I thank the minister for his kind words, and again congratulate and acknowledge the hard work that he and his ministry did on this bill.

I will remind the minister that, during the pandemic, some of the hardest times we faced here in Ontario, a huge amount of gouging was happening, to the point that the Premier was on television going after—and I’m not going to name that business, in particular. At the time, he announced a consumer protection hotline and encouraged Ontarians to call it. In committee, I heard members again echo that call.

The minister says that the ministry is equipped and capable of doing this, but I will remind the minister that of the 30,000 complaints made to the consumer protection hot line, not a single one resulted in a fine or action. This, without a shadow of a doubt, shows that the ministry is either unable or unwilling to take action when necessary. This type of organization—

If you don’t want to listen to the official opposition, listen to the experts that deputed in hearings. Listen to the experts that have made submissions and continue to go out there and talk to consumer protection experts. They will tell you that this will only strengthen the ministry and provide them an ally to stand up to huge industries when they want to gouge or do other things that our consumers in Ontario do not appreciate and that harm consumers. It’s the right thing to do.

As everyone in the House knows, this legislation was supported by the official opposition at second reading. Though we believe it doesn’t go far enough, it is certainly an improvement over the 2002 act. We have stated this many times, just like I stated it during my presentation today. I have also stated this is, in fact, supportable moving forward.

We hope that the 34 amendments that were tabled, of which one was taken—that this government will take them very seriously and review these during the further consultations of the regulatory phase of this bill because they come from the experts, and they will only strengthen this legislation and improve it further.

Now, the government will probably say that the HCRA is there and they’re another regulatory body that could address that, but if you ask home warranty experts and consumer advocates who are fighting for increased protections under that, they will tell you that what exists under the current HCRA doesn’t go far enough, and they will give you countless examples that you will find in the news of developers cancelling a build and the harm that results for consumers.

It makes sense. We believe that it was a sensible request and, as such, we tabled it as an amendment and, ultimately, the government voted against it for the reasons that are theirs and theirs alone.

I would turn it back, though, simply to say this to the minister: I would consider that with those same prepaid and other cards, it’s not just about the expiry date, but many of them have other built-in mechanisms that, right at the moment that you actually activate it, you lose money right off the top. They tend to decline, administratively, in terms of balance. And, often, there’s money left on those cards that will never get used in some cases, even if you have them with no expiry date. I think that this warrants a further look, and I’m sure it’s something that many consumer protection advocates have asked for and would probably appreciate.

It was an honour to participate in this debate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“—expanding some forms of consumer remedies;

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

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

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

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

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

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

“—improving consumer protections against unilateral contract changes;

“—improving notice and disclosure for online consumers;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“—notice of the unilateral changes;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet again, the government voted no.

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

Again, the government would not support this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The government voted no again.

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

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

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

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

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

The government voted no.

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

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

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

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

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

And yet again, the government voted no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you to the member for his speech. I appreciate that this legislation does talk about and refer to price gouging as something unconscionable. In essence, it defines price gouging as taking, let’s say, a product and comparing the price of the product to the other competitors and then looking at the range. One of the problems or challenges that I see with that is, how do you address industry-wide problems? So if a particular thing that’s being sold by an entire industry, we feel, is too expensive, how do you suggest or would you be willing to look into ways to bring down gouging across entire industries as opposed to punishing individual businesses?

Thank you very much for the question. Definitely, this bill, at least in words, is seeking to address vulnerable individuals who are being affected and taken advantage of by these predatory scams. But as I had mentioned earlier, one thing that’s lacking is the fact that, though we continue to arm them with better laws—and there appears to be better laws included here—the problem is that those very same people have to go to court to fight to get justice.

I think we need more. We need to empower those advocates who are fighting to make recommendations to improve laws—not just here, but in all categories. We have to find a way to create an ally that could stand up for Ontarians, better advise governments and better advise consumers, which is the watchdog act that is running parallel to this legislation here. This legislation has a series of positive changes, and I hope that they in turn will take a look at our legislation as well.

I appreciate the question from the member and my friend. I think he misunderstands me. In fact, I’ve spoken rather supportively of this legislation. I’ve said it’s positive in many different ways, and it will improve consumer protection in Ontario.

The only difference is that what I’ve asked for and what I’m pushing for is to bring us to that gold standard. What I’m calling for is the establishment of a consumer watchdog, in parallel to what the government is trying to achieve here. I think we can all agree that consumer protection is a priority and I think we all want what’s best for consumers.

That’s the current state of the system. So even as we continue to improve the consumer protection laws, as we continue to put laws more and more—I don’t want to just say in the favour of consumers, but actually fair laws that should be there. The problem is they continue to have to go to court. As I have said and as you repeated, we’d better arm them with these consumer protection laws, but regardless, when they go up against entire industries or big corporations, they remain ungunned.

There are many ways to do that. One would be to implement a consumer watchdog here in Ontario. Another way would be to find a way to work harder and to support and perhaps even fund organizations that have consumer protection at their heart so that they could stand up for all of us and be a counterbalance to an industry that works so hard to tell government to do what they want.

As part of my speech, I think a lot of the heaviest criticisms of this bill came from those same home warranty advocates that I quoted, and they are justly frustrated, because they continue to be reached out to by new home purchasers that feel that they’re not continuing to be protected. So I think there are a lot of areas within the realm of consumer protection that need to be addressed, specifically in the areas of new home warranties.

I appreciate the member for that question and continuing speaking for those advocates because we haven’t forgotten them, and there’s a lot more we need to do to protect new home purchasers here in Ontario.

Despite the question of the validity of the point of order, I do also want to welcome the young ones and their teachers here today. Welcome and enjoy. I’ll try to be as entertaining as a cartoon, okay?

