It is a privilege to rise today to lead off third reading debate on the Building Infrastructure Safely Act, 2023. This proposed legislation is a testament to our commitment to building our province in a safer, more efficient and cost-effective manner.

As we kick off this third reading debate, it is my pleasure to reiterate our government’s plans for a future marked by progress and prosperity. This legislation, if passed, would create a catalyst for the positive change our province needs. One that ensures that our infrastructure projects are pillars of strength for future generations to come.

Speaker, we frequently debate about infrastructure in this House. We do so because of our government’s unwavering commitment to building the vital infrastructure that Ontario needs. It serves as the backbone of a thriving society and the foundation upon which economic growth, job creation and community development are built.

I’m continually reminded of the great work that can be accomplished not just during these debates, but also, last week, at the Standing Committee on Justice Policy—and I will elaborate further on that shortly. I’m always impressed by the thoughtful and careful examination that bills receive in this House. I want to thank all members for their outstanding work in that regard, and I want to thank the representatives from all the organizations who took the time and effort to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice Policy. We heard from the Electricity Distributors Association, the Ontario Energy Association, the Association of Ontario Road Supervisors, the Ontario Sewer and Watermain Construction Association, Enbridge Gas, Toronto Hydro, Alectra Utilities, Hydro One and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. All of these organizations play an essential role in the daily lives of Ontarians, and one thing was clear: They understand the need for the legislation we are debating this morning.

On behalf of my ministry and our government, we sincerely appreciate the time that all participants have taken to give input. We have thought extensively about what these stakeholders had to say not just during public hearings but also through a series of extensive consultations throughout last year, 2023. These consultations were held by the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery and the Ministry of Energy to listen to the municipalities and the businesses involved in the locate system, to hear from them on ways to improve the system as we work together to build the Ontario of tomorrow. In fact, last spring we hosted round tables with dozens of stakeholders from all areas of the industry, including underground infrastructure owners, excavators and builders.

I want the stakeholders to know that I sincerely appreciate their valuable feedback during the development of this bill, and that I am committed to continuing our conversations as the needs of the industry continue to evolve. The current bill under consideration is a culmination of those consultations, individual meetings, letters and constant communication, wherein stakeholders relay the challenges of the current locate system to the government.

Bill 153 is a response to those concerns and the culmination of these tireless efforts across this government to provide real solutions by way of proposed legislation. That is why Bill 153, I believe, received unanimous support on both its first and second readings. Just yesterday afternoon, it was reported back to the House with unanimous support from the committee.

Speaker, now this brings me to the details of the bill at hand. The Building Infrastructure Safely Act, 2023, aims to prohibit underground infrastructure owners and operators from charging fees to locate essential components such as telecommunication lines, water mains and gas pipelines. This prohibition is a crucial step toward protecting the public from damages to critical infrastructure and keeping costs down for a wide range of construction projects, aligning seamlessly with Ontario’s broader plan to facilitate the efficient and safe completion of vital infrastructure projects.

If passed, this bill will play a valuable role in empowering our government’s ability to ensure responsible construction practices and community development. That is why today marks a significant milestone in the pursuit of a safer, more efficient and cost-effective approach to building critical infrastructure in our great province. But more importantly, it is a response to the changing landscape of infrastructure development in Ontario. It demonstrates how our government understands the pivotal role that robust infrastructure plays in connecting communities, fostering innovation and enhancing the overall quality of life for our fellow citizens and residents. We’re dedicated to ensuring that these infrastructure projects are not only impactful, but also executed with the highest regard for safety, efficiency and protection of our existing vital underground infrastructure while at the same time keeping costs down.

I submit that it is a particularly timely bill for us to be debating, as people across our province prepare for another construction season starting this spring. Mr. Speaker, the safety of our workers, our citizens and all residents is paramount. Ontarians can rest assured that we are steadfast in our commitment to implementing and upholding the highest safety standards. Our workers are the backbone and future of Ontario, and their well-being is non-negotiable. That is why we will spare no effort in creating the work environments that prioritize safety for them and the communities those workers serve.

Safety also means looking out for our families, our neighbours and the larger community around us. This bill, along with previous amendments to the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012, is aimed at promoting safety. For that matter, it is actually goal number one across my ministry. While we work hard to balance a number of other priorities, safety is always top of mind. Throughout the consultations, for example, strong support has been expressed from the utility sector, as it would provide a system that will ensure the delivery of safe locates with public safety always remaining the top priority.

