Point of order, Speaker.

This petition was handed to me personally by Doris Grinspun of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario at a rally here at Queen’s Park.

The petition notes that, due to the drug-poisoning crisis, about 10 people a day are tragically dying in the province of Ontario—3,753 needless deaths in 2023.

Safe consumption sites save lives and open a gateway to treatment for people.

The petition is calling on the Legislature to reopen safe consumption sites in Windsor and Sudbury, to provide funding to keep the site in Timmins open, and to provide funding for safe consumption sites in communities across Ontario. We have one of these sites in my riding of Guelph.

I personally support the petition. I will sign it and ask page Sophia to bring it to the table.

There is a drug-poisoning crisis in Ontario, and that is resulting in the deaths of, on average, 10 people a day. In 2023, 3,753 people died needlessly—because these deaths are preventable.

The government of Ontario has a responsibility to ensure the health and safety of all Ontarians. Part of that is to ensure that there are supervised consumption services available. These sites save lives, and they also are a gateway to supportive services, including addiction treatments, that we know this government is pushing hard on. But for folks to be able to get there, first they need to be alive. That can happen when supervised consumption services are provided.

This petition is calling on the government to provide funding so that SCSs can reopen in Windsor and Sudbury, so that they can keep the site in Timmins open, to expedite the approval process for outstanding applications, and to ensure that every community that needs an SCS is able to have one.

I fully support this petition.

The rates for Ontario Works have been frozen, and the small increases for ODSP, the Ontario Disability Support Program, leave recipients still struggling and well below the poverty line. So the petition here is calling on the Legislature to call on the government to double both Ontario Works and Ontario disability rates.

Good afternoon to all honourable members of this House. On behalf of the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery, it gives me immense pride to rise this afternoon in the Legislative Assembly to lead second reading debate of what is, I submit, a critical and urgently required piece of legislation, the Homeowner Protection Act, 2024. This landmark legislation, if passed, will significantly strengthen protections for homeowners as well as current and future homebuyers. It represents a comprehensive approach to protecting consumers from unethical practices, improving transparency, supporting strong condominium communities, and safeguarding buyers of new homes.

I am, indeed, grateful for the opportunity to speak about this urgent new legislative proposal, and I look forward to an informed debate about what it will mean for Ontario’s homeowners and homebuyers, if this House sees fit to pass it.

I will be sharing my time today with my great colleagues. They include, of course, the member of provincial Parliament for Kitchener South–Hespeler; the member of provincial Parliament for Cambridge, my parliamentary assistant; and the member of provincial Parliament for Kitchener–Conestoga.

Speaker, at the core of this proposed legislation is the fulfillment of our government’s promise to protect Ontarians, especially our seniors, newcomers and the most vulnerable. We must protect them all from the harm caused by the misuse of notices of security interest, NOSIs.

Consumer NOSIs can be registered on the land registry system by a business when it rents, finances or leases certain goods that become fixtures in homes, such as water heaters or furnaces. Initially, NOSIs were intended to register interests in financed appliances. However, over the past few years, they have become tools for organized and deliberate deception used to scam hard-working Ontarians.

Since the early 2000s, the number of NOSIs registered on Ontario’s land registry has skyrocketed, from around 400 each year 20 years ago to more than 58,000 in 2023 alone. These registrations often occur without the homeowner’s knowledge and for amounts far exceeding the fixture’s actual value. Homeowners usually discover NOSIs are registered against their homes when they want to sell or refinance their homes, and bad actors exploit this by demanding exorbitant fees to discharge the NOSIs. In some instances, multiple NOSIs are registered on a single property, which are then converted into sham mortgages that rob hard-working and law-abiding Ontarians of their live savings and their home equity.

The escalation of NOSIs and related scams and fraud appears to disproportionately affect seniors, new Canadians and other vulnerable consumers. Many of these cases have been reported in the media—cases where homeowners have made a large cash payment because NOSIs were leveraged by unethical operators, or they were trapped in high-interest mortgages for which they could not make the required payments and then they default, putting their property in peril.

You may have read of a Bowmanville senior in my riding of Durham who suffered from short-term memory loss. He had 11 NOSIs totalling over $100,000 registered against his home of over 50 years. These were for door-to-door rental contracts for home equipment, including plumbing valves, a digital thermostat, water softeners and outdoor cameras. The perpetrators targeted him and took advantage of his condition, leading him from one scam to the next until eventually they managed to leverage the NOSIs on title to convince him to sign a mortgage. Four days after a NOSI for plumbing valve and surge protector equipment was placed on his home, a financing company registered a one-year mortgage on the property for $130,000 with 25% interest. Then, in late 2022, he received a foreclosure letter from this mortgage company stating that he had two weeks to leave his home. According to his family, their father had signed mortgage paperwork, he had not understood it, and they had to get legal help. Sadly, this vulnerable gentleman passed away earlier this year.

This may seem like an extreme case, but I am sorry to say that situations like this occur far too often. The bad actors use NOSIs as leverage to obtain exorbitant contract payouts from consumers, sometimes inappropriately using them to discourage consumers from even changing suppliers or, in the case of the Bowmanville senior I spoke about, to convince that homeowner to sign a mortgage to pay off NOSIs.

I receive letters and emails from people across Ontario, many sent to my ministry by my fellow members of provincial Parliament. Ontario residents are openly expressing their frustration, their anguish and their outrage at being victimized by elaborate schemes to defraud them.

For example, an individual wrote about a contract he entered into with a company for a high-efficiency furnace, only to realize that the company was misrepresenting itself as a provincially endorsed company working for the province to make homes more energy-efficient. The company advised they would perform an energy audit to determine which provincial energy rebates the individual might be eligible to receive. It will likely come as no surprise to learn that that company was not provincially endorsed and the consumer had no assurances of receiving potential provincial energy rebates. According to the writer, the sales rep advised that he could opt for an earlier buyout after the first several years, at a quoted cost of $800 to $1,000. Almost two years later, when he decided to arrange that buyout, he was then told that the cost would be an exorbitant amount of approximately $15,000. Then, the individual became aware that a NOSI valued at more than $15,000 had been placed on the title to his property immediately after the furnace had been installed.

As I’ve said before, these elaborate schemes are being used against innocent, honest, trusting consumers. This is a despicable practice that particularly harms our senior citizens, newcomers and other vulnerable residents, and it must stop.

To that end, if passed, this comprehensive legislation will curb these unethical, immoral and shameful practices. Upon passage, this proposed legislation would ban the registration of consumer NOSIs on the land registry system and deem all currently registered consumer NOSIs expired.

To get to today—this legislation has been developed following extensive consultations across Ontario in the fall of 2023. My ministry, the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery, held these consultations on specific approaches to address the misuse of NOSIs. The ministry received feedback from businesses of all types, legal organizations, law enforcement, other regulators and consumer advocates, as well as many consumers negatively affected by NOSIs. Based on all the information received through that extensive consultation process, it has become apparent that the harms caused by the misuse of consumer NOSIs on the land registry far outweigh the benefits provided by their legitimate use.

I want to take this opportunity to thank my parliamentary assistant, the member of provincial Parliament for Cambridge, as well as the member of provincial Parliament for Kitchener–Conestoga and the member of provincial Parliament for Kitchener South–Hespeler. All have played a particularly crucial role in highlighting this issue and driving our government’s efforts to address it. They have been working tirelessly and closely with the Waterloo Regional Police Service and impacted Ontarians to shed light on this significant area of consumer harm. You will hear more from each of them today as part of our government’s leadoff on second reading of this bill, but I just want to take a moment to thank them for being such strong advocates for the elderly, for all of their constituents, and indeed for all Ontarians.