Again, protecting consumers’ right to take action in court: Some businesses will try to protect themselves here in Ontario by creating contracts that suggest wronged consumers pursue their claims in courts in other jurisdictions. For instance, the business will state that their headquarters are on another continent and suggest consumers file in that jurisdiction. Ontarians have a legal right to pursue their claims here in Ontario courts. This legislation will require that businesses cannot include terms in a contract that could mislead or suggest that consumers cannot have their disputes heard in an Ontario court. Again, this is positive and supportable.

Next, larger fines for illegal business activity: Here is a strategy commonly employed by this government—doubling fines. The issue here is that raising fines to an astronomical amount doesn’t mean that maximum fines will actually be issued. Let’s take an example. The theoretical fines for landlords in Ontario can be as high as $50,000 for individuals and five times that amount for corporations. However, as reported by sudbury.com, out of 51 fines levied by the Landlord and Tenant Board in the last four years, three quarters were for $2,000 or less, with by far the most common fine being $1,000. This is obviously way under the maximum. Currently, the maximum fines for a person or business convicted under the Consumer Protection Act are $50,000 and $250,000, respectively. This new legislation would double those amounts. Wronged consumers will need a court to determine that the act was breached for a fine to be laid. As you know, most consumers do not have the financial means to pursue these claims, because often the value of the claim is significantly below the legal fees required—not to mention the time it would take.

It would make sense to increase the penalties, not just fines, for offences to act as a deterrent. For example, Australia recently changed its consumer protection legislation to include significantly higher penalties, up to $50 million.

Larger fines like those in Australia would serve as a stronger deterrent than a simple doubling. So here the doubling of fines may appear like a strong move, but time will tell if hefty fines are levied. Nonetheless, this too is supportable.

Deterring businesses from refusing to provide statutory refunds: Currently, in law, there are provisions for businesses to provide consumers with a refund when they are entitled to one, but that doesn’t always happen.

Earlier this year, CTV News reported on the frustrating issues faced by an Ontario resident named Michael McKelvie, who was being denied a refund he was entitled to on an expensive camcorder he had purchased from Amazon. Again, a refund was finally granted after the story broke in the media.

Within the new proposed act here, consumers who sue businesses over refund issues could be entitled to recover three times the original refund amount. Although this, once again, requires the consumer to often fight a large retailer in court, this would be a beneficial change.

Addressing automatic contract for service renewals: This initiative seeks to protect consumers from various changes to contracts through a series of limitations. This could help warn and require consent from consumers on unwanted extensions or price changes. There are suggested regulations that could include ongoing rights for consumers to cancel. Often, these changes in contracts or renewals are one-sided. So once more, this would be a positive change, though it appears it will rely on future regulation changes.

Right to review: Ontario new home warranty advocates have told me that they have been approached by many disgruntled consumers who have been threatened or even sued by home builders for speaking out about the problems they are facing. The government says that this legislation would prohibit businesses from creating contract terms to prevent consumers from being sued or punished from publishing negative reviews—another positive move.

Consultations on regulations: In addition to the above, the government is proposing to make it easier to cancel subscriptions and memberships, provide free electronic access to their consumer reports and credit scores, and allow consumers to place a security freeze on their credit reports and place explanatory information on their consumer files. I do look forward to hearing the results of this consultation.

Finally, it’s time to deal with the initiative entitled “Helping Consumers with Discharging Certain Notices of Security Interest.” I know the minister spent quite a bit of time in his speech on this. This issue comes up often in the media, and it’s increasing. I suspect every member in this House has heard difficult stories faced by their residents with regard to these notices often called liens or NOSIs. Notices of security interest—abbreviated as NOSI—are easily registered on the land registry system by third parties when they install a fixture like a furnace or water heater on the property. Businesses claim that registering a NOSI is a form of protection, in case the homeowner defaults on payments or sells the property. Unfortunately, some businesses will use these NOSIs to scam consumers out of money when they are desperately attempting to refinance or sell their homes. Of course, these scammers search out elderly and other vulnerable individuals to take advantage of—take the story of Ian Craig in Kitchener, reported by Kitchener CTV News, who had $150,000 of NOSIs on title to be cleared before he could refinance his property.

Recently, a frustrated daughter, Linda Palmieri, reached out to me to tell the story of her in-laws who live in my community. She describes them as sweet, kind and trusting people who have been targeted from the years 2015 to 2021 and have a dozen NOSIs on their home, totalling tens of thousands of dollars. In addition to the NOSIs, they were sold multiple products and services they don’t need, at exorbitant prices, including a surge protector costing $15,000. Police have been involved, but she wants real action to prevent this from happening to anyone else. Sadly, there are many more examples.

In the words of the government, “The proposed new legislation would clarify a business’ obligation to discharge a NOSI under specific circumstances. It also allows some consumers to receive assistance from the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery in enforcing a business’ obligations to discharge a NOSI.”

Often, businesses violate the act by not disclosing that security interest, where thousands of dollars have been taken out against their customer’s home titles. Typically, these interests are used as collateral and a homeowner only comes to discover that these security interests have been applied to their home when they attempt to sell or remortgage their home.

These situations really highlight the issue of predatory sales tactics in the home equipment industry, particularly affecting vulnerable individuals such as senior citizens and those with language barriers or disabilities, but the scary thing is that it can happen to anyone.

You may recall the media story about Tracy Spence, a resident of Toronto who faced a shocking cost to buy out a rental contract for a simple furnace and air conditioner. Having paid over $7,000 in monthly rental fees since 2016, she was informed that it would cost an additional $32,406 to own the appliances. This was far more than the combined cash selling price of $10,798 listed in her contract. Spence, like many others, felt deceived after signing up to rent home energy appliances. Spence had felt pressured by a fast-talking salesperson when signing the rental deal in 2016, and the promised cost savings didn’t materialize as expected. Spence decided to exit her contract in 2019 when complications arose while trying to refinance her mortgage due to a lien for the appliances placed on her home, as is often the case. To address this issue, victims have sought legal help to have the NOSIs removed from their homes. In some cases, the police have become involved to investigate criminal activity associated with these scams and try to stop them before they progress.