Efficiency is also one of the keys to unlocking the full potential of our infrastructure initiatives. Our government is acutely aware of the need to streamline processes, eliminate bureaucratic hurdles and foster collaboration among all stakeholders. By aiming to expedite project timelines, reducing unnecessary delays and delivering results, we can meet the evolving needs of our citizens and residents in a timely fashion. Now, to achieve all of these goals, Mr. Speaker, and to have successful infrastructure projects and policies, we continue to work closely with municipalities, private sector partners and community stakeholders.

I believe that many stakeholders agree with the Ontario Good Roads Association, who expressed that our government is delivering on its commitment to improve efficiencies and locate delivery by addressing stakeholder concerns and ensuring an efficient and sustainable operation of Ontario One Call.

Through a thoughtful and collaborative approach, the changes we are proposing would enhance the existing framework and contribute to a more streamlined and effective system for all stakeholders involved. These are the kind of changes that would help improve housing starts and reduce upward pressure on property taxes throughout the province, especially in northern and rural communities. To reiterate this further, I would like to share a quote from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario: “Timely locates”—according to AMO—“for underground infrastructure are critical for safe and efficient construction. The government’s improvements to the locates system will make it more streamlined and accessible, helping municipalities and others to build faster and safer.”

Since becoming Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery, this is the second bill I have had the pleasure of introducing to this House. Last fall, I introduced, and this House passed unanimously, Bill 142, which included the new Consumer Protection Act, one of my ministry’s cornerstone statutes. Both of these bills were built on extensive consultations in order to find the right solutions for the long term.

In hearings last week of the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, I mentioned that we are focused on solutions to get things done the right way. This means a solutions-oriented approach that is going to help move us forward in addressing the challenges faced by underground infrastructure owners, excavators and others who work with the network of cables, pipelines and tunnels that intersect beneath us. We are looking at the solutions that help maintain strong safety standards.

We are also considering the needs and the priorities of numerous stakeholders to arrive at a place that meets the needs of all of those involved. In fact, there have been at least three different rounds of consultations leading up to the introduction of this bill. It is a critical part in every area of my ministry’s work as we build better services for the people of Ontario that are easy to access where and when they need them. That is our entire focus. That is the focus on enhancing services for Ontarians and businesses throughout Ontario. It’s right there in the name: the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery. This work goes well beyond the walls of my ministry. We help improve government services across the entire government with behind-the-scenes information technology expertise. And not to be forgotten are the archival and record-keeping services and advice provided by the Archives of Ontario in maintaining records of our great history in Ontario.

Speaker, all of this comes back to the bill at hand, because a great deal of my ministry’s work is guided by a deep and abiding commitment to protect consumers and ensure public safety. I want to reiterate, and it bears repeating, that just as an accident involving underground infrastructure can extend well beyond the immediate area, getting this work done safely, smoothly and reliably is intrinsically connected to many other government priorities.

As our government is working hard to build infrastructure—infrastructure like new homes, roads, public transit, high-speed Internet—we need to make sure that these projects can be moved along. And while we do not always see the groundwork or, in this case, the underground work being done before digging starts, we must make sure that locates can facilitate this work getting done and getting done right.

In fact, our Minister of Infrastructure noted that our government is investing over $185 billion to revitalize schools, hospitals, public transit, roads, housing and access to high-speed Internet for every community across the province by the end of 2025. Speaker, that is the most ambitious capital plan in our province’s history. This critical infrastructure will support the quality of life that Ontarians deserve to enjoy. It is what brings us together and keeps us connected to our families, our friends, our workplaces and our daily activities of daily life that are near and dear to us. That is why we are using every tool available to ensure our infrastructure projects are built safely and allow communities, businesses and individuals to feel the benefits of those projects.

The Minister of Infrastructure strongly supports this important work to get these proposed changes in place to get key infrastructure projects built more efficiently, while ensuring communities across Ontario benefit today from these projects and for generations to come. The Minister of Energy also believes that this bill will help keep costs down and make it easier to build more cost-effectively while protecting our workers and the critical underground infrastructure that keeps our province powered and connected. Additionally, excavators and municipalities appreciate our government’s work in limiting costs, as when we allow for spiralling costs, it would create challenges for construction companies and, particularly, small municipalities otherwise.

And while the need for infrastructure is clear not just for our current population, it is also essential for future growth, and we have extensive growth expected in the years ahead, within this decade alone. Our population is growing by nearly 500,000 people in the last year. More than 170,000 net new jobs were created in the first nine months of 2023 alone. This is good news; however, it has also created a huge pressure on housing, and that is why the need to work collaboratively to build better, to adapt to our growing population is so important.

