards are a very common consumer purchase and, of course, they’re given frequently as gifts to other people. Sometimes, even during this season, prepaid cards become a very popular and very common purchase.

This particular bill suggests that, if passed, there shall be no expiries on prepaid cards anymore, and they shall be treated always as having no expiry date. I invite the member to offer his views and comments with regard to that proposal.