I cannot stress enough the action required to protect consumers from these scams that have led to incredible stress, worry and financial ruin for many who have faced foreclosures because of a NOSI that was placed on their property without their understanding or knowledge. So I ask you, do these proposed changes go far enough? As stated above, we’ve seen situations where seniors are forced to pay out tens of thousands of dollars in NOSIs that were obtained via unscrupulous practices. We’ve seen cases where seniors will have a series of NOSIs, all from different suppliers, for various equipment—some even have cases where a person will have numerous pieces of the same equipment.

I understand that the government is currently undergoing a consultation on the rules governing these NOSIs, and there are a number of ideas on how to address this problem. Let’s take one, for example. Dave Deonarain, a real estate lawyer, recently reached out to me stating the problems that come with how easily a NOSI can be registered against a property and how hard they are to remove. He has found over 20 files where there was a NOSI registered without the client being aware. He further claims that every time he has attempted to remove a NOSI, the holder of the interest has been uncooperative, and it requires lots of effort to have them removed. For instance, one of his clients had to go to a company’s head office after four long weeks of getting nowhere with emails, letters and phone calls. Another client required three to four weeks of that, and it became a wild goose chase from one company to another before it could be discharged. Finally, a current client of his is selling his property and will not be able to discharge all NOSIs on his property before the closing date. One of the NOSIs is registered to a company in Vancouver, and five telephone conversations with the company have yet to fix anything. Mr. Deonarain believes the solution would be a mandatory requirement that only licensed Ontario lawyers register, discharge or assign NOSIs via the land registry—and I’m sure, during your consultation, you will hear many, many different suggestions and ideas.

Also, others want even more drastic change. The government has promised that all options are on the table, and I will hold them to their word on this. We urgently need action to end these scams once and for all.

Door-to-door sales: At present, there is a right that a supplier can’t solicit a consumer to enter into a direct agreement unless the consumer has initiated the contract or the consumer has a specific request that the supplier attend at the consumer’s dwelling. These provisions were implemented under the previous government following an ongoing problem of predatory door-to-door sales for things like furnaces, water heaters and other installation equipment. Critics, however, have pointed out that these provisions are easy to circumvent, particularly with vulnerable populations, as they would only require an invitation from the consumer.

In the present legislation, cooling-off periods are sprinkled throughout for various named consumer contracts. This new legislation consolidates those cooling-off periods and states that a consumer may, without any reason, cancel a listed consumer contract within 10 days. This does not, however, apply to new home purchases, which are often the biggest purchase of a person’s life.

The bill adds new requirements for NOSIs, and the ministry is currently undergoing a regulatory proposal on their use.

As I stated earlier, we’ve seen situations where seniors are forced to pay out tens of thousands of dollars in NOSIs that were obtained via unscrupulous practices. We’ve seen cases where seniors will have a series of NOSIs, all from different suppliers, for various equipment—some even have cases where a person will have numerous pieces of the same equipment; again, I’ve mentioned some paying for equipment that doesn’t function. Some are even paying for equipment they no longer have. In this bill, there are new provisions that would require that a supplier of certain rented or leased equipment—e.g., furnaces, water heaters—to discharge any related NOSIs within 15 days of cancellation or termination of a consumer contract.

Another positive step is that consumers would have the right to rescind a contract for one year after entering the contract if an unfair practice has taken place, or one year after learning an unfair practice takes place, whichever is later—presently, consumers only have this right for one year of the contract starting. These provisions are an acknowledgement that an unfair practice can occur during the contract, and provide consumers with the right to exit said contract after an unfair practice occurs.

I have now reviewed the highlights of this bill as framed by the government itself. All are improvements, and all appear supportable.

Now I want to take a step back for a moment and review the need for better consumer protection in Ontario. The Law Commission of Ontario has stated that consumer protection legislation attempts to address inequities in negotiating positions and access to information in order to promote a trustworthy marketplace for consumers, fair competition among businesses and marketplace efficiency. Lengthy and hard-to-read-and-understand terms of service contracts mean that, in many cases, consumers are agreeing to unwanted terms or falling prey to unfair practices, and that consent is illusory.

It has been said that the EU is the gold standard when it comes to consumer rights and protections, and within Canada, Quebec and BC lead the way.

The Consumers Council of Canada identifies the following as the international consumer rights and responsibilities, and they are:

“(1) Basic needs

“The right to basic goods and services which guarantee survival.

“The responsibility to use these goods and services appropriately. To take action to ensure that basic needs are available.

“(2) Safety

“The right to be protected against goods or services that are hazardous to health and life.

“The responsibility to read instructions and take precautions. To take action to choose safety equipment, use products as instructed and teach safety to children.

“(3) Information

“The right to be given the facts needed to make an informed choice, to be protected against misleading advertising or labelling.

“The responsibility to search out and use available information. To take action to read and follow labels and research before purchase.

“(4) Choice

“The right to choose products and services at competitive prices with an assurance of satisfactory quality.

“The responsibility to make informed and responsible choices. To take action to resist high-pressure sales and to comparison shop.

“(5) Representation

“The right to express consumer interests in the making of decisions.

“The responsibility to make opinions known. To take action to join an association such as the consumers council to make your voice heard and to encourage others to participate.

“(6) Redress

“The right to be compensated for misrepresentation, shoddy goods or unsatisfactory services.

“The responsibility to fight for the quality that should be provided. Take action by complaining effectively and refusing to accept shoddy workmanship.

“(7) Consumer education

“The right to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to be an informed consumer.

“The responsibility to take advantage of consumer opportunities. Take action by attending seminars and workshops, work to ensure consumer education takes place in schools.