Speaker, we have talked much about infrastructure in this House. Our government has been so focused on creating lasting and stable infrastructure that ensures that Ontario can run better. And whether we are talking about building better transit and roads, expanding high-speed Internet availability or getting homes built for our growing population, some of the challenges are the same. You do not have to go very far to hear about many of them. Access to skilled labour, increasing costs and many other construction challenges are all well documented.

Now, before I go any further, allow me to provide you and my colleagues in this House some context, Speaker. There is one area that we tend not to talk about very much, and that is the network of infrastructure that is underground, delivering many of the services that make homes and businesses run. Underneath all of us, beneath our feet, are vast, complicated networks of extremely vital infrastructure that have been built, updated and expanded throughout the history of Ontario.

The water mains, telecommunication cables, gas and oil pipelines and high-voltage electrical cables all fuel the economy of Ontario, and if we want every corner of Ontario to move forward, we need to improve that infrastructure. Every single one of these is critical. They provide necessary services, the loss of which would represent inconvenience at the least or grave danger at the worst.

For example, in today’s digital world, having reliable Internet access is crucial for work, education, health care, communication and entertainment. Ontarians understand the frustration when they are left offline and in the dark for too long. Families should never have to worry about their children being unable to access online learning while at home, nor should a business owner have to struggle to work at home due to lack of connectivity. Think of the risk of losing water pressure, which could compromise the ability of firefighters to respond to an emergency. There is really no shortage of practical, real-life examples.

Part of maintaining the reliability of these networks is the requirement to make sure that anyone involved in a construction project gets the necessary information to identify where infrastructure is buried before breaking ground. From planting a tree in your yard to large commercial construction, having a clear knowledge of the vital infrastructure below the site is a must for public safety and for safeguarding the valuable services provided to our communities by our underground assets.

These concerns are not unique to our province. Allow me to share some examples of cases where construction projects have caused significant damage to underground infrastructure.

Just over a year ago, in January 2023, CBC reported a series of interruptions in telecommunications services in northern communities, including in the Northwest Territories. Internet, cellular and phone services were cut off when a construction crew in nearby Norman Wells, only 470 kilometres away, accidentally hit a fibre optic cable. Services were out for two days, and people who needed emergency services were encouraged to drive to their nearest RCMP detachment.

Last October, an entire town of 10,000 people had to be evacuated in Middleton, Idaho, just outside of Boise. This occurred after an excavator ruptured a 22-inch natural gas pipeline. The local fire chief said, “It was a pretty substantial explosion just due to the pressure in that line.”

Earlier again in 2023, the New York Times reported on an accident in Frankfurt, Germany. This was of a Deutsche Telekom construction crew, Germany’s main telecom provider. It was confirmed that a fibreglass cable buried five metres, or more than 16 feet, underground had been severed by a concrete drill during construction work. This accident took thousands of customers in the greater Frankfurt area offline. It also resulted in nearly 150 cancelled flights and another 247 delayed flights around the world because it knocked out Lufthansa airline’s ability to communicate with airports around the word. The result: Thousands of people were stranded in Germany’s main travel hub and its largest airport.

Speaker, while these are some large-scale examples, I want to be crystal clear on a couple of things:

(1) We want to ensure that the system works well for individual property owners as well as it does for large commercial projects.

(2) We know that accidents have happened in Ontario before, and we need to put safety precautions in place to prevent them from happening again.

In the examples I just mentioned, I was happy to see that there were no reports of injuries, but it’s not hard to see how that could have been quite different.

Of course, as I mentioned earlier, we as a government also must weigh multiple factors. I believe I have covered the safety aspect of things, but the flip side of each story is the service outage. We cannot just say, “Well, as long as no one was hurt, it’s all okay.” Part of the equation we are continuing to explore and to try to resolve is to maintain the reliability of our underground networks and to make sure that excavators get the necessary information to identify where infrastructure is buried before digging.

It is easy to see how important it is not only for people to call or click before they dig, but also we need that system to work well so that the information can be obtained efficiently and allow the process to work smoothly. This is prevention, and it’s an essential aspect of what this bill is about and the improvements that it makes on the existing legislation.

