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.

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.

Further debate?

I do appreciate these moments when we can share, all working together, with one goal in mind—and that goal is protecting the vulnerable in our community from fraud and bad actors who are there to steal, basically.

I want to thank my neighbour the MPP from Cambridge, who put forward a PMB a while back. I know my friend from Cambridge has moved the needle very much today, and I appreciate his trail-blazing work on this file. I want to thank the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery, as well, for making sure that we can get this work done as soon as possible so that people can start seeing relief now. I have stories from my riding where people’s lives are put on hold or the harm is happening day to day, moment to moment, and so I’m glad we could expedite this work.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t also thank Detective Adam Stover. He’s a member of our Waterloo Regional Police Service. I had the good fortune of talking with him when our police service came to Toronto and came to Queen’s Park to describe what was happening in our community. He took an amazing lead. He has been an expert in the field. I’ve had the privilege of being able to refer constituents in my riding who have been facing this to him to get expert advice and help with their issues, and he has been at the forefront of making sure that this gets resolved as soon as possible. So I want to give a deep bow to our police service, and especially Detective Adam Stover for his great work and advocacy.

Notice of security interests—the fact that we are all learning what this means right now shows how vulnerable our population is. So many folks across our province have no idea what’s happening when they’re being scammed day to day through these complicated contracts—people coming to fix a bathroom or sell them a heater or an air conditioner—and getting charged triple, quadruple and amounts they’re not even aware of. There is a total lack of informed consent, and the way this has opened the floodgates to organized crime is astounding. So I really appreciate that this silent crisis is getting addressed quickly, especially given the circumstances of us facing an aging population.

Just last week, I spoke to a resident in my riding whose mother has had NOSIs put on her property. She’s living with Alzheimer’s. It was her dying wish to age in place, but because she lives with dementia, she is vulnerable to folks coming to her door. Her data was sold. So not only was the NOSI put on her property, but her data was sold, and the PSW told the constituent in my riding that a cab had been sent to her home four times to take her mother to the bank. The only reason she wasn’t swindled out of any money in her bank account was because she didn’t remember to bring her social insurance number. So I don’t think that we’re just saving folks from the harm caused by NOSIs; we’re saving this data from organized crime, being used in other malicious ways. I know that our constituent will breathe a sigh of relief. Her mother is in long-term care now, and she really wants to do the work of selling the house, but she needs this resolved in order to move on with the sale of her mother’s home and so that her mother can keep the money she has worked for her whole life.

I also appreciate the work done to delay—the heritage buildings being recognized. I know our heritage community and the architectural conservancy was very loud in their advocacy for asking about that. I want to acknowledge my constituent Kae Elgie for her work in this matter—and a lot of the other protections for people buying their homes that are afforded to those who have condos. I’m so grateful that we can include some of these items to make sure people have peace of mind when they buy their first home.

I’m grateful today that we can all come together and we can create protections for people, especially our most vulnerable, in terms of home ownership. I hope we can go that extra mile in the coming years to protect seniors from renoviction. I know in my riding and in many of our ridings, seniors are being renovicted at double the rate and they’re losing their rental homes. So I hope we can protect people’s home ownership and we’ll keep working towards protecting tenants from being illegally evicted by bad actors in that space, as well.

I am looking forward to voting in unanimity together for this wonderful bill.

I would like to say in the House, and this is probably the first time in almost six years, I am very happy that this government bill has been called to the House. I’m very grateful that the government has moved so quickly on addressing NOSIs. And I particularly would like to thank the government and Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery for taking action on this extremely important issue.

I’d also like to thank, of course, the member from London North Centre and the member from Parkdale–High Park and, of course, the very passionate member on this issue from Humber River–Black Creek. I was pleased to join them as co-sponsors on Bill 169 to address these predatory practices in Ontario.

Some background on this bill—because my parents just tuned in—we have been hearing a lot about notices of security interest, or NOSIs, that are placed on properties, resulting in many senior victims. It’s a relatively common interaction: Typically, an illegitimate company shows up at a homeowner’s door offering to sell or rent HVAC appliances, and there is a debt or a lien placed on the home that must be repaid upon the sale or refinancing. Some of these videos that have been published about this issue are truly, absolutely heartbreaking. Many seniors find themselves victims on this.