“(8) Healthy environment

“The right to live and work in an environment that is neither threatening nor dangerous and which permits a life of dignity and well-being.

“The responsibility to minimize environmental damage through careful choice and use of consumer goods and services. Take action to reduce waste, to reuse products whenever possible and to recycle whenever possible.”

And, additionally: “Privacy

“The right to privacy, particularly as it applies to personal information.

“The responsibility to know how information will be used and to divulge personal information only when appropriate.”

The council has also submitted that “consumer issues are barely confronted by a plethora of federal and provincial agencies acting in isolation, often with inadequate resources. As a result, Ontario consumers must shop around their concerns in a mad hunt for justice.

“They must more often resort to lawsuits, seek guidance from consumer organizations, or express anger and frustration or organize reaction using online reviews and social or other public media.

“Too much of this reaction leads only to frustration and shared anger, rather than confidence inspiring solutions for consumers.

“Without remedial action, an already weak, fragmented provincial consumer protection regime will be further degraded by government financial constraints and pressure from competing interests, inside and outside government.”

Let’s talk about the EU gold standard. Generally speaking, what gives the EU such strong consumer protection laws is that its consumer protection bodies are divided into two streams: (1) the ECC Net, or the European Consumer Centres Network, which provides consumers with advice, legal assistance and advocacy work; and (2) the CPC Net, or the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network, which enforces consumer protection laws across the EU.

ECC Net increases consumer confidence by providing free information and advice on consumer issues as well as assistance with complaints. ECC Net also offers advice on legal protections throughout the EU. ECC Net is co-funded by EU governments and is staffed by legal experts who assist consumers free of charge. The service is not only accessible by having a centre in virtually every EU country, spanning 29 languages, but it also does advocacy work and assists governments with consumer protection policy and legislation. CPC Net, or the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network is made up of various administrations that enforce consumer protection laws in the EU. CPC Net has strong and swift powers that enable it to detect irregularities and take action against mal-intentioned sellers and businesses. CPC Net has enforcement authority over unfair commercial practices; e-commerce; geo-blocking; package holidays, including time-shares and cruises; and online selling, to name a few of many.

When it comes to consumer protection in Ontario, the issue for me is when the government creates a set of laws and then leaves David on his own to fight Goliath. Consumers need an ally, a powerful entity that has their back in the same way that industry has. It’s about the need for policies that make it easier for individuals to cancel subscriptions and membership agreements without facing exorbitant fees or complex, convoluted processes. It’s about ensuring that our rights as consumers are protected, even when our circumstances change. While the provisions in this bill are a step in the right direction, they can, and should, be taken further.

As critic, I often seek input from consumer advocates and organizations. However, I am sad to report that many of these organizations are on the brink of extinction here in Ontario and across Canada. The consumers council, in their 2020 submission to the Ministry of Public and Business Delivery, recommended the “creation of a consumer advancement fund, compensating consumer organizations, and introducing a contributions program for non-profit consumers and other voluntary organizations.”

I think the consumers council summed it up best in their 2020 submission when they describe the importance of consumer trust and the role it plays within Ontario’s economy and the proper functioning of markets. They go on to say, “Ample evidence exists that consumer protection in Canada has diminished in direct proportion to the absence of vigorous external surveillance and government attention to its mandate to promote and protect consumer interests.

“The need is urgent to restore and rebuild consumer confidence and the integrity of the marketplace.

“While the various roles and responsibilities for the CCA recommended here are much-needed and critical, the most important overall role will be its ability to effectively advance the consumer voice in government.

“Someone must be present to speak up for consumers, make their needs known and objectively organize insights gained from their engagement to be presented to the House Senate committees and government agencies that make important decisions impacting Canadian consumers.”

So what’s missing? Does this fix consumer protection in Canada? I know the minister quoted the phrase “caveat emptor.” The question is, does that exist at all in any way, shape or form still in Ontario? Does it exist in Canada?

Speaker, the bill moves many provisions from legislation and into regulation and appears to expand the scope of what provisions can be made in regulation. There are 48 items the government has identified. Again, early analysis from law firms suggested that this list of areas signals that the regulations under the new CPA may be more detailed and expansive than the current version. As with everything, there is always room for improvement, so I look forward to the committee stage of this bill in particular.

For example, when it comes to online agreements and the monetary limit of $50, I would argue that the monetary limit should be removed and that the act cover all such agreements. Section 16—coverage of the act—names some transactions. I hope that these are just examples and not an exhaustive list. I would hope this would also be clarified so that the intention of the act to cover all transactions is reflected in the text of the act.

Under section 50—the cooling-off period—right now, it only covers the enumerated agreements, meaning it doesn’t cover any agreements conducted online, even if they meet the monetary limit and those are currently covered. While section 50 suggests that other agreements may be added through regulation, it is a significant change from the current legislation.

I would also like to note that when it comes to the standard for assessing unfair practices, neither the current Consumer Protection Act nor this proposed legislation provides a standard to assess whether a practice can be considered unfair.

I would like to quote part of a submission by the Competition Bureau on the future of competition policy in Canada, which noted that a standard should be prescribed in legislation. It stated:

“It is important that the act be clear that all consumers, including those who are less sophisticated and more vulnerable, be protected from deceptive marketing practices. Should it not, the proper functioning of the marketplace will be distorted in each instance that a consumer is misled into transacting with misleading advertisers rather than honest competitors.

“The act has yet to prescribe a consumer standard for deceptive marketing conduct, and so the matter has been left to the courts to adjudicate. This has resulted in a lack of consensus and, in many instances, the introduction of standards that fall short of ensuring adequate protection. To correct this, the act should be revised to articulate an appropriate threshold, and in doing so should adopt the standard set by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in Richard v Time (Time). That case concerned the test for false and misleading representations under Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act’s (CPA). The SCC acknowledged that the CPA language in question was based upon certain text located within the Combines Investigation Act and is now analogous to that found within the act.”