This brings me back to the first and arguably most important part of this bill: that is, to explicitly prohibit owners and operators of underground infrastructure from charging fees to provide locates. The proposed legislation seeks to enshrine into law a free-of-charge locate system mirroring the long-standing industry practice observed across Canada and the United States. This would ensure that projects can be built cost-effectively, while protecting our workers as well as the critical infrastructure below us. This keeps our great province powered and connected. By banning locate fees, we would stem the possibility of a spiralling cycle of costs that would delay the construction of key infrastructure projects and reduce their feasibility.

This legislative change also removes a cost barrier to accessing locates, which should improve public safety, in my submission. Costs associated with the provisioning of locates could encourage individuals or businesses to skirt the locate system and dig without the necessary information to do so safely.

We have heard loudly and clearly from stakeholders like the association of road supervisors of Ontario on their support for this change, both in the interest of public safety and for cost-efficiency. They have all expressed that charging for locates will not simply transfer the cost to the owner or the party requesting the locate. With the administration of these charges, including invoices, payment, collection and processing—all those tasks that would incur additional costs to both the owners of underground infrastructure and excavators—they will likely want to recover themselves by adding to the fees that they charge. All of these added costs simply do not add value to the entire process and would in fact, I submit, undermine the process. Particularly in an area where staffing is in short supply and municipalities and other organizations are already overburdened, the addition of administrative tasks could potentially create delay, and that delay would affect adversely the timely execution of any locates needed. These delays would, in turn, add further costs to building infrastructure.

Our government is building a stronger Ontario by leading one of the most ambitious capital plans in Ontario’s history. This proposed legislation would help make it easier to build the housing, the roads and the public transit for our growing needs. At a time in our history when being more connected, having more affordable homes and improving our transportation options are at the forefront of our province’s continued success, making sure this process is cost-effective and working smoothly is in everyone’s interest.

These things are not solely about timelines; they are also about predictability and being able to make long-term plans. This is something my ministry has heard from businesses in other areas. Whether it takes three days or three weeks to get something done is not always the point. Obviously, it is usually better to only have to wait for something for only three days, but if you know that it is going to take three weeks, that is a timeline you can plan around and know when you need to have people in place to get things moving.

We have heard, Speaker, from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. The members of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce have expressed support for extending locate delivery timelines for larger projects, specifically phase 1 of our government’s proposal, which calls for locates for large projects to be completed within 10 business days. That is to begin in May of this year. We understand that this change would help mitigate some of the challenges we have heard in delivering locates within five business days for all locate requests, regardless of the size and complexity of a project.

As our government moves into phase 2, this would enable opportunities to further differentiate between dig projects based on size. As such, moving to more attainable time frames for locates will also give added visibility to the locate industry to better align resources and to better provide for attention focused on large-scope locates.

A few weeks ago, when Toronto was in the middle of a cold snap—one of the few this year so far—many of you may have driven by construction sites when it was as cold as 22 degrees below zero. Now, it has been a while since we have had temperatures that low, and seeing workers who were digging trenches, laying pipes and running cables in that particular cold snap, it does give us an understanding that you do not want people standing out there, waiting to do that work because they have to wait to get the locates. It’s not only frustrating but also expensive, and quite frankly, quite inconvenient.

Another concern we have heard is the spiralling of costs I touched upon earlier. If locates were ever done for a fee before beginning construction, I want to repeat, there is a long-standing industry practice that now we’re explicitly putting into the proposed legislation: a ban on those locate fees. This is a practice that’s followed throughout Canada and the United States, but we’re taking the legislative lead on enshrining it in law. For example, a local hydro company charging a municipality for locate requests when that hydro company is digging nearby before beginning a new construction project—that fee for the locate would be an additional expense.

Expanding critical infrastructure is a large-scale project. We are not talking about a few backyard fence posts, Speaker. We’re talking about underground infrastructure that could stretch over hundreds of kilometres. The cost of those locates could be very significant. By charging that fee, one entity, the hydro company, could recover the costs of the delivery of those locates, meaning the municipality would then have an outstanding expense. So the natural inclination in such circumstances would be that the municipality too would have to charge fees when providing locates that would be later on for the utility companies before their new water mains can go in the ground or be repaired. In fact, it is not just an inclination; it becomes an imperative to recover costs from excavators. So it does not take much imagination to see how this would end where every underground infrastructure owner and operator is charging and being charged to identify infrastructure. Speaker, this is what I do mean by a spiralling cycle of costs. It has ripple effects that would be obvious. That is why the long-standing industry practice was followed. To the extent that there was a concern—and there was a concern—that it may not continue to be followed, we took action with this proposed bill.