Also on behalf of the government, I wish to thank Chief Mark Crowell and the entire Waterloo Regional Police Service, particularly Detective Adam Stover, for their invaluable work on this issue. Detective Stover’s efforts have been instrumental in investigating and documenting the harms caused by NOSIs. It is because of his and the Waterloo Regional Police Service’s tireless efforts that we are here today to take a stand against those who seek to victimize our fellow citizens and residents.

In response to the tabling of Bill 200, stakeholders have applauded our government’s steadfast determination, under the leadership of Premier Ford, to bring forth change for our province’s consumers and homeowners. It brings me great pleasure indeed to highlight the widespread positive responses we have received from stakeholders who support this much-needed ban of consumer NOSIs.

As I just mentioned, this legislation has been strengthened through the dedicated work of the Waterloo Regional Police Service, who have committed extensive hours to investigating complaints of NOSI misuse, investigating the issue, sharing updates with our ministry. This occurred prior to and during and subsequent to the fall 2023 consultation process.

Upon tabling Bill 200 on May 27 of this year, the Waterloo Regional Police Service has extended “appreciation to ... the Ontario government for working to eliminate the registration of consumer” NOSIs “in the province.” The chief of police services in Waterloo region, Mark Crowell, has shared his optimistic outlook on this proposed legislation, as well as his hope that, as he put it, “the proactive policy approach announced today will put an end to this devastating fraud.” It is my hope that today, we can all make Chief Crowell’s hope a new reality.

Laura Tamblyn Watts, the president and CEO of CanAge, Canada’s national seniors’ advocacy organization, made it clear that the actions of our government will make a positive, meaningful impact on the lives of seniors in Ontario. CanAge recognizes that the tabling of Bill 200 is an opportunity, as she put it, for “historic action in protecting the financial well-being of Ontario’s seniors.” CanAge has commended our government for taking decisive action to address this problem and to make Ontario a safer marketplace for senior homeowners, while at the same time preventing predatory behaviours on the part of bad actors.

In addition to this report we have received from CanAge, we have welcomed responses from the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, who supports the immediate passage of Bill 200. The Advocacy Centre for the Elderly has shared the extent to which senior homeowners are victimized by the unlawful and unscrupulous use of NOSIs, and underscored the urgency to which both future and retroactive abolitions of NOSIs are needed to protect the rights of vulnerable elderly citizens.

They have described the countless ways in which unethical lenders and home service companies are aggressively pursuing homeowners with lawsuits leveraged by the registration of grossly inflated NOSIs against title to their homes—homes that were paid off long ago and in which they have full equity.

Our government will not allow our elderly to be harassed by these exaggerated and unlawful claims by organized criminals. We cannot idly stand by while seniors pay out large claims to fraudsters, all the while led to believe that they have no other alternative, or having to retain legal counsel or paralegals and pay thousands of dollars to pursue relief in court.

So, Speaker, I stand before you now to make a promise to the seniors and the vulnerable members of our province that this government will put an end to the fear and the harassment perpetuated through the misuse of NOSIs and make Ontario a safer place for seniors and all Ontario homeowners.

I wish to send a clear message to our seniors and all Ontarians: Your government has your backs, and with help and support from His Majesty’s loyal opposition, help is on the way.

Beyond the ban of consumer NOSIs proposed in Bill 200, I wish to discuss the other proposed measures contained in the Homeowner Protection Act, 2024, which I submit will further strengthen protections for Ontarians making the biggest purchase of their lives, and that is their homes. These changes align with our government’s ongoing work to help ensure that purchasers are well informed and better protected when they make their plans to buy a new freehold home. With our proposed legislation, we are enhancing protections to make sure Ontarians who buy a new freehold home have the time to make informed decisions confidently and comfortably.

Home purchase agreements are complex, and buyers are sometimes faced with making a decision to sign a purchase agreement for a new home on the spot. If passed, our government would develop and consult on regulations needed to implement a 10-day cooling-off period for purchases of new freehold homes. A cooling-off period would help buyers make a more informed and confident purchasing decision and allow them to better understand the associated risks with their agreement. During that 10-day period, the buyer would be permitted to cancel the agreement for any reason with no fear of financial penalty. Providing buyers with this cooling-off period would, I submit, better align protections for buyers of new freehold homes with existing ones for those buying new condominium units.

In addition, the government plans to require in the future that builders who terminate freehold home purchases or freehold home purchase agreements must report those terminations to Tarion for public reporting on the Ontario Builder Directory on the Home Construction Regulatory Authority’s—HCRA—website. This will improve transparency for new home buyers so that they can better education themselves and make sound choices with peace of mind. And this brings new freehold home purchase requirements more in line with the existing requirements that we’ve had for some time with condominium projects and condominium purchase agreement terminations, which are already available on HCRA’s website.

Our government is also proceeding with initiatives aimed at promoting fairness in the new home market and bolstering consumer confidence. My ministry intends to publicly consult at a future date on potential ways to address the illegal building and illegal selling of new homes in Ontario.

Illegally built or sold homes are a real and growing threat to consumers, to developers, and indeed to all levels of government. Illegal building and illegal selling puts consumers at risk from unqualified builders and developers. Those risks include inferior quality and unsafe construction, unethical conduct, and greater costs for homeowners due to defects.

You may have heard of one recent case where Ontario’s building industry regulator, HCRA, had to freeze all the assets linked to one developer. This measure followed an investigation that revealed that the company had been building homes without the required approvals from Tarion, the administrator of Ontario’s new home warranty and protection program, and that builder had been accepting substantial payments on the sale of those homes.

Another Toronto-area developer was ordered to pay more than $180,000 after pleading guilty to selling a new home without a licence.

Illegal builders like these create an uneven playing field, offering consumers lower prices but without fulfilling their legal options; for example, by building or selling homes without a licence or without the required approval from Tarion—processes that are designed to protect consumers. Builders like these compete unfairly with licensed builders who play by the rules by fulfilling their licensing and warranty-related obligations through Tarion. That is not fair to those legitimate, fair and reasonable builders.

When builders illegally build or sell new homes without a licence or without Tarion’s approval, consumers are more likely to be exposed to risks to their deposits and to major structural defects in their homes. Buyers of these homes may only become aware of these risks when faced with serious and significant problems that put their peace of mind in jeopardy.

Tarion, one of the 12 administrative authorities within my ministry, is also exposed to financial risks associated with deposit protection and backstopping the builder’s warranty. Illegal builders often do not respect warranty obligations, so Tarion is left to pay for warranty coverage without being able to collect from the illegal builder. Over the years, this has resulted in payouts of millions of dollars, and the payment of these claims comes from a fund supported by the licensed legal builders and new home buyers.

Illegal builders, then, put additional strain on all levels, contributing to tax evasion and lost revenues, and they make it more difficult for the majority of builders who abide by the rules to build the many, many new homes we need—safe, properly constructed homes on the path to that 1.5 million new homes and builders in Ontario by 2031.

Speaker, as we know, homes come in many forms, and I would like to mention additional measures that our government is taking and is proposing to proceed with aimed at supporting Ontario’s condominium communities. More than a million Ontarians call condominiums home, and we know that condo communities often experience unique challenges and disputes. Our goal is to develop policies that are responsive to those needs.

Ontario currently has many rules in place to help condo buyers make informed decisions and protect themselves in the marketplace. Condo developers are required to provide buyers with an outline of the possible risks of buying a pre-construction unit, early termination conditions, important timelines and project status.