Under “Disclosure of information” in section 4, it states, “(1) If a supplier is required to disclose information under this act, the disclosure must be clear, comprehensible and prominent.” What is the definition of “clear” and “comprehensible”? As we know, most consumer agreements are drafted in a language that is not easy to understand and often uses complex language.

It is not unprecedented to require that disclosure agreements be written in plain, easy-to-understand language—take, for example, the Ontario Securities Commission’s “Notice of Amendments (Related to Implementation of Stage 1 of Point of Sale Disclosure for Mutual Funds).” It states: “The Fund Facts is still required to be prepared using plain language and in a format that assists in readability and comprehension.”

There are also some reasons from stakeholders that I would like to share.

For some time, advocates and consumer protection experts have been calling for regulations on new home sales and their warranties.

Canadians for Properly Built Homes issued the following statement in reaction to this proposed bill:

“The Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, 2023 is a step in the right direction for some Ontario consumers, such as a monthly free credit report and clarifying rules for gift cards. Unfortunately, it does not address key areas of concern for CPBH and many purchasers of newly built homes, or those considering purchasing a newly built home, such as:

“1. Ensuring that the largest purchase that most make, a home, is good quality—or even meets the minimal code;

“2. Addressing the ongoing serious shortcomings of key administrative authorities, that are supposed to be focused on consumer protection, such as:

“—the Home Construction Regulatory Authority (HCRA) in relation to the misleading Ontario Builder Directory, and preventing builders from secretly selling newly built homes with used and/or damaged furnaces, and

“—ending Tarion’s monopoly and introducing a competitive, multi-provider model for warranty protection as was recommended by Justice Cunningham in 2016, is offered by much of the rest of Canada, was promised by the PCs before the June 2018 election and was recommended by the Ford government’s own consultation (which they swept under the rug).”

Again, in the words of CPBH, “When is the” existing “government going to address the biggest consumer protection problem in Ontario: protecting consumers who buy newly built homes? When will the building code be enforced during construction in Ontario? When will inspections during construction be enforced on every home built? When will the Ford government reverse its decision to allow remote municipal inspections during construction? When will consumers be able to have confidence that their newly built home will not injure them or make them sick? Once again, we see the ... government tinkering at the margins instead of getting the big problems fixed. It’s what we have come to expect. And it’s far from what Ontarians need and deserve.”

Consumer advocate Barbara Captijn noted:

“This bill does not address major problems in lack of consumer protection in Ontario. It excludes protections for new home buyers in the biggest purchase of one’s life.

“Leaving significant gaps in this bill seems like repairing the roof of a car when the engine is faulty. Doing a few touch-ups to the 2002 act isn’t significantly improving consumer protection.

“The subtitle of the bill, the Consumer Protection Act, ‘protecting consumers, protecting businesses’ mixes two very different things. Individual consumers don’t have the financial resources businesses have, nor the time or tax deductibility advantages to resolve injustices in the courts. Consumers are the most vulnerable party in a business transaction, which is why we need a strong Consumer Protection Act.

“Some of the proposals in Bill 142 are a step in the right direction, such as providing an exit to time-share agreements, limiting automatic contract renewals without specific consent and preventing suppliers from soliciting at a consumer’s dwelling etc.

“But this bill ignores the 900-pound gorilla in the room, unfair business practices in new home sales. As with the Consumer Protection Act in 2002, this new bill specifically excludes real estate transactions except, oddly, for time-share purchases.

“New home buying is an area where consumers need to be protected, since one’s life savings are often at stake, as well as one’s well-being and stability. But there are growing numbers of reports in the media about unscrupulous practices in this area, such as developers taking deposits and not building homes they’ve contracted to, project cancellations, price escalations, preventing consumers from speaking out about problems with developers and selling homes without the necessary provincial approvals or the finances to complete the project.

“The government announced they are clamping down on what they call ‘bad actors’ and ‘unscrupulous builders,’ but there’s nothing in the Consumer Protection Act to protect consumers in the biggest investment of their lives.”

So those who are long-time consumer protection advocates, who have fought tooth and nail on the issues of home warranty—I’ve read quotes from them on their feelings about the current legislation before us.

Overall, is this legislation an improvement over the Consumer Protection Act, 2002? Yes, it is. There are improvements here. Will this make Ontario the gold standard of consumer protection amongst all the jurisdictions out there? I think there is much more work required to bring us to that standard. Why? Well, there are many reasons—but one: We lack enforcement. This legislation does change laws to better protect consumers, but ultimately consumers will have to seek justice in court against companies with massive wealth and teams of lawyers. Consumers will be better armed but, in my opinion, they remain outgunned. Furthermore, consumers face industry-wide issues that this legislation cannot fix, and these powerful industries that may compete amongst themselves still band together to form powerful and well-funded associations that lobby governments and attempt to sway public opinion through PR campaigns. But what do consumers have? There are consumer protections organizations and advocates out there, but they, as I mentioned, are on the brink of extinction and operate with little to no funding. They churn out well-thought-out reports with solutions, but ultimately they are shouting into the winds of a hurricane that is slowly sweeping them away. As I said, there is more work to be done, but we cannot do that work alone. Consumers need help. They need a strong ally to stand up against these industries.

On December 8, 2020, under the 42nd Parliament of Ontario, I tabled the Ontario Consumer Watchdog Act, legislation for the government to develop and implement a plan to establish an independent consumer watchdog organization that is responsible for overseeing consumer protection matters in Ontario. On March 8, 2021, I tabled second reading of the act. And earlier this year, we proudly tabled a strengthened version—the Ontario consumer watchdog, an independent organization that would oversee all consumer protection matters in Ontario.