A simple unit which costs hundreds of dollars becomes tens of thousands of dollars in many of these cases. Worse yet, homeowners don’t even find out about the NOSIs until they refinance or sell. Homeowners, especially senior homeowners, deserve to be protected.

There has been a considerable uptick in NOSIs registered in Ontario over the past two years, with hundreds of thousands of dollars registered on title. Particularly vulnerable are low-income citizens and those who are socially isolated.

I must tell you that some of the saddest videos that were part of this investigation show seniors who are lonely and they are isolated. In one video that I watched, the lady wanted to get the door-to-door salesmen some coffee, to have him sit down and have some cake, because they were lonely. Essentially what was happening, though, is that these lonely and isolated seniors were literally inviting the wolf into their own home. The connection to organized crime as these NOSI scams evolved is truly frightening. It was certainly a learning experience for me as the finance critic.

I want to just tell you very quickly about one local resident—his name is Ian Craig—in Waterloo region. He has had seven notices of security interest on his property, totalling more than $150,000. All the NOSIs on Craig’s home were put there by scammers without his knowledge. “This is not right, for people who have invested in their homes, that somebody comes along and puts [NOSIs] on it for half of” the house. “The way they can take advantage of people is just disgusting,” he said. “This is why we need protection.” This is why we need Bill 200.

The ties to organized crime became very evident when we reached out to the Waterloo region police, who I definitely want to say thank you very much to for your leadership and your advocacy and for your education on these predatory practices.

Detective Stover of the Waterloo Regional Police Service has been investigating NOSIs since 2010 but the investigation intensified in 2020 when police identified that they were being used criminally. Sometimes this is data that is the personal and financial data of the individual in the home. That data is captured and then sold to various other organizations. It was astounding that this has been going on and accelerating in Ontario for the time being.

“It became a tool used by organized crime to target and revictimize people who had notices of security on title from the years previous,” said Stover. “They really identified an aging population in Ontario that have a lot of equity in their home.”

Last year in Ontario alone 38,000 NOSIs were registered. Imagine that this practice has been allowed to continue for so many years. When this came up under the former Liberal government, it was astounding. They were supposed to outlaw door-to-door sales, but there was no enforcement whatsoever. The lack of oversight—basically just going through the motions—is really a disservice to so many Ontarians, particularly the vulnerable and seniors. It is vital that we protect vulnerable citizens and especially seniors from such scams so that they are not being taken advantage of.

Thank you very much for introducing this important legislation. I hazard to say it, but let’s get it done today—

Interjections.

It’s a pleasure to rise in this chamber to discuss Bill 200 with everyone.

Let’s start by facing the facts: The Premier is in damage control. After the disastrous reception of Bill 185, the Premier realizes he needs to give a little something for everyone. Instead of passing landmark housing policy, he’s trying to pump out a little goodie bag to keep stakeholders quiet over the summer.

Who is really driving housing policy? Is it the Premier, who’s got the minister on a leash, or is it the other way around? I guess we’ll never know. Or we could wait for another minister to write a book about their time trying to keep a struggling ministry afloat, which is a book that I would preorder.

This bill gets too much credit—because let’s talk about flip-flops. And I’m not talking about the kind of flip-flops the Premier might have been wearing at last night’s backyard barbecue. I’m talking about the kind of flip-flops they’re trying to camouflage in this bill. Schedule 2, the Ontario Heritage Act—that’s a flip-flop. Schedule 5, the Planning Act—again, that is a flip-flop.

When this government flip-flops, you never know whether it’s going to land in the clear, and on this occasion, they’re doing the right thing. But how much uncertainty, how much spooking of the housing sector had to take place in order for them to get here? The answer is: too much.

By forcing municipalities to determine whether their listed heritage sites would be designated according to an unrealistic timeline, they have forced them to reroute valuable administrative resources that municipalities needed to get homes built, that they couldn’t use to get homes built. But this government isn’t concerned about that. After all, Bill 185 entirely abandons the “1.5 million homes by 2031” housing target.