In 2021, my ministry launched a residential condominium buyers’ guide to help condo buyers make informed purchasing decisions. Developers also must provide condo purchasers with a copy of the guide to better inform them about the buying process and condominium living, along with a copy of the current disclosure statement.

Recent changes to the Condominium Act, 1998, also would increase the amount of interest payable under certain circumstances to purchasers on their deposits or payments for the purchase of a new or pre-construction condominium unit from a developer, including in the event of a cancellation.

I would like to point out that in the 2020 value-for-money report, the Auditor General called attention to condo-related issues. The audit on condominium oversight highlighted a need for more consumer information on how condominium fees are set and managed. The report also called for an enhanced mandate for the Condominium Authority of Ontario and Condominium Authority Tribunal to protect condo owners against many of the common issues that they may encounter in their daily living in condominium communities.

In 2021, the condominium authority itself conducted consultations on topics such as expansion of the tribunal’s jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes. Condominium residents and condominium board directors signalled their strong support for the expansion of the tribunal’s jurisdiction, and these findings were supported by a recent targeted consultation undertaken by my ministry. We are now taking steps to make sure that condominium communities do have a strong and responsive dispute-resolution mechanism available when issues arise, and we will continue to consult on ways to improve how condominiums are operated.

As part of that process, we are taking measured steps to expand the Condominium Authority Tribunal’s jurisdiction in a phased and thoughtful way, beginning with consultations on a proposal for the tribunal to resolve certain additional types of disputes.

Our province plans to also consult on other initiatives aimed at strengthening protections for condo owners and buyers. These include improvements to status certificates, disclosure statements, remedies for inadequate disclosure of material changes during construction, and how access to records may increase safety in condominium communities. Transparency is the goal. We want to help increase operational and financial clarity while limiting burden to the condominium corporations and managers that are entrusted with running a condominium on behalf of a community.

These are just some measures that are all part of our government’s broader plan to provide people with the very best in consumer protection, to ensure they have the necessary tools to both purchase and enjoy their home. Our government will do everything that we can to reassure hard-working Ontarians that we are protecting them when they make that major purchase.

Bill 200 also proposes a minor amendment to the Ontario Heritage Act. The proposed Homeowner Protection Act, 2024, if passed, would amend the Ontario Heritage Act, 1990, to improve heritage conservation outcomes. Our government is ensuring we continue to protect Ontario’s heritage for generations to come. The amendments my colleague the Honourable Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism is proposing to the Ontario Heritage Act will help ease administrative pressures related to the conservation of legacy-listed heritage properties by extending the timeline for municipalities to review such listed properties by an additional two years, to January 1, 2027. These proposed changes would encourage municipalities to prioritize and proactively review and designate heritage properties that are truly important to their communities. If passed, the changes would mitigate impacts on cultural heritage resources by providing additional time for review of the province’s legacy-listed properties, to ensure that those most important to communities and their histories are designated and protected for generations to come.

Our government will continue to work with municipalities, the building industry and other key stakeholders to ensure we conserve true heritage, while using all the tools at our disposal to support Ontario’s future growth.

Bill 200 also addresses transit-oriented communities. The proposed legislation, Bill 200, if passed, would also support our government’s efforts to provide zoning certainty for our building partners on transit-oriented communities. If the Homeowner Protection Act, 2024, passes, our government would exempt designated transit-oriented community lands from the immunity provisions in the Planning Act related to the making, amending or revoking of minister’s zoning orders. The changes my colleague the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is proposing would support the government’s plan to build vibrant mixed-use communities near transit, while reducing the cost to taxpayers to build transit station infrastructure. We know transit-oriented communities will create more homes, including affordable housing, parkland and retail and office space near stations, and that will make it faster and easier for everyone to access reliable transit right in their own neighbourhoods.

Let me conclude by reiterating our government’s pledge to ensure that our fellow citizens and residents have the protections they need as they navigate the marketplace. Let me say that Ontarians can and must be well informed and empowered when they purchase a new home. Communities need clarity and flexibility to be able to protect their heritage assets, and all Ontario consumers, especially our elderly and our most vulnerable members, must be protected from financial abuse at the hands of organized criminals operating in the marketplace. When consumers can have trust in the marketplace as they spend their hard-earned dollars; when homeowners can be sure that they are not being taken advantage of; when businesses understand and comply with their responsibilities, then we all benefit.

The Homeowner Protection Act, 2024, if passed, would reinforce our government’s strong record of protecting Ontario consumers and supporting a level playing field for businesses to promote fairness in the marketplace.

The changes we are proposing would help eliminate unfair business practices and help ensure Ontario homeowners can make informed choices with peace of mind when purchasing a freehold home, just as when they are purchasing a new condominium unit. Our fellow citizens and residents then can be confident that, when it comes to their home and their rights, the government of Ontario has their backs.

It has been a great honour to address all members of this House today; I thank all for their kind attention. My colleagues and I look forward to the upcoming debate. We know that you all have informed and thought-provoking input to share. The track record with bills so far introduced by my ministry of late is that His Majesty’s loyal opposition has supported our goal in favour of consumer protection and safety for all. I look forward to members not only on this side of the aisle but the opposite side of the aisle in terms of their contribution to debate. I look forward to hearing from them. I will listen intently.

I encourage support for this urgently needed Homeowner Protection Act, 2024. It is the right thing to do in moving our province forward. It is a bill that is a true testament to our government’s unwavering commitment to building a safer, fairer and stronger economy, now and for future generations. Protecting Ontarians—especially our elderly and the most vulnerable—is our sacred duty. It is our sacred duty as legislators, and it is a duty that rises above partisanship; it is one that I know that each and every one of the members in this House holds near and dear to their hearts. A duty is one that unites us beyond any differences that we might otherwise have.

I look forward to the debate. Furthermore, I thank all for their kind attention.

This petition calls on Lydia’s Law to be called to justice committee.

It’s good to hear that the justice committee will be dealing with the IPV issue over the summer.

We all can never accept that 1,326 sexual assault offenders walked out of court and did not have their day in justice.

Lydia’s Law honours the voices of survivors and calls on the government to move forward with the 2019 Auditor General recommendations—that would be greater accountability to the Attorney General, and report back to this House what’s actually happening in our court system. This is a good bill. It’s the first step in moving the justice system forward.

I’m affixing my signature and giving this to Farhan.

Back to the minister to lead off debate.

The petition is entitled “Petition: To Raise Social Assistance Rates.”

Yesterday, I had a chance to meet with the Disability Without Poverty coalition, and I’m here to say that people with disabilities in Ontario are struggling. They are starving, and they are feeling left behind.

So I am proud to sign this petition that was given to me by Dr. Sally Palmer. It is calling for raises of the social assistance rates. We need to at least double ODSPoverty and OW so that Ontarians with disabilities have a chance at survival in this climate. I’ve affixed my signature, and I’m handing it over to Farhan.

I’ve affixed my signature, and I will hand it over to Farhan for tabling.

I’ve affixed my signature, and I’m handing it back it to Farhan for tabling.

Mr. McCarthy moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 200, An Act to amend various Acts with respect to homebuyers and homeowners, properties of cultural heritage value or interest and certain planning matters / Projet de loi 200, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne les acquéreurs de logements et les propriétaires de logements, les biens ayant une valeur ou un caractère sur le plan du patrimoine culturel et d’autres questions liées à l’aménagement du territoire.