At present, it can be difficult to exercise consumer protection rights. Depending on the nature of the complaint, there could be a number of different places, and frequently the only avenue is to pursue the matter legally, an option that is not available to many consumers and is cost-prohibitive. The consumer watchdog would be able to release public reports, similar to the Auditor General or the Ombudsman of Ontario, and to levy fines or other penalties against businesses that have been found not to have acted in accordance with consumer protection legislation.

Daniel Tsai, a consumer advocate, had this to say about the bill:

“Ontario families continue to struggle against escalating grocery prices and huge food bills to feed themselves while the big five grocery chains (Loblaws, Sobeys, Metro, Costco and Walmart—dominate with 80% market share and reap huge profits they put back into their executives’ pockets. While Loblaws’s CEO gets a million-dollar raise, Canadians need a break from price gouging and a government to champion their concerns. An Ontario consumer watchdog is what this province sorely needs to fight food inflation and price gouging and to protect consumers. If Ontario implements” the MPP from Humber River–Black Creek’s “consumer watchdog bill, Ontario will be the undisputed leader in protecting consumers in Canada.”

Don Mercer, former president of the Consumers Council of Canada, issued the following statement:

“Consumers Council of Canada applauds this bill being tabled for the consideration of Ontario legislators—it’s especially timely to engage with proposals for improving consumer protection in Ontario. Under current economic pressures, consumers are increasingly sensitive about whether the marketplace is fair and that public policy works for rather than against them.

“They want their legitimate concerns to be heard and responded to promptly by business and government. They are ready for innovative ideas that will better support their legitimate interest in meeting basic needs, staying safe and healthy, exercising informed choice, finding redress and protecting their privacy. In our sophisticated economy, whole-of-government approaches to deliver consumer well-being will be critical to economic success.”

The reaction from the government, however, when the bill was tabled was to shoot down the bill for a watchdog. Unfortunately, the disdain of the idea was apparent in the words of the minister of the time, referring to the establishment of a consumer watchdog as implementing “more red tape and more blockers.” He said that there is an abundance of compliance and enforcement actions that currently exist, and even directed people to call Consumer Protection Ontario. This is simply untrue.

I will mention that press conference, again, when the Premier angrily blasted a retailer for gouging on Lysol wipes, urging the public to report gouging to the consumer hotline. What happened at that time? Again, there were 30,000 complaints and not a single fine laid.

The minister went on to further say at the time, “My ministry has oversight of 11 administrative authorities and one statutory corporation that are responsible for delivering critical programs and services, including ensuring that delegated consumer protection and public safety laws are applied and enforced. They include very flexible ways to respond to a wide range of emerging issues.”

Most consumer protection advocates state that these delegated administrative authorities are not working. They are generally loaded with the players they seek to regulate. At best they seek not to rock the boat, and at worst these authorities function as though they were fully captured.

This brings me to the last point, which is a concern I’ve always had with this government: They rely heavily, if not solely, on industry to write their policy. Speaker, industries cannot regulate themselves. When governments consult businesses on how to better protect consumers from unfair practices, they are essentially asking the fox on how to better construct chicken wire. Why would they help anyway? When consulted, they scream poor or threaten to leave the market, while posting profits and comforting their shareholders.

Speaker, take for example the auto insurance industry. Statistics show that Ontarians are some of the safest drivers in the country, yet we continue to pay the highest auto insurance rates on earth. Families are paying sky-high auto insurance premiums while big insurance companies make record profits. GTA drivers with clean records continue to be gouged by this unfair practice, which makes life unaffordable in places like Brampton, Scarborough and Vaughan. Drivers need relief.

When the NDP introduced a bill to end postal code discrimination and price gouging, the government blocked the bill, only to introduce lacklustre measures that failed to address postal code discrimination. However, in 2022, the bill was voted on unanimously, but the government did not pass it into law.

Ontarians are already living paycheque to paycheque, especially in the face of a skyrocketing cost-of-living and affordability crisis. We need to take action against price gouging and postal code discrimination that is putting more financial burden on hard-working Ontarians and only benefiting big corporations.

Take it from a resident named Yavuz, who wrote to my office saying the following:

“Coming from a working-class background, every dollar counts for me and my family, including insurance rates. Unfortunately, the current policies and regulations on auto insurance create an accessibility and class barrier to automotive transportation, which has led me to forego owning a car as the associated insurance rates are cost-prohibitive. Honest, law-abiding citizens are discriminated by virtue of their geographical and financial backgrounds due to postal code discrimination, without accounting for individual factors. Insurance equality means that people can travel more and explore more economic opportunities. If insurance costs were less cost-prohibitive, I would also have more of an opportunity to work in different localities.”

So you’ve heard it from consumer protection advocates, in particular those in a particular area that are frustrated because they feel that this bill is not going to address their issue. You’ve heard from experts and associations about what they think the gold standard should look like and what it should be focused on. You’ve heard from everyday residents.

And so, Speaker, we are debating a bill that has many positive improvements for consumer protection. It repeals the act from 2002 with a series of improvements. But here on this side of the House, we’re looking for the gold standard. Are there improvements? There are. I’ve listed many; I’ve been very open about how it’s positive, and I do believe, in a number of situations, it will help consumers. But what the issue continues to be is that to fix problems, consumers will have to go through the court systems. And while this may equip them with better laws for their lawyers, they’re going to have to shell out money, in a lot of cases, to fight against Goliath. That is going to continue to be a challenge.

We are going to be looking very closely in terms of what the regulations will say, because a lot of what’s been moved has been moved to that part. Again, I thank the minister and the ministry for granting a briefing, where they said, “If and when this bill comes into force, there will be a seamless transition,” which we didn’t see with other acts like the PAWS Act, which is something that is very important.

Again, what we are looking to see is an understanding that, when it comes to consumers and when it comes to industry, there is a massive, massive imbalance. Industries get together and they put money into associations that stand up and fight for them. Those industries and associations are able to buy advertisements; they’re able to lobby very aggressively the government. They have lots and lots of power. And even though members of that industry might be competing with one another, they are all working in the same direction to ensure that that industry, in particular—and take auto insurance—is going to be profitable for all of them.

