I’m proud to introduce legislation that protects consumers from corporate gouging when it comes to maintenance and repairs on heavy farming equipment, wheelchairs, motor vehicles, electronic products and household appliances. This legislation is better known as Right to Repair. This bill is co-sponsored by the MPPs from Timiskaming–Cochrane as well as Parkdale–High Park.

This legislation would require manufacturers of electronic products, household appliances, wheelchairs, motor vehicles and heavy farming equipment to make the following available to consumers and repair businesses: the most recent version of the repair manual; replacement parts; software and tools used for diagnosing, maintaining or repairing their products; and tools for resetting an electronic security function if it is disabled during diagnosis, maintenance or repair.

The bill would enable our farmers to have access to repair manuals and parts for equipment that they have purchased. Furthermore, the manufacturer must also provide the repair manual at no charge or, if a paper version is requested, at a reasonable cost. It would require the manufacturer to provide the replacement parts, software and tools at a fair cost.

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.

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—

Life has never been so expensive, and now more than ever we need real consumer protection in Ontario. People are paying more for less, and when you get gouged, ripped off or taken advantage of, where do you turn? How about the ministry’s consumer hotline? Tens of thousands of complaints, and not a single fine laid—so you get a lawyer to fight a giant industry that can crush you like a bug. It’s the classic story of David and Goliath.

Last year, I tabled a solution: the Ontario Consumer Watchdog Act—the creation of a powerful advocate who would have the back of consumers and the resources and powers to stand up to Goliath. And do you know what? The government said no. They voted on the side of Goliath.

This afternoon, I’m proud to table a new and strengthened Ontario Consumer Watchdog Act that reflects the crushing times consumers are facing. I’m calling on all members of this House to do the right thing and support this very important NDP bill to bring real consumer protection to Ontario.