I recognize the member for Kitchener South–Hespeler.

I really appreciate the opportunity to speak today about something that I know has been very long-awaited and looked forward to, and something I’m incredibly proud to be able to speak to and play this tiny role in, which is Bill 200, the Homeowner Protection Act. If passed, this bill will essentially hammer the final nails into the coffin of NOSIs and bury them forever.

In my decade of service as a crown prosecutor, I often saw the incredibly ugly impacts of fraud—the way the perpetrators identify and prey on the vulnerable in our society. Fraud can be incredibly hard to prosecute. Often, the perpetrators may be out of province or even out of country, cloaked and covered and easily able to find their victims but challenging to locate. Justice for fraud victims is also elusive at times. Even with a conviction, ensuring that victims are in fact made whole when the reparations are made is incredibly challenging. This, of course, is particularly painful to witness when the victim is a senior, someone who has worked hard throughout their life to provide for themselves in their later years. Recovering from the type of financial loss that is exacted by fraud can take years and even more dedication of resources. Unfortunately, that time and those resources are things that many of our victimized seniors do not have.

You’ve all read this bill and heard hours of debate on its contents, so I would like to take my limited time here to talk a little bit more about the people behind the legislation, the victims, the people who had their lives turned upside down by those who are really only worshipping at an altar of greed, but also about the heroes in this legislation, the people who went up against this Goliath, went up against the harlequin hydra that were these offenders, and with the hopeful passing of this bill, will have finally won their fight.

Let me tell you about John. John is 71, and he lives with his sister in the home that they inherited from their parents. They’ve never had a mortgage, but now John is stuck actually paying rent on his own home that he no longer owns to the very person who forced the sale of John’s home through a series of predatory mortgages. Once the home was sold, the equity was seized. John can’t even access the equity from the sale of his own home, because, according to those who took advantage of him, it will take all of that equity and more to pay off all of the NOSIs that were registered on the title.

Prior to October 2021, another victim I’ll call Jim fully owned his house. He ended up owing $30,000 via a predatory NOSI and was doing his best to make the monthly payments. Another predator approached Jim and told him that they could help him pay off that lien and help him qualify for renovations to increase his home’s value. They did some renovations in his home that were worth at most $15,000 and of incredibly poor quality. On completion, that lien was converted into a mortgage, and Jim now owes $312,000 on his house and is being pressured to foreclose, and he had to hire a lawyer and is fighting.

Then there was Karl. Karl was in his eighties, and he was suffering from short-term memory loss after a brain aneurysm. Predators came knocking at his door, promising that they would be able to help him, almost save him. He thought they were there to help, and he ended up with $150,000 registered against his home. Sadly, Karl passed away, his last years marked by—victimized by fraud.

All across Ontario, vulnerable people were being preyed upon and victimized, misled and mistreated and led down this path to their ultimate financial destruction. As this happened, the alleged perpetrators were flaunting their newly acquired wealth on social media, with fast cars and expensive vacations, sometimes even recording their communications with their victims by way of training modules to share with others.

I want to tell you about one of the heroes in this: Detective Adam Stover of the Waterloo Regional Police Service. In early 2022, Detective Stover identified a complex fraud scheme that was targeting vulnerable and elderly victims in Waterloo region involving placing NOSIs on their homes without their knowledge. Victims were losing their homes. They were losing their life savings. Detective Stover undertook an in-depth criminal investigation into the perpetrators and became a part of uncovering a large-scale predatory criminal enterprise that had spread all across Ontario. As his investigation spread and unfolded, he became the provincial expert regarding NOSIs and was able to give guidance to numerous police services across the province as well as work with the OPP to dismantle the organizations. Other people may have stopped there, but Detective Stover, as he had essentially more than fulfilled his duty as an officer of the law—he’d investigated, he’d put together a case, he had protected the public to the best of his ability. But that ultimately wasn’t enough for him, and in becoming the expert, he realized that legislative change was the only way to put an end to this forever.

So, Detective Stover, you are a big part of the reason that I am standing here today, talking about NOSIs. You had a mission, which was to save thousands of vulnerable Ontarians, and here we are today, on the precipice of the completion of your mission. I know that you spent hours meeting with elected officials, with MPPs, with ministry officials and with lawyers, with journalists and reporters, and I know just how difficult it can be to effect change when everyone you meet seems to agree with you and support you but the magnitude of the machine itself can seem too big to budge and too large to listen. But, Detective Stover, you did it. You got the attention of the machine. We heard your call, and we answered, and I’m incredibly proud to be part of the government that took action, and to call our Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery a friend. You could not have had a better advocate in him or his ministry.

I also want to recognize the hard work that was done by the Ontario real estate bar. All of us lawyers have heard people we can kind of sneer at use the quote from Shakespeare’s Henry VI: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” The same people who like lawyer jokes like to trot that one out as evidence of the horribleness of lawyers, but those of us who are more familiar with the play itself know that the person who said, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,” was a violent anarchist who wanted to overthrow society. Really, what that statement means is, by killing all the lawyers, we would end society as we know it, because lawyers, ultimately, are the fundamental defence against the grossest manifestations of power-hungry antics and greed that are, frankly, wrought by the scum of humanity.

Interjections.

It’s a pleasure to join the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery today to speak about the Homeowner Protection Act, 2024. As the minister illustrated previously, this important new consumer protection legislation demonstrates once again our government’s dedication to advance the interests of Ontario consumers. I’m extremely excited to see this piece of legislation come to fruition, as well as the steps we are taking with this proposed bill to promote fairness and transparency for Ontarians and safeguard their interests, including seniors, new Canadians and other vulnerable consumers. We are protecting Ontarians’ interests as buyers of new homes and as homeowners, and we are strengthening their confidence in their abilities in our marketplace. And we’re making Ontario a better place to live, work and grow.

Let me provide a brief recap for the House of the measures included in the Homeowner Protection Act, 2024. First, if passed, this bill will ban the registration of consumer notices of security interest—or NOSIs, as they are called—on the land registry. All consumer NOSIs currently registered on title will be deemed expired, which means that they can be removed from the record of title at any time the consumer chooses.

Speaker, the Homeowner Protection Act, 2024, will help Ontarians feel confident that this government has their backs when it comes to their home and housing. It also supports our government’s ambitious plan to build the infrastructure that Ontario communities and municipalities need to grow and prosper.

To that end, Bill 200 includes changes to the Planning Act from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Ministry of Infrastructure to provide zoning for our partners in advancing transit-oriented communities.

The Homeowner Protection Act, 2024, is a far-reaching legislative package that advances rights and protections for homeowners and buyers of new freehold homes, and supports strong growth in Ontario.

If this bill has one headline, it would be the banning of consumer notices of security interest—and there is good reason for that. If these notices of security interests, or NOSIs, have been in the media a lot recently, which they have been, that is because of the dramatic effect their misuse has on so many people who live in Ontario.

To reiterate, we are proposing an outright ban on the registration of consumer NOSIs, and we would deem any consumer NOSIs already on title to be expired. This legislation means Ontarians would also not have to take on the fight themselves against the misuse of these NOSIs.

This issue is very important to me, personally. I have heard of many people in my riding and many people in Ontario speak of this—including my riding of Cambridge, like I spoke earlier about—who have been victimized by the misuse of NOSIs. I’ve spoken about this problem in the House previously, and at the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, and have stressed the need to tackle these scams that target vulnerable homeowners.

Today, I’m going to take a good portion of my time to talk about how vital it is that we deal with NOSIs and their damaging effects. We know that banning consumer NOSIs on title altogether is a bold move. It is one that our government is considering very carefully before taking action, but we must.