But we as consumers are interested in being able to pay the bills, in being treated fairly. And so, as this government has gone through the consultation process, and they’re going to do more consulting, I urge them to reach out to these associations and these consumer groups. But I urge them to go even further and begin to think about and consider the importance of why funding and empowering these groups is so crucial to consumer protection here in Ontario.

I, with other colleagues, have tabled the Ontario Consumer Watchdog Act, which would run parallel to all the work that you are doing as government. It would run parallel to the act that you are attempting to repeal and replace. It would provide an ally to consumers across all of this great province. It would provide an entity that could do things like issue reports, levy fines and do more. Having that watchdog would help us transition and move us to the gold standard that exists in the European Union and other jurisdictions. And after all, as legislators, shouldn’t we be fighting for what is the best for Ontarians?

Speaker, I hope the minister will take a serious look at that legislation that could take consumer protection to the highest levels. It runs, again, parallel to this positive consumer protection legislation we’re debating today and would only help the ministry and consumers of our great province.

To conclude, I believe that this legislation will improve consumer protection in Ontario in a number of areas. I again acknowledge the work of the minister and his ministry and thank them for the briefing and conversations that they’ve granted. If this bill passes second reading, I look forward to following it through committee before it returns to this House.

It is an honour to rise as the official opposition’s lead in speaking to government Bill 142, entitled Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act.

Nothing personal here, of course, but as you could imagine, on this side of the House, we deal with government bills with a healthy amount of skepticism, as many bills come wrapped in a hopeful name and elegant packaging but too often hide a dangerous core. As a matter of fact, many opposition critics and researchers have become violently ill when handling new government legislation at times.

Speaker, I have a young family to take care of, and I could not take any chances, so I did the only responsible thing, as critic, before diving into this legislation: I first contacted poison control to take the first look. And so there I was, watching with trepidation, at a safe distance, as the team went about leafing through this highly technical bill in their bright yellow haz-mat suits. And imagine the relief and surprise I felt when, after a long period of examination, the team began unzipping their suits and handling the bill with bare hands. We haven’t found a poison pill, for now.

But in all seriousness, I’d like to acknowledge and congratulate the minister and Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery for their work on this bill, which entirely repeals the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, and replaces it with the legislation we are now debating, and which I believe will improve consumer protection in some important areas—a process that has no doubt taken many months, if not years.

While the government has numbers—meaning an army of staff—and time on their side when it comes to drafting legislation, we in the opposition have neither when it comes to critiquing and analyzing it. So I would like to thank our small but mighty research team, especially Caitlin Hipkiss, for her tremendous work in a short time. As well, I’d like to thank a number of other contributors who have come through in a short period, including Marina Pavlović, associate professor at the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa; Dave Deonarain, real estate lawyer; the consumers council; Canadians for Properly Built Homes; consumer advocate Barbara Captijn; Linda Palmieri, a concerned citizen; and many more I’ve had the chance to contact in this short time.

I’d also again like to thank the minister and his ministry for arranging a short technical briefing that helped address some of the immediate concerns we had upon reading the bill.

Speaker, the need for consumer protection in Ontario has never been greater. As many find themselves affected by the affordability crisis, the value of a dollar means more now than ever. People are frustrated out of their minds with price gouging, misleading advertisements, shrinkflation. To top it off, entire industries are posting massive profits while people are struggling to survive. And, of course, there’s an unending variety of scams particularly targeting our elderly and most vulnerable. It is our responsibility, as legislators, to ensure that Ontarians have the gold standard of consumer protection that they deserve.

That being said, today we are debating a government consumer protection bill that would replace and repeal the existing act that’s there today. Analyzing this act was challenging, as parts of the act have been moved around and deleted entirely, leaving us concerned that consumers would not be protected in some areas. As well, certain protections were removed from legislation, placed into regulation—and this reminded us of what happened with the PAWS Act. As you may remember, there was a problem when provisions were removed and were to be prescribed by regulation—however, when the regulations were delayed, it actually led to no laws in place for a period of time. This caused a series of problems, and we want to ensure consumers don’t find themselves in a similar situation, without protection—because this bill moves many provisions from legislation into regulation and also appears to expand the scope of what provisions can be made into regulation.

Early analysis from law firms has suggested that this list of areas signals that the regulations under the new CPA may be more detailed and expansive than the current version. It is difficult to ascertain what the impact will be, as we do not yet have the text of the regulations, which is always a challenge. As it stands, we know that previous provisions on motor vehicles and the cashing of government cheques have been removed from the legislation in favour of shifting to regulation, as an example.

At the briefing, ministry staff answered some of our questions and said that there would be a seamless transition that would not leave unintended holes in protections. So I will move on and dig deeper into this legislation.

When this legislation was announced on October 23, the government stated that it would “strengthen protections and make life easier for consumers and businesses” through a series of initiatives it included in its backgrounder. I will now reference each initiative and briefly discuss whether I think it is a valid issue to be addressed and if the government’s aims will improve said issues. So let’s see what they are.

First off, tackling unfair business practices: This legislation changes language to allow that it is a prohibited practice to charge for goods or services that grossly exceeds the price at which similar goods or services are available from similar suppliers—or to state it simply, price gouging is not allowed. In the midst of this affordability crisis, the public certainly wants to see action on this. After grocery chain CEOs testified in the House of Commons, Dalhousie University polled Canadians about their opinions on food inflation; 31% of Ontarian respondents blamed price gouging, and a significant number of respondents across the country believed it was in fact the role of government to intervene.

We New Democrats are committed to fighting price gouging wherever it rears its greedy head, and we are interested to know how this government intends to do it with this legislation. In the way that it is worded, it will not stop industry-wide gouging but will only address individual sellers as compared to their competitors as a whole. This legislation defines price gouging as an unconscionable act and includes other examples such as the misrepresentation of products or services.