At least this bill realizes the error of the government’s ways and flip-flops to give municipalities more time to give notice of intention to designate homes as heritage sites. It’s good that this government can realize when it’s wrong, but I think the people of Ontario would appreciate if they weren’t wrong every day, because these flip-flops are costly, not just for the taxpayer, but to everyone waiting for a place to call home.

Madam Speaker, I wish that was the end of it; I genuinely do. But when you make your way down to schedule 5 of this bill, you realize there is yet another flip-flop staring you in the face—and again, not the Premier’s flip-flops from last night. I’m talking about the legal protection this government legislated for itself with regard to ministerial zoning orders. Do you remember that—when the government covered its own hide for reversing on all those MZOs? Yes, so that was with changes to the Planning Act. All those developers that the government dragged down into the mess of their own making—well, the government railroaded them too. They were left out to dry without any recourse for legal action. That didn’t sit well with Ontario’s development industry, even those that weren’t involved with the Premier’s greenbelt-giveaway fiasco.

The government wants to hand out MZOs to build transit-oriented communities. Well, no one trusts the government anymore on those MZOs. They don’t believe those MZOs mean anything. And if those developers have those MZOs cancelled, they wouldn’t have any insurance that they could then avail themselves of legal action. Never in the history of Ontario has there been a government that has created so much uncertainty in Ontario’s housing sector.

Let me be clear: I am in support of transit-oriented communities. We need to increase density, and we need to do it in major transit areas. I want to make that clear to the minister and his entire office, because it seems they have their wires crossed on this issue. But I want to make sure that the whole House and all the people of Ontario realize—

Interjections.

I want to make sure that the whole House and all the people of Ontario realize the absurdity that is this government having to walk back legislation to reassure home builders that they will still be able to sue them if they flip-flop on their MZOs. That’s where we are, folks. That’s how low this government has taken us.

We will support this legislation, but it’s embarrassing that we have to. I can understand why this government is rushing this bill through in one day, because it is frankly so embarrassing that so much of this bill even had to be written. It makes sense why they don’t want to take it to committee, because the stakeholders would flame them there. Well, perhaps that would happen more behind the scenes, as it already has. Regardless, it would be pretty awkward.

The housing sector has had enough of this government jerking it around. When it comes to health care, I have come to the conclusion that this government’s neglect is intentional and deliberate. But I do believe that the government’s mismanagement of the housing file boils down to another one of Ford’s finest signature blends: NIMBYism and incompetence.

But it turns out that a broken clock can be right twice a day, and that is the case for this government in some sections of the bill. This bill does get some things right, against all odds and in spite of this government’s signature blend of incompetence. For example, it offers a 10-day cooling-off period, after the purchase of new freehold homes, to cancel their contract without reason or penalty. This is to ensure that new homeowners can make sure their purchase was the right choice for themselves, and so they’re fully equipped with all of the information that they need. Surprisingly, this government is actually taking the advice of the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board and the Ontario Real Estate Association, although it is still flouting many of the Housing Affordability Task Force’s major recommendations.

Do you know what, Madam Speaker? A chance for homebuyers to make sure their purchase was the right choice? Some time for them to make sure they’ve got all the information correct?

Frankly, I think this government should legislate a 10-day cooling-off period for itself when it passes legislation, just so that we can all make sure.

This bill also bans consumer notices of security interest. There are far too many examples of people who have been caught unaware of NOSIs registered on their property and who have subsequently been subjected to exorbitant fees that feel extortionary. Something has to be done about that. While retroactively banning consumer NOSI registrations will be a good thing for homebuyers and we support that, this government must ensure that it puts the protections in place so that this change only affects bad-faith actors, not good-faith actors. Some of the people who have been impacted most are people who are elderly, who are new to our province, or who don’t speak English. Banning consumer notices of security interest is indeed an important step to introducing more fairness and equality to people who own homes. Ultimately, we need to do what is best for the 350,000 homeowners who will be protected by this policy, but this government needs to do it responsibly.

On to legal protections: It is understandable, especially for this government, that they would want to put legal protections in place for themselves regarding NOSIs. But in the same breath, they are also legislating legal protections for any action taken by Teranet. What’s up about that? Does it have anything to do with NOSIs? Is this about cancelling a contract and changing vendors? This bill offers no transparency, and this process, frankly, offers no time to even figure it out.