As the minister stated, NOSIs do serve a real purpose. There are a number of reasons for a homeowner to enter into a rental or service contract with a business when they’re considering a large piece of equipment like a furnace or a water heater, and that business should outline the payment plan clearly in the contract. In certain cases, these businesses may have the right to register a NOSI on the land registry system based on that contract.

Registering a NOSI on the title of that property serves as a notice to third parties of the company’s security interest and may protect that interest, for example, if the customer sells the property to a third party. This allows a business to protect itself and its interests, and to be able to repossess its equipment in certain circumstances. It’s not an uncommon practice, especially not here in Ontario, where there has been a long history of renting home equipment like furnaces and water heaters.

So there is a reason for NOSIs and the system to exist in the first place, but over the decades, the use of NOSIs by bad actors who have taken advantage of consumers by leveraging exorbitant payouts for them has become more and more common. As the minister mentioned, the number of NOSIs registered on the Ontario land registry per year has skyrocketed from approximately 400 registrations annually in the early 2000s to more than 58,000 in 2023 alone. And right along with the increasing use of NOSIs has come a proliferation of abuses of this legal tool, often with homeowners unaware that the consumer NOSI has been registered on title, nor the value registered.

As the minister and others in this House have pointed out, NOSIs have been used too often over the years to exploit too many unsuspecting vulnerable seniors, new Canadians and overall Ontario residents, with some unscrupulous actors misusing NOSIs to demand high payments from consumers to discharge them.

Last year, it was my privilege to join the minister and my colleagues for the House debates on our new Consumer Protection Act legislation, the Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, 2023. The great achievements in consumer protections in our province have jumped over something that we haven’t done for 20 years in this province, so I’m really glad to be a part of it. It’s a real landmark piece of legislation, designed to strengthen consumer rights and confidence, to make it easier for businesses to comply with consumer protection rules, and to promote a fair and competitive economy.

The new Consumer Protection Act, 2023, includes stronger, clearer protections against unfair business practices; provides a fairer exit option for consumers and their families entering into certain long-term leases; and limits when businesses can make unilateral contract amendments, renewals and extensions without express consumer consent. We took up the issue of NOSIs as part of that bill. During debates, I talked about my experience with NOSIs in my riding.

There is a lot of good in this bill, and I think what made me very passionate about it was working with a Waterloo regional police detective, Adam Stover, and David Mullock, who is the liaison officer for the force, and just watching the transcripts of the phone messages that these bad actors had portrayed to these vulnerable sector people. It’s the elderly who are being abused—people with dementia—people with a lack of understanding of what they’re really signing. This really sickened me, watching the same perpetrators come back to the same people they had first basically ripped off and trying to rip them off again.

I want to take time for a moment to mention the good work of Detective Adam Stover and David Mullock and the Waterloo Regional Police Service’s organized financial crime team. Detective Stover, David Mullock and the Waterloo Regional Police Service’s representative joined us when we first announced our intention to introduce this important piece of legislation.

The measures in this new consumer protection act, once in force, are intended to be the first step to address and reduce the harmful and inappropriate use of NOSIs. The measures include provisions to clarify a business’ obligation to discharge a NOSI under specific circumstances and to allow some consumers to receive assistance from the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery in enforcing a business’ obligation to discharge a NOSI if a contract was cancelled or rescinded. However, since then, the government has heard loud and clear that further and quicker action has to be done to help to protect consumers from bad actors and NOSIs related to them.

I want to take a moment to thank all individuals and organizations who have drawn attention to this issue over the years, and all those who participated in consultations last year specifically addressing the issue of NOSIs. I want to thank members on both sides of the House who have contributed to debates on this issue in the House and in committee.

The measures we are tabling with this proposed legislation are informed by the concerns expressed by the people of Ontario. This is how we came up with this bill—by talking to these people. This is a complex issue that requires urgent attention, and our approach is pragmatic, but it is a direct response.

In summary, the Homeowner Protection Act, 2024, if passed, will advance protections for Ontario homeowners. It would protect homeowners from abusive practices by banning the registration of consumer notices of security interest and deeming current registered consumer NOSIs expired. These changes would come into force upon royal assent.

The Homeowner Protection Act, 2024, is an ambitious plan with strong protections for Ontario homeowners, especially for seniors and vulnerable residents. The legislation, if passed, will enhance consumer protections for buyers of new freehold homes and provide local communities with the certainty they need to protect significant heritage properties and to build for the future.

I urge all members in this House to support this proposed comprehensive legislation and help create a better province for all of us.

Some of my fellow lawyers are applauding.

I know that there were some members of the Ontario real estate bar who really took their law licences, took their degrees and their experience and, frankly, went to battle on behalf of so many people who were victimized and have lost so much as part of the criminal enterprise that so many NOSIs became. As a lawyer, as a legislator, as an MPP, thank you so much for everything that you did. I admit I never really pursued real estate law as a law student; I was more interested in the criminal side of things—but I have to say, incredibly, incredibly well done. You have wonderfully represented your trade and our association. I am proud to be part of the same society as you, and I commend you all so much on the work that you have done.

Ultimately, with this bill, it’s a story of small and vulnerable people who became victimized by the greedy and the power-hungry, and it’s also a story of people who went far beyond the call of their individual duty to protect those people. As I said, I am hoping we will be able to put politics aside and stand up for what is right, stand up for the vulnerable in society and recognize the hard work done by these heroes, and pass Bill 200 and put an end to these predatory practices once and for all.

Again, I’m so proud to have been part of this, and I am so grateful for the work of the people who were so passionate in this.

I will hand it over to the MPP from Cambridge.

Further debate?

Further debate?

It is great to be here and take part in what is truly a historic bill and debate on that today.

First, I want to thank the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery and his team. Many of them are here listening right now and certainly watching on TV. Thank you for taking this very seriously and moving forward expeditiously, and putting together a bill that really is going to be transformative for many people in Ontario—not just, obviously, the seniors and typically elderly people who are affected by these scams, but also their families. I’m going to touch a little bit on some of that in my time here; I don’t have a lot, only seven minutes, but I did just want to touch on a few points.

Obviously, we’ve heard about what this bill is looking to accomplish: the 10-day cooling-off period for buyers of new freehold homes and, obviously, enhancing protections for condo owners, but I want to talk primarily about notices of security interest today. I think that’s made up the bulk of the speech and it certainly makes up the bulk of the bill.

It’s something that was brought to my attention a little over a year ago—about a year and a half—by David Mullock from Waterloo Regional Police Service. We’ve heard about him being the liaison officer who works with government on a regular basis. I know he’s actually watching right now. He was texting a few of our colleagues. So, thank you, David, for giving me a call last May and inviting me down to police headquarters to hear about the challenges that not only people in Waterloo region were having, but people across the province of Ontario.

It was a very sobering conversation. We had an opportunity to sit down with Detective Adam Stover, whom you’ve also heard talked about here this afternoon, and we walked through this notices-of-security-interest scam that had been going on in the region. We talked a little bit about what it meant, what it has done. You’ve heard that here today so I won’t dive too deep on it, but it was very interesting when you looked at the numbers. I want to provide a few of the numbers today.