In fact and in effect, at some point, in a pay-for-locates system, as you charge one company and then they charge another, those fees simply come back to you when you need to get locates done. These very same underground infrastructure owners and operators who complete locates may themselves need locates done with completing their own infrastructure projects. Underground infrastructure owners and operators have a responsibility to each other. It just makes common and financial sense to maintain the current standard of requiring underground infrastructure owners and operators to complete locates without charging for them. If infrastructure owners and operators do this work without charging fees, there is also a natural motivation to do the work in the most cost-effective manner possible, while protecting their own capital investments in underground infrastructure.

Speaker, this spiral of costs, at some point, would have reached a level of absurdity. But possibly, the bigger risk is what happens on the ground when crews are in place, ready to work. These are the kinds of things we heard from stakeholders when we met with many of them earlier this year and last spring. It raises the question of whether it is possible that digging could begin without locates being done. While I want to think that no crew would take this risk, I could also see a situation where higher costs could create an incentive for someone to cut a corner here or there. Speaker, let me be clear, that is a very dangerous and potentially illegal move.

Our goal is to create legislation that eliminates that possibility. This is a scenario that we can help avoid, and I think it is incumbent upon this House to take steps like this that help put the conditions in place to make the entire locates process smooth, efficient and cost-effective. If we can do things that help move along the process without undue costs to anyone who is digging, I think we owe it to the people of Ontario to make that happen.

Now, Speaker, there are additional measures that this bill would address, and I would also like to speak about these additional measures for just a few minutes. For most people, requesting a locate is a simple enough process. For example, many of us who own a home may have contacted Ontario One Call ourselves to request a locate. This could be for projects like planting a tree or drilling holes to support a new deck.

The process to request a locate is generally quite easy. One simply visits ontarioonecall.ca, fills in the email address and the relevant phone number and then follows the prompts on screen. A few days later, people from utility companies, telecommunications and pipeline owners and operators will mark their infrastructure: red for electrical, blue for potable water, yellow for gas and other pipelines and so on. These are the multicoloured spray-painted lines, or sometimes what we observe as small flags that we see on the ground as we walk past ground that is about to be dug up.

For a homeowner on a small, discrete project, it is usually that simple; however, on a large scale with larger projects and at a system-wide level, matters start to become somewhat more complicated. There is a lot of other work that must go in behind the scenes to get all of these locates done in a timely manner. That is why Ontario One Call, one of 12 administrative authorities under my ministry, has a growing role in helping to make that system work well and to educate the public every step of the way.

Before I get into the additional improvements this bill would make to Ontario One Call, I would like to address for the House some general points about administrative authorities—some call them delegated administrative authorities. While many people think an administrative authority is the same as a government agency, it is not, Speaker. Whereas a government agency is usually controlled by the government, an administrative authority is an independent, not-for-profit corporation that operates within a strong accountability and governance framework. Administrative authorities are designated certain responsibilities by the government in specific sectors and industries to administer and enforce certain Ontario laws, including laws regarding consumer protection and public safety.

Some of these administrative authorities help ensure that certain businesses that Ontarians receive services from are qualified and competent. In fact, Speaker, going back to what I mentioned earlier about the breadth of my ministry’s purview, if you use the services of a real estate broker or salesperson, or you live in a condominium, you have benefited from the work of an administrative authority. Also, if you have ever hired a licensed electrical contractor, rode in an elevator or enjoyed a glass of Ontario’s VQA wines, you have benefited from the work of one of our administrative authorities—one or more of our administrative authorities in the case of condominiums. And if you have ever hired an Ontario travel agent, bought a car from a motor vehicle dealer or have needed services from a funeral director or a cemetery, you also have benefitted from the mandate of an administrative authority under the authority of my ministry.

These organizations ensure that equipment is properly maintained and that consumers are being educated about their rights when making certain purchases. Government retains its law-making, regulation and oversight roles while giving the administrative authorities responsibility for the daily operations of how to best carry out their mandates, including matters such as licensing, enforcement and other relevant concerns or things or matters. It is our government’s responsibility to ensure that they are consistent in the way they work, the powers they have and how those powers are used.

In March 2020, this House, the 42nd Parliament at that time—we are now in the 43rd Parliament of Ontario—passed the Rebuilding Consumer Confidence Act. It had an important role in harmonizing some key accountability, governance and transparency requirements for most administrative authorities.

The Rebuilding Consumer Confidence Act started bringing some much-needed consistency to the way in which administrative authorities work. Strictly speaking, this bill before us today is not technically related to that act. However, it does build on the spirit of that act by proposing changes to help make One Call more consistent with their administrative authority counterparts.