Does the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery have any of these answers? Does the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing? Does anyone? Does the Premier know—or is this coming from somewhere else entirely? Those of us on this side of the House would like to know.

While we’re on the topic of transparency, let’s talk about builders’ cancellation disclosures. This bill would require the public disclosure of builders’ histories of cancellation disclosures, providing consumers with greater confidence and peace of mind. This is a good thing for homebuyers. It keeps everyone honest, and we support it.

But I find it odd that we are talking about homeowner protection and we are living in a time when the government can’t even ensure that a home is physically protected from crime, break-ins and armed robberies. This bill has some worthwhile elements to it, but it’s disgraceful that this government hasn’t included anything to do with helping Ontarians protect their homes and their families from crime. In my community, break-ins have been on the rise ever since this government took office, and far too little has been done to make them feel safe in their homes. For this government’s next bill, I do hope that they will take this into consideration.

Just one last thing, on MZOs: With all the talk about MZOs, how about this government actually using them to build homes instead of as political favours? If you want any proof that this government treats MZOs as political tools, look no further than 175 Cummer in the Minister of Long-Term Care’s riding. That inaction is forcing the city of Toronto to pay millions in storage for modular homes.

We’ll pass this bill, but will the government get its act together?

I want to end by concluding with just how regrettable this accelerated and expedited process is for denying a fulsome review of everything in this Legislature. I will say now what I said before, which is that this bill is an embarrassment and didn’t need to happen—an embarrassment so great that a bill that is being touted as a housing bill wasn’t even put out under the housing minister’s name; it was put out under the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery.

In conclusion, I thank all members of the House for participating in this debate and for putting this bill forward. I regret that it has been done in such an expedited manner, but I look forward to the ensuing stages of reviewing this later this afternoon.

Questions? Questions?

Further debate?

Please lower the voices, the conversations. We cannot hear the speaker.

I apologize. You can continue.

Back to the member for Don Valley East.

I respectfully ask that the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole House.

I have no amendments to the bill, but I do have comments to schedule 4 as a whole.

Committee of the Whole House.

House in Committee of the Whole.

Consideration 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.

Questions? Questions?

Further debate? Further debate?

Mr. McCarthy has moved second reading of 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.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

Orders of the day? I recognize the government House leader.

We are now considering 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. Are there any comments, questions or amendments? And if so, to which sections of the bill?

Are there any other comments, questions or amendments to other sections of the bill?

I just wanted to make comments to everyone in the House today. I want to congratulate the minister on this bill before us. I want to thank the government for listening to the official opposition. The parts of the bill pertaining to the freehold home extension with regard to the cooling-off period is, in fact, an amendment that we introduced to the CPA, and we thank you for listening to us and for it appearing in the bill.

We also thank the government and the minister because the banning of NOSIs for the future, as well as the past, in fact, is the substance of Bill 169, tabled by members of the official opposition. Again, the government and the minister have heard us, and this is part of the substance of this bill with regard to consumer protection.

I’m proud, as we are all proud, to stand together united on this bill.

Thank you, Chair. This is a landmark piece of legislation, the first of its kind in Canada. If passed, it would protect consumers from fraud and bad actors. By banning, or proposing to ban, the registration of consumer notices of security of interest on land titles, we are putting an end to the exploitation that has targeted our elderly and the most vulnerable residents of our communities.

Moreover, we’re giving Ontarians the crucial information and the time they need to confidently make one of the biggest financial decisions of their lives. This would occur through our enhanced protections for new homebuyers, putting those new freehold homebuyers on the same plane as new condo purchasers.

The proposed legislation would further strengthen consumer protections for homeowners and buyers by establishing a 10-day cooling-off period for purchases or purchasers of new freehold homes. The Condominium Authority Tribunal’s jurisdiction to cover a broader range of disputes would be put into place. There would be a more accessible and efficient resolution of disputes and the burden taken away from the courts.

This proposed legislation has widespread support from advocacy groups for seniors, consumer advocates, law enforcement, legal professionals and businesses of all sizes.

I move that the Committee of the Whole rise and report and ask leave to sit again.