The Association des Propriétaires du Québec (APQ) is both relieved and disappointed by the consultations on Bill 31, the detailed study and adoption of which have been postponed until 2024.
Relieved because several amendments that are extremely negative towards rental housing owners will not come into force now. But that is only for a limited time, unless the members who are studying this bill turn the tables on them.
Indeed, several amendments adopted place all the responsibility on the shoulders of the owners and now require the owner to prove his good faith in cases of repossession and eviction precisely.
Moreover, with the adopted reinforcement of clause G this week, new punitive damages are being added instead of simply removing clause G, which is a source of conflict and a deterioration of the rental stock.
In a detailed study by the Planning Committee, an amendment concerning clause G was adopted, that of awarding punitive damages to a landlord who had made a false statement or knowingly failed to fulfil clause G with the lowest rent paid in the last twelve months or the last rent paid, if it’s been more than twelve months.
The Association des Propriétaires du Québec (APQ) is really surprised by the punitive reinforcement when no tools are available to rental housing owners to keep rental buildings in good condition.
“On the one hand, we are asking landlords to maintain their buildings, to invest tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to renovate and secure, and on the other hand, we are preventing them from increasing their rents accordingly,” says Martin Messier, President of the APQ.
“Landlords are also experiencing increases in operating, maintenance and renovation costs, it is therefore necessary for a landlord to increase the price of his rents,” adds the APQ.
Clause G, i.e. the declaration of the lowest rent paid in the last twelve months, or the last rent paid if it has been more than twelve months, is a clause that should have been abolished altogether.
Rent control in Québec is extremely restrictive, and it is inconceivable that rent price protection would be on the unit instead of sticking to the current tenant’s rent protection.
When the tenant leaves, the landlord and the new tenant should be able to agree on the new price without a restrictive covenant that has a detrimental effect on the entire rental stock.
“The conclusion of a residential lease is the only contract for which one of the parties can contest a contract freely negotiated and accepted,” according to the APQ.
The real problem remains the outdated rent-setting system, which cannot allow landlords to make a return on their work and investments.
“There needs to be an in-depth overhaul of the rent increase system because rents must reflect the work done and be able to spread these increases over several years if the amount is too large. These are repeated and necessary demands that must finally be heard by the Government!” concluded Martin Messier.
The only amendment that will have a real positive impact on landlords is the ability for a landlord to refuse the assignment of a lease and terminate the lease. Also, the two related amendments are that it will now be forbidden to haggle over a lease or to make a profit by subletting someone else’s property.
“We hope that this pause will be an opportunity for MNAs to consult the