As I said, Ontario One Call is one of 12, and one can compare and contrast the various mandates and powers that each administrative authority has, and in doing so, one can understand some of the aspects of this act that add authority to the Ontario One Call mandate. Better aligning their powers and their responsibilities with other administrative authorities is part of these proposed changes; that is, specifically better aligning Ontario One Call’s powers and responsibility with those other AAs is a crucial part of this proposed legislation.

The proposed amendments to the act would also allow the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery to specify additional objects for Ontario One Call. Think of objects as the jobs an administrative authority has been assigned to do by government. This is very similar to the TSSA, another administrative authority. The TSSA is the Technical Standards and Safety Authority. That particular administrative authority is responsible for elevators, for example, and for amusement park rides at Canada’s Wonderland, the CNE and other small fairs that we see across the province in the spring, the fall and throughout the year.

Like the TSSA, with respect to its mandate, this proposed bill would give the government the ability and flexibility to expand objects for Ontario One Call in the future and to address evolving needs. It would provide that some provisions of the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010, as they relate to member approval of bylaw changes needed to implement ministers’ orders would not apply to One Call. As it is presently constituted, One Call needs to get approval from members in order to pass bylaw changes needed to implement ministers’ orders.

Some other changes to the One Call act would include protections for the authorities’ officials, their officers, directors, employees and agents, from personal liability. That’s an important proposal. These are common protections for officials that work in other administrative authorities. I submit, Speaker, it is reasonable for this to be extended to Ontario One Call.

These changes are needed now because One Call is different than it used to be. Not long ago, One Call largely acted as a call centre, taking requests from excavators and relaying them to underground infrastructure owners and operators. As our government is now asking Ontario One Call members to take on more complex work to support the improvement of efficiencies and locate delivery, that requires better systems, backed up by better and sustainable resources. These changes are needed to meet the needs of industry, but more importantly, to meet the needs of Ontario’s growing population as we work on our government’s priorities.

This is not the first time that this government has made changes to Ontario One Call’s governing legislation. In April 2022, near the end of the mandate of the 42nd Parliament of Ontario, important changes were made to the One Call act as part of the Getting Ontario Connected Act, 2022; changes that saw numerous improvements that we are following through on today. For example, the Getting Ontario Connected Act created a dedicated locator model. This was for projects related to broadband Internet expansion projects. This allows a project owner to get all of their locate services done by one locator, rather than waiting on a different locator for each utility or municipality, and that locator does the work for the duration of the project.

It also extended the validity period of locates to help reduce duplicative work and to drive efficiencies. We are continuing this work and we intend to consider further changes in this year, 2024. Duplication was also reduced by allowing contractors working on the same dig site to share locate information. Speaker, these changes are improving the locate delivery system and making the process of obtaining locates much more efficient and, most importantly, they maintain Ontario’s strict safety standards—our top priority, to repeat what I said earlier.

This bill would also remove an excavator’s ability to seek compensation through the Ontario Land Tribunal against One Call members that fail to provide a locate within the legislated time limit. It is very important to note that the changes passed by the Getting Ontario Connected Act will still hold underground infrastructure owners and operators accountable for completing locates within the time limits. Within the act, it provided Ontario One Call the authority to issue administrative penalties, also known as AMPs or administrative monetary penalties. These could be administered or issued against non-compliant members and excavators in the industry.

These powers come into effect via a minister’s regulation on May 1, 2024, and would enable One Call to transform into a modern regulator with the administrative monetary penalties as an enforcement tool and, as such, maintaining the Ontario Land Tribunal recourse provisions would become redundant or duplicative. My understanding is that the recourse to the Ontario Land Tribunal, while it existed briefly and while it’s now going to be phased out if this bill becomes law, was rarely, if at all, used by anyone.

At the same time, Speaker, I want to acknowledge that some One Call members may be apprehensive about administrative penalties. I want them to know that administrative penalties may be and are just one tool, but they are not the only tool intended to encourage compliance. They—administrative monetary penalties—are really a tool of last resort.

Owners and operators of underground infrastructure should find that that is reassuring and would know then that administrative penalties are only one of many tools that One Call has at its disposal to encourage compliance with the law. At the same time, I would also say that excavators should find the results of the changes from the past year quite encouraging.

From January to July 2022, only 45% of locates were completed on time; however, last year, in the period from January to July 2023, approximately 70% of locates were completed on time. This shows a significant improvement, and I believe that our government working with Ontario One Call can help move those improvements along even further.