At present, unconscionable acts include representations that goods are new or unused if they are not, for example representing a used appliance for sale as if it was new. This can lead to serious consequences in the mechanical safety and operation of the item. It also prohibits exploiting a person’s inability to understand and expands these rights to include language barriers as a reason as to why a person may not be able to understand a contract. It also goes further to lay out that it is an unconscionable act to enter into a contract with a consumer if the person or business doing so knows that there is no reasonable chance that the consumer will be able to pay the total amount owing under the contract.

This bill changes language to allow that it is a prohibited practice to charge a price for goods or services that grossly exceeds the price of other similar goods. So this is an attempt to curb gouging, and that is good. The only problem, you could argue, is, well, what happens when an entire section of the market is charging high prices? So I have questions about what would happen in monopoly situations where similar suppliers or businesses are all offering products with the same inflated price. You might say that this act is not intended to regulate the market—and I guess that’s a different discussion, but I appreciate this safeguard in place here. So while all these aims of the proposed legislation and this initiative seem to all be positive and supportable, it remains to be seen how this will be undertaken and enforced.

The next initiative, addressing predatory practices by some suppliers leasing equipment to homeowners: This issue has garnered quite a bit of media attention. Often they involve door-to-door HVAC rentals and sales that have resulted in many consumers being taken advantage of due to an inability to understand often-misleading contracts and terms. In this initiative, the government tries to address a common problem in what they call purchase-cost-plus leases, where the amount of product drastically exceeds the cost of the purchased good.

A purchase-cost-plus lease is an agreement where a party agrees to reimburse the contract party for expenses plus a specified profit proportional to the full value of the contract—for example, you need to purchase an item that’s $1,000, but you don’t have that up front; instead, you enter into a contract where the full term is $1,300 over two years, and you pay a monthly fee to the person providing the contract with that extra profit.

Cost-plus leases can be a large problem when the amount of profit drastically exceeds the cost of the good. This bill would add provisions that would entitle the lessee to purchase the leased goods and terminate the lease at any point during the lease term, upon payment, not exceeding the cost at which the lessee may purchase the leased good. The cost must decrease to $0 during the lease term.

The legislation states that a purchase-cost-plus lease would be “a lease under which the total amount payable exceeds 90% of the estimated retail value of the leased goods.” The provision does not regulate the market, but it does regulate at what point a consumer can exercise their rights. For example, a furnace at retail could cost $6,000. Frequently, we will see contracts with exorbitant markups. With these new provisions, using $6,000 as an example, the total amount payable could now go up to $11,400, but not above. For contrast, in one case, a senior couple in Welland saw a $43,000 bill for a $6,000 furnace.

So this change seems to be a positive move, as the legislation adds provisions to allow customers to purchase and terminate the lease at any point during the term, requires that costs decrease to $0 during the lease term and caps, and even more.

There are also some provisions here that limit contracts being initiated at a person’s dwelling, and that clearly state that consumers may, without any reason, cancel certain listed consumer contracts within 10 days. I think this section is long overdue, as door-to-door sales have resulted in a huge amount of consumer complaints that continue to shock people when reported in the media. One such type of scam is referred to as notices of security interest, often referred to as NOSIs or liens, which I will cover in greater detail soon. This initiative is welcome, and certainly supportable.

Providing an exit for time-shares: This initiative is self-explanatory and needed, as many consumers and their families locked into infinite time-share contracts exist today. With this new legislation, a consumer can automatically exit a time-share contract after 25 years, or at the time of their passing, with limits to any exit costs. It is also worth noting that the ability to exit a time-share contract on or after the 25-year anniversary, so long as the termination fees and other requirements are met, is in fact retroactive. This is good. It is not often that we see retroactive changes. I believe this will assist many individuals who are struggling to resolve disputes relating to time-shares for deceased family members. We do not have more information, as this will be defined in regulations, but this initiative will improve the current situation for consumers.

Clarifying rules for gift cards: again, another self-explanatory initiative that seeks to clarify that all purchased prepaid cards cannot expire, regardless of how they are purchased. Despite an already-existing ban on gift card expiration dates in Ontario, CTV News reported earlier this year the case of Carola Della Mattia of Brampton, whose $250 prepaid Visa gift card had an expiry date as well as a service fee that ate away at the balance—as prepaid credit cards may also have activation fees and maintenance or dormancy fees deducted each month that many are unaware of. Like too many consumers who are taken advantage of, Carola only found justice after the company was shamed in the media.

I should also note that points and loyalty cards that are used for collecting store awards are not covered by gift card rules, so we could see there is room for improvement here.

It is also interesting to note that approximately 2% to 4% of gift cards in the US are never claimed, representing billions in profits for retailers, according to a study by the Retail Gift Card Association. I imagine the statistics are similar here.

I also wonder about protecting consumers who have gift cards for stores that have declared bankruptcy. You may wonder, how does the gift card rule apply to this and protect consumers? Well, currently it does not. When a company files for bankruptcy, the ban on gift card expiry is not applied. Enhanced clarity on this to ensure that all gift cards cannot expire is welcome.

The next initiative, protecting consumers’ right to take action in court—

First off, I want to acknowledge and congratulate the minister and his ministry for their work on this bill.

I also want to acknowledge the presence of former minister Tim Hudak, who was there as minister for the act that this bill actually repeals and replaces.

I understand that this bill is the culmination of months and years of work, of consultation, and I know that it probably wasn’t easy. When it comes to consumer protection, you have the industry and industry players that have a lot of money and associations and power, and then you have to balance the interests of the consumers, and those who are advocating for them usually are smaller associations, advocates, individuals and academics.

My question is twofold: How did you balance those competing interests, and do you believe that there is a role in government to support those consumer protection groups who are struggling to fight Goliath in this case?