When you look at the early 2000s, there were roughly 2,000 registrations per year of NOSIs on properties here in Ontario. That number has ballooned last year to 58,000 notices of security interest. You can really see how the scam has taken hold, how people have seen that it is profitable and that there were enough loopholes in legislation that you were able to go out and perpetrate these on individuals. Like we’ve heard, it’s typically on folks that have maybe some cognitive impairment; folks who are a little bit challenged from a health standpoint; elderly people who, quite frankly, are taken advantage of and always want to believe that people are there to do the right thing, are there to help them, but at the end of the day it’s not always the case.

Right now—and this is sort of the telling piece—there are roughly 350,000 consumer and commercial NOSIs registered against property, against title, in Ontario—350,000. When you total that all up, it translates to roughly $1 billion, which is staggering. You can understand how often organized crime, unscrupulous realtors, lawyers, folks who want to take advantage of Ontarians are out there doing that, because there is so much money in this.

When you look at what this bill accomplishes, obviously banning notices of security interest, or NOSIs, going forward is fantastic, but the real key piece—and I want to thank the minister again and his team for the fulsome consultation that they did with stakeholders through the fall of 2023. It is really the retroactive banning of these practices which is going to make the key difference. It’s great that you stop it going forward, but it’s to be able to go back and say, “No, we are not going to allow these lucrative, unscrupulous contracts to stand, and we are not going to allow you to fleece people out of their homes.”

I did just want to read a couple of articles that I think are quite important. This one in particular comes from—I will just paraphrase from a CTV article. This is about a gentleman—I believe actually he was from Bowmanville; he’s since passed away. The minister had talked a little bit about him earlier. I’m going to quote, and this is Melissa Irons. Her father-in-law was, as I said, Karl Hoffman. I’m just going to read through this:

“Melissa Irons says her elderly father-in-law, Karl Hoffman, would have loved to live long enough to see the government eliminate notices of security interest (NOSIs) after they were used 11 times against him and his Bowmanville, Ont., home.”

Thank you, Melissa, for telling your story. I think it’s very important that we’re able to hear those stories first-hand. I know that Detective Stover has been travelling around the province, working with other municipal police forces and hearing those stories first-hand, investigating and seeing what the impact is to not only the homeowners, the people on title, but also their families. Often, these folks who have been taken advantage of don’t want to tell their family members because they’re embarrassed or they’re afraid of what might happen. It can cause real challenges—real challenges—divide families and, ultimately, see some people lose their homes, their nest eggs, their livelihood, their retirement.

I also did want to talk a little bit about Kitchener resident Ian Craig. He has seven notices of security interest on his property totalling more than $150,000, which, if this bill is passed—I’m hopeful, and I know that all of our colleagues here in the House believe that this is a good bill and that it should be passed—this will eliminate $150,000 of potential payments that he has to make.

Interjection.

That is real money. You’re right; that is real money, absolutely.

And this is somebody that doesn’t have that $150,000 to go ahead and pay that back. He would be forced to sell his home that he’s lived in for years to be able to make these payments.

Time is running down here, Madam Speaker. Again, I did want to thank all members of the House here today. I’m looking forward to hearing some comments from members of the opposition. I think we share the same sentiment that NOSIs need to stop and that, going forward, we can’t have these types of loopholes in Ontario law where you’re, quite frankly, able to scam people out of very, very hard-earned money.

So, thank you to the minister, thank you to his team, thank you to my colleagues. And with that, I will cede my time.

It’s now time for questions. Questions? Questions? Further debate?

I’ll be sharing my time with the members from Waterloo and Parkdale–High Park.

Speaker, I stand before you today with vigorous and urgent support of the legislation that stands before us. In fact, it is so urgent, what you will see today demonstrates what is possible when all of us stand united on an issue, and the issue today is one that is definitely warranted. It is us standing united against fraud, against those who take advantage of the most vulnerable amongst us.

I commend the government, because many times I’ve risen in this House, criticizing them on who they get their advice from—not today. Today, they have listened to the many people out there affected: consumers, lawyers fighting for those consumers, the police, countless Ontarians. You heard the facts: over 300,000 liens placed against properties, over a billion dollars tied up, creating nightmares—nightmares for families, nightmares for individuals. That is why we in the opposition will do everything we can to move this through as fast as possible, because people don’t have a single day more.

What we are looking at as we face this summer, day after day, with these bad actors going to people’s homes, taking advantage of our elderly, taking advantage of our parents, of our grandparents—in fact, it has been so heinous that when they find people that they can take advantage of, some of these bad actors will call their friends and other friends and other friends.

I have seen videos shown to me where individuals were mocking—were in the homes of people facing cognitive decline and mocking them in their living rooms as they took advantage of them. Unbelievable. What we are doing today is taking the money out of their hands, and that’s what we’re going to continue to do with this legislation.

Speaker, I’m going to share with you some excerpts from consumers, law enforcement, lawyers, legal aid clinics and many of those who have been in the trenches, either suffering fighting this or fighting on behalf of those affected. I again applaud the government because this is something that the New Democrats have been fighting for for years: consumer protection, fighting against scams, fighting against abuse.

I will be speaking to the consumer protection aspects of the bill, and before I get into NOSIs—these types of liens which, by the sound of the word, seem innocuous, and I tell you, it is nothing but damaging to families.

The other part of the bill does deal with the cooling-off period with regard to freehold homes. Again, I agree with the government in moving forward, because this was an amendment to the CPA we brought forth last fall. They did say at the time that the amendments we put forward were worth consideration, and today, they are taking our advice on this and I appreciate that.

Furthermore, with regard to the NOSIs themselves, I want to commend the member from London North Centre, the member from Waterloo, the member from Parkdale–High Park. I was proud to be co-sponsor in a bill that was tabled in March of this year calling just for this, the ban of notices of security interest in Ontario, both for the future and retroactively. That’s what we are doing, all of us together today, with great urgency.

I will now read to you a number of excerpts from those affected. I would like to begin with London Police Service:

“A London man is facing charges in relation to a lengthy investigation that was reported in the summer of 2023.

“In August of 2023, members of the London Police Service Financial Crime Unit were made aware of an alleged fraud that had taken place between July and December of 2021.

“Investigators learned an elderly victim was approached by a door-to-door salesperson and signed contracts to have various products installed inside the victim’s residence in the west end of the city. The items, including attic insulation, a water filter and water softener were sold through a signed contract to which the victim agreed to pay monthly bills for a lengthy period.

“After the products were installed, liens or ‘notice of security interest’ (NOSIs) were secured against the victim’s property without the victim’s knowledge.

“In March of 2022, the suspect male attended the victim’s address and advised the victim that he could assist with dealing with the aforementioned contracts and debts that were owed. The suspect provided advice in relation to how the victim could acquire a private mortgage to pay for the previous home renovations. The suspect filled out a mortgage application, which was signed by the victim, resulting in the issuance of a high-interest private mortgage in the name of the victim.”

And this is what the minister, in fact, and others here have alluded to. This is what law enforcement have been warning us, that these NOSIs were a gateway into schemes that would rob people of their homes.

“After the mortgage was obtained, the suspect convinced the victim that he could assist with additional renovations to the home at significant cost to the victim. It is further believed that the total amounts paid exceeded the cost of the work completed.

“Shortly after the payment was made relating to the renovations, the suspect male convinced the victim to apply for a reverse mortgage to pay back the private loan originally obtained. The reverse mortgage salesperson became concerned and contacted the London Police Service to investigate.”

Thank you, London police. Thank you for your advocacy and for standing up for people in the province of Ontario.

The name Adam Stover was mentioned, and he deserves a lot of praise. He was one of many officers in this province fighting, bringing this issue here to this House, talking to the politicians. In fact, he sat in my very office months ago himself. Here’s what he said, in excerpt:

“NOSIs have evolved into a tool used by organized crime in conjunction with predatory private lending to steal victims’ life savings and even homes....