Now, Speaker, to pick up again on something I mentioned earlier, this is a balanced and reasonable approach that helps get us all toward a common goal.

I would like to highlight a quote in this regard from the president and CEO of Electricity Distributors Association, Teresa Sarkesian. Ms. Sarkesian stated, and I quote:

“Bill 153 equips Ontario One Call with a powerful tool to encourage active compliance. The discretion given to Ontario One Call also allows it to administer a fair compliance process with intention. Ultimately, Bill 153 takes us one step closer to an entirely modernized regime for locating underground infrastructure safely and efficiently.

“The proposed legislation represents a balanced approach that will ensure faster construction times for housing and infrastructure projects, worker safety around high-risk assets (such as underground wires and cables), a reliable and uninterrupted supply of energy to Ontario’s families and businesses, and most importantly, respect for customers.”

Speaker, it is clear the province is at a critical juncture in our history. With the continuing use of online services, our need to get better broadband connection to every corner of the province is more important than ever. We simply cannot afford to leave entire communities without access to online services and information because they do not have a connection to high-speed Internet.

Getting more homes built that people can afford and enabling them better ways to get from there to work and everywhere they need to be—these are today’s infrastructure challenges. Our government is all in on these and we are making investments that will help make them a reality for the people of Ontario. But to make that happen, we really need to dig in on the issues that are slowing them down.

Before shovels can go into the ground on these projects, we need to make sure that the critical safety steps are taken and followed. As I indicated earlier, the explicit banning of locate fees is part of that because we would not want to see any motivation to skip steps that would compromise safety, and the spiralling cycle of costs associated with locate fees being charged would, I believe, create a grave risk of that. Safety must come first.

I’ve shared today about some very large-scale accidents with far-reaching consequences, where accidents have created explosions, service outages and stranded travellers. We want to be the government that took forward-looking decisions, rather than the place where the mistakes were made and lessons learned too late. This forward-thinking approach of our government is, I submit, a non-partisan issue. It is why, I believe, at second reading and at committee, this bill received unanimous support from everyone, from all parties, and why I hope and believe that all parties will support this bill unanimously at third-reading vote.

While we have worked hard in the past few years to get that work done faster and more smoothly, it is not enough to sit and admire our work. This rising above partisanship, as it does, must create a sense of urgency. As we build Ontario together, this approach to locates, to efficiently delivered locate processes must be part of building Ontario. It is a key component of our future, and so we must keep moving forward.

More needs to be done to help contain costs, especially at a time when we are seeing inflation, labour shortages and competition from other jurisdictions. But like the Minister of Finance, I was heartened yesterday to see inflation down to 2.9%—an improvement or a lowering of that rate of inflation even beyond our hopes and expectations at the end of last year.

When we look around, for example, at the intense competition to secure new electric vehicle battery facilities, can we afford to be a place where construction is cumbersome and inefficient or potentially unsafe? No, we cannot, I submit. Among all the things to consider, can we afford not to be the best? That is why Ontario would be a leader if these amendments under this proposed bill are passed. I urge the opposition and all parties in this House to support this bill and continue the trend that was begun at second reading and in committee, because we can act together on some initiatives, this being one.

Speaker, by 2041, Ontario’s population is expected to grow by 30%. Now is the time to meet the demands of the future. This is why our government has introduced this bill. This is why, by this bill, we are proposing to ensure that government is nimble and responsive to the needs of the community. That is why I believe that we have support from across the aisle.

With our growth, new and increasing pressure is put on Ontario’s infrastructure capacity. We cannot look away from this challenge. We must make the critical investments today to keep up with a growing population. That is why Bill 153, I submit, is so vital: so nothing can stand in the way of Ontario reaching its full potential.

I understand that my colleagues in this House have expressed support in preventing owners and operators of underground infrastructure from imposing fees for locates, and I appreciate that support. Prohibiting infrastructure owners and operators from charging for providing locates maintains this, as I said, long-standing industry practice that locates are and should be provided free of charge to avoid and to stem a cycle of potentially increasing costs that could burden anyone who wants to dig or create incentives to take shortcuts and compromise safety.

At the same time, we must continue putting systems in place that will help the framework for the delivery of locates to keep up with industry needs. That is why we are proposing these important changes to this legislation: so that the administrative authority of Ontario One Call can be more consistent with those 11 other DAAs.

To make it more adaptable to a rapidly changing landscape can help unearth a greater level of potential from industry as a whole, and it is necessary for the more complex role that we are asking One Call to fulfill. Now, while One Call was originally conceived as an organization to route information from people or businesses that are looking to dig to infrastructure owners and operators, that is no longer the case. They are filling an important role to help get all our infrastructure built faster and make the process smoother and more efficient.

Speaker, there are parallels to be drawn between the consumer protection act, Bill 142, that received royal assent at the end of last year and that was recently debated in this House. There are parallels between that act and this Bill 153, and that parallel is one of shared interests. We appropriately named Bill 142, the consumer protection act, the Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, 2023. It’s a shared interest in consumer protection shared by consumers and shared by businesses who want to find it easier to comply, because that’s good business. And we are all consumers, after all. We all have that shared interest, just as we have a shared interest in building infrastructure efficiently, safely and cost-effectively and just as we have a shared interest in keeping all matters running smoothly, without interruption, without outages and without potentially fatal accidents.

Like consumers and businesses, excavators and infrastructure owners/operators have these shared interests—interests in maintaining safe and reliable networks that get us the services we need when they are needed. We should all do what we can to foster that work and to get it done in the best possible and a safe manner.

To summarize, Speaker, if passed, I believe that this bill would better protect public safety by legislating the long-standing industry practice of requiring locates to be provided free of charge and to stem that cycle of potentially escalating costs if locate fees were charged. I also believe that this bill, if passed, would support the evolving role of Ontario One Call. The bill would, if passed, provide that expanded authority to align One Call with other administrative authorities.

If passed, and I want to address this point clearly again, the bill would remove the ability for excavators to seek compensation through the OLT, the Ontario Land Tribunal, for delivery of locates past the legislated time limit. Now, this takes away an appeal route, but at the same time, we have balanced with that the administrative monetary penalties as a tool of last resort and other compliance tools in between. At the same time, the reality is, was this a regularly used, or used at all, appeal route? My understanding is it wasn’t. So it’s a redundant remedy and is being replaced by, I submit, a more effective remedy, with the expanded powers of Ontario One Call and the ability, as a last resort, to impose administrative monetary penalties—as a tool of last resort—and to ensure compliance with this legislation, because, of course, as it’s been said many times in this House and outside this House, we must be a jurisdiction, a nation, a province governed by the rule of law. We are ruled not by people but by laws. Ensuring compliance with the law, both with the letter and spirit of the law, is an essential aspect of what we must do. So while this ministry has the oversight, the delegation to administrative authorities to ensure compliance with the law is essential. As of May 1, 2024, underground infrastructure owners and operators can be subject, then, to administrative penalties imposed by One Call in respect to late locates, to be clear.

I conclude by submitting this: Bill 153, unanimously supported thus far, is a testament to our commitment to building our province more safely, more efficiently and more cost-effectively. That is the shared interest of all of the people that every member of the House represents in 124 electoral districts. That is our shared commitment, and that is why I believe this 43rd Parliament should continue the trend of supporting this bill unanimously.

I want to thank all of those who helped us get our work to this stage. Over the past many months, my ministry officials—and I want to thank my deputy minister and her team, in particular, and each and every ministry official who participated in this—have worked so hard on this to make it a priority piece of legislation, to get it close to the finish line, as we are now. I also want to thank the many, many industry leaders and the Ontario One Call staff, who have come together to discuss ways to make the locates system work better.

My grandfather was fond of the saying “Come, let us reason together.” I believe that is what has happened in the lead-up to the introduction of this bill and the debate surrounding this bill, a bill that goes above partisanship and is right for the people of Ontario, for the future of Ontario and the need to plan to build the Ontario of tomorrow, today.

Thank you to all the honourable members for their attention to this bill. I strongly encourage all members across this House to support it, for empowering our province to build the infrastructure of tomorrow is a goal that we all stand behind.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you to the member for Carleton for that excellent question and her superb work on behalf of her constituents. Mr. Speaker, every Ontarian deserves to feel safe when purchasing something as essential as a water heater. Our government will not stand by and let bad actors leverage tools like NOSIs, in bad faith, to empty hard-working Ontarians’ pockets.

That is exactly why our government has begun the necessary work to restore confidence to consumers by launching a vital round of consultations that will inform our ongoing work to put an end to the harmful misuse of notices of security interest, otherwise known as NOSIs. Let me be unequivocally clear—very clear, crystal clear: This government and this Premier will not stand idly by and let our most vulnerable consumers be taken advantage of by bad business practices. We are taking decisive action to protect consumers.