“The removal of NOSIs eliminates the predators and saves likely over a billion dollars that is currently sitting on victims’ home titles waiting to be cashed in by predators by way of liquidation through the sale of the home and/or refinancing”—again, remortgaging-the-home schemes.

“The introduction of this legislation is a significant step. I look forward to all-party support”—and he has that—“to have this bill moved swiftly through the process. The expediting of this bill is imperative as, until that time comes, Ontarians will continue to be vulnerable to the current power of NOSIs and their predatory use.

“On behalf of the victims and those who speak on their behalf, we are hopeful that the removal of commercial NOSIs will put an end to this devastating fraud.”

Thank you to Detective Adam Stover and the Waterloo Regional Police Service.

Now I’m going to talk to you about a couple of consumers, many of the thousands affected across this province. Linda Palmieri, who stood with us here in the press galleries to talk about what has happened to her very own family: “In 2015,” she said, “my in-laws were manipulated into a small appliance sale; that they assumed was with a reputable company and told, under ‘government recommendation.’

“The sale from that initial contract in which a NOSI clause was included in the very fine print of the contract, put them onto a fraud list in which their names and identities were trafficked, swapped and sold to other fraudulent companies who over the span of six years repeatedly came back to their home and manipulated them into more fraudulent contract sales.” Seniors—seniors.

“They’ve had no recourse to fight it or have anyone protect them. Until now. While my in-laws do appreciate that the official opposition is finally addressing this urgent issue ... these are innocent”—this was at the time when we had tabled our bill; we are all united today—“proud people and there are thousands and thousands of them in Ontario and they need the government’s immediate help.

“End NOSIs now, retrofit the contracts and quickly, so that these companies do not rush the liens of the homes they have access to whilst the government spends precious time on passing this law. Please, we are counting on you.”

That’s what we are doing here today: moving it through.

“Please protect my in-laws and other victims of this crime and pass the legislation to ban NOSIs in Ontario for good and amend the legislation to wipe them from the books completely—and please pass it fast. Time is of the essence.”

Celia Bowker—she bought a home from a builder who originally signed a contract with a company and left her with no idea of the terms of the rental agreement. When it came to resell her home, monies were held back at the time of the closing, and to date, these monies—totalling $32,000—again are being held back due to vexatious NOSIs.

She says, “Thank you so much for your work on behalf of those of us who have been held hostage by this crooked company. I must add that the land registry’s office ... failed to check that supporting paperwork for liens was present or valid and that they failed to notify people when a lien was placed on their home. I see the LRO’s role in this problem has allowed the company to exploit people.”

One of the problems is that when these liens are passed, they’re not passed—anyway, they are fraudulent as they stand before us, but they’re not even happening with the knowledge of the victims. Victims don’t know.

I had a town hall that I did a couple of months ago. We talked about auto theft and we talked about NOSIs, and when I told people about NOSIs, the vast majority of the over 100 people that were there did not even know what they were. When they found out what they were, they wanted it dealt with immediately, and that’s what we’re doing today.

Now I want to talk to you about some of the legal aid clinics and legal aid services. We already heard about ACE, the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly. What they are is a specialty legal clinic established to provide a range of legal services to low-income seniors in Ontario, and they have been dealing for years with this issue. They came out, stood with us at our presser here, calling for the ban on NOSIs. They came out to our town hall to talk to people about how they could have them discharged and how to fight them.

They said, “On average, ACE receives more than 4,000 client intake inquiries a year. Many of these calls are reports of complaints due to unfair practices contrary to the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 ... many including door-to-door salespeople taking advantage of particularly vulnerable homeowners who have issues with vision, hearing, cognition and/or literacy, and/or for whom English is not their primary language.

“The Advocacy Centre for the Elderly ... welcomes and supports the introduction of” the bill, “An Act to provide for the development and implementation of a plan to establish a consumer watchdog organization,” which is something that we had tabled as well, and they are calling for the immediate passage of Bill 200, the Homeowner Protection Act, 2024—what we are debating today.

“Older adult homeowners continue to be victimized by the unlawful and unscrupulous use of NOSIs. Unethical lenders and home service companies are aggressively pursuing older adult homeowners with lawsuits leveraged by the registration of grossly inflated NOSIs against titles to their homes. Day after day, ACE continues to hear from older adults harassed and threatened by these actions. In many cases, vulnerable older adult homeowners are not able to withstand the stress of harassment for these exaggerated and unlawful claims. Sometimes, they pay out the claims believing they have no other alternative. In other cases, they cannot pay out the claims and live in fear of the loss of their homes. The Homeowner Protection Act is urgently needed to protect the rights of vulnerable older adult homeowners. Vulnerable older adult homeowners immediately need the retroactive abolition of NOSIs that the Homeowner Protection Act would provide,” which is what we are doing today.

Jamie Hildebrand, executive director and staff lawyer at the Huron Perth Community Legal Clinic:

“The notice of security interest has been a tool deployed by predatory ‘lenders’ to wrongly exploit the vulnerable consumer.

“Our clients typically do not have the financial resources to fight these notices, as a lawsuit and a qualified lawyer are the only way to do so.

“These notices need to be abolished immediately, and in the interim anyone affected by such a notice should be informed by the province immediately at no cost.

“The cascade of unfortunate financial consequences of such a notice to a person of modest means is fast and furious, potentially rendering them homeless.”

We heard from the minister how, when this tool came into effect decades ago, there were 400 registered a year and now 58,000.

More, from other forms of legal aid, Pro Bono Ontario: “NOSIs are most often used as a method to extract unconscionable payments from vulnerable consumers in exchange for a discharge.

“Discovering a NOSI on title can generate significant stress.

“Consumers are left with either paying significant sums to obtain clear title or having to initiate court proceedings to enforce their rights under the Consumer Protection Act.”

We thank all of the legal aid clinics that have been fighting in the trenches to help those affected by these scams.

Here’s a name that people of this House know well, Tim Hudak—in fact, former Conservative leader, CEO of OREA at the time and, in fact, who was the minister that moved the old Consumer Protection Act. He came out swinging in saying we need a ban on NOSIs.

This is what OREA said and what he said: “Too many Ontarians, when selling their home, have been surprised by one or more NOSIs—fine print in contracts that include exorbitant buyout charges that must be paid out before the home can be sold. This only adds undue financial burden and stress to the largest transaction many Ontarians make in their lives”—and that is the purchase of a home.

“Banning NOSIs is just one more step in the right direction to protect consumers and deliver fairness in Ontario’s real estate landscape.”

As we said, most people don’t know they have these liens registered against their properties. When do they find out? When they’re remortgaging their home, when they’re selling their home, when they’re buying a home. That’s when it’s discovered, and that’s why OREA took a position on behalf of all realtors in Ontario who are fighting on behalf of their clients to ban NOSIs.

Now, I’m going to talk to you about a number of lawyers who have been fighting this, fighting for their clients.

Dave Deonarain, lawyer, had this to say when we tabled our bill at the time, Bill 169, which would do the very same, banning NOSIs retroactively and for the future: “Upon my review of Bill 169—I think the ban of NOSIs is essential to protect Ontarians and” this is the “only proper solution to address this total mess created by these HVAC companies. Nothing else will work to address the problem.

“I compliment the MPPs that have come up with such a strong strategy to finally deal with a situation that has caused so much financial damage to many Ontarians for far too long.

“Ultimately, to address the problem, an outright ban of future NOSIs and full removal of any NOSI from the title of any and all titles across Ontario will be exactly what is needed. There is no middle ground.”

Lawyer Mohsen Seddigh, a lawyer who has represented numerous consumers affected by NOSIs—and so he’s in fact advancing a class action in this respect and stated, “I applaud the political consensus that has emerged with respect to the scourge of NOSIs and their traumatic impact on the most vulnerable in our society, especially the elderly.”

Emma Michael, partner at Aion Law: “Between the exorbitant cost of buying the rental equipment out to remove a NOSI, which is almost always well above the value of the equipment, and the additional legal fees incurred on every real estate transaction involving a NOSI, property owners are taking the hit in favour of these companies.

“To address these issues for homeowners would be a step forward in protecting Canadians and their most treasured, largest and most treasured asset—their home.”

Matthew Langer, another lawyer, who has written blog articles on the subject of NOSIs, said: “More problematically than not knowing what HVAC stands for, thousands of Ontario consumers don’t know that they are renting HVAC equipment on lengthy agreements that have been found by Ontario courts in some instances to be unenforceable. These HVAC agreements can seem like small monthly payments, but there can be clauses ... that include a term ... of 10 years and allow for the HVAC companies and other affiliated financial companies to place liens on the” consumers’ homes.

“The amount of the lien can be variable as there is no clear formula in the HVAC rental agreement but it usually is equivalent to the full amount owing for the entire duration of HVAC agreement. If the Ontario consumer has more than one piece of HVAC equipment, they will have multiple liens on their property.”

And finally, I’m going to read from Greg Weedon. Here is a lawyer, here is a voice for a long time who has been fighting to end and ban NOSIs. I recognize him, and I thank him. He has sent multiple letters to both myself and to the members of provincial Parliament here at Queen’s Park. He has amassed 750 signatures from real estate lawyers and realtor registrants.

Here is an excerpt from their open letter submitted last month: “We are Ontario real estate agents, brokers and registrants writing on behalf of thousands of Ontario homeowners who are dealing with the very real threat of losing their homes....

“The registration of notices of security interest ... or lodgements against title ownership of vulnerable homeowners in Ontario, often in respect of unwanted and overpriced home services and equipment, has escalated to the point where it is openly and brazenly being abused.

“The victims of these predatory practices are elderly homeowners who are socially isolated with limited financial means, deliberately targeted due to their social and demographic profile. There is an enormous burden on homeowners since mortgage lenders and purchasers require NOSIs and lodgements to be removed from title before completing a transaction.

“The properties are effectively held hostage and the victims are forced or extorted to pay the amount the registrant claims to be owing, regardless of whether that sum is legitimate or not. This system is broken. There is no other adequate solution other than a complete prohibition of NOSIs for all residential ownership”—again, what we are doing here today together.

“We demand that this government not only prohibit NOSIs and lodgements going forward, but move to immediately delete, vacate and abolish NOSIs and lodgements from residential properties retroactively.”

Just yesterday, Mr. Weedon submitted another letter in support of taking swift action. He wrote:

“I write this letter to urge multi-party co-operation in passing Bill 200 prior to adjourning the Ontario Legislature in June. The consequences of announcing this bill and then waiting nearly five (5) months to enact same will be devastating. Lawyers are already witnessing these consequences at this given time. We understand that the parties are unified in efforts to protect homeowners and the elderly; we simply ask that these Ontarians are prioritized now.

“I write on behalf of fellow members of the Ontario real estate bar as experts in our field, and on behalf of hundreds of clients who continue to deal with a threat to their most important asset that they never saw coming. On behalf of these victims and the countless Ontarians set to benefit from this charge, a heartfelt thank you is in order.

“I have personally advocated for nearly 100 families impacted by these predatory schemes over the past 24 months. While we applaud the steps taken to resolve these issues, we cannot stress the urgency and importance of moving this bill through the legislative system without further delay. We have collectively witnessed thousands of distressed homeowners who have less than a week to clear thousands of dollars in NOSIs, failing which, these homeowners risk a failed refinancing or a lawsuit stemming from an aborted closing.

“The proposed legislation has caused uncertainty as to whether NOSIs need to be discharged and the degree of leverage these bad actors continue to maintain. These concerns are shared across the entire real estate legal bar. We personally have between 20 and 30 clients who are embroiled in expensive litigation proceedings pertaining to NOSIs; these homeowners have no practical means to refinance, sell or utilize the equity in their homes at this time.

“These homeowners remain a small sample size of those affected by the predatory scheme. These homeowners need urgent representation and demand timely action. We plead for the parties to work collaboratively and in unison to pass this bill and right the wrong that has plagued Ontarians for far too long.

“Thank you very much,

“Greg Weedon.”

So there you have it: the case put before us all by consumers, by the police, law enforcement agencies, lawyers, legal aid clinics. This matter is costing Ontarians over $1 billion of vexatious liens placed against properties, and they end today. They end today because we are working as one. I am proud to stand here as an MPP in this House today. I congratulate the minister. We have talked about this for some time now, and I know these liens bother him as much as they bother me, as much as they bother the official opposition, as much as they bother every member in this House.

Because of this, I am sharing my time and our lead with two members, and we will be putting forth no more speakers on this, in the urgency. But every member in the official opposition is standing united, standing with strength and is calling to an end and a ban on NOSIs today and forever.

Further debate?

Before I begin, I just want to acknowledge that we have so many students joining watching debate. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

It is always an honour to rise and speak on behalf of the residents of Parkdale–High Park, and today to speak to Bill 200, the Homeowner Protection Act. This bill puts an end to predatory scams through the use of notices of security interest, NOSIs, after installing and financing consumer goods like water heaters, furnaces, AC units and even home automation devices.

These scams have become all too common in our province and they have persisted for many, many years. These unethical companies have used NOSIs because the government of the day turned a blind eye.

What is particularly vile is that these scammers target and victimize some of the most vulnerable members of our community, such as seniors and newcomers. A constituent, an attorney from my riding, wrote to me saying that most people are “never aware of the regulations until the time comes to sell or finance the home, when they are suddenly on the hook for thousands of dollars. Some are seniors who have been ... criminally scammed.”

That’s the other aspect of this scam that is so vile: that it is done without the homeowner’s knowledge, and it becomes a lien against somebody’s property title. Then, the companies, these scammers, get to pocket a chunk of somebody’s property value for years and years. In fact, people become aware of these scams, these liens, only when it’s time for them to move or sell or refinance their home.

At a press conference that I was part of, we heard a story of a senior couple who were scammed into purchasing a furnace and air conditioner unit in 2015 and a NOSI clause was included in the fine print. They had 12 liens on their home, a home that they spent their lives paying for. Now, these scammers were trying to steal this couple’s home for themselves.

That was the press conference when we in the official opposition announced our bill, Bill 169, Removing Red Tape for Homeowners, to end the disgraceful practice by banning NOSIs and making it easier for existing ones to be removed.

The government responded quickly, announcing the very next day that they agreed with us, and they would move to ban NOSIs. Their swift action shows that this is necessary and urgent legislation, and there is agreement across party lines that it needs to be implemented immediately.

Governments promise action all the time, but often never follow through or drag their feet. But this time—to the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery’s credit—he did follow through on his commitment to bring in legislation before spring, and here we are. It’s an example of how we can work together. When we do, it’s Ontarians who benefit.

Speaker, I am pleased to support this legislation to ban predatory NOSIs and protect Ontarian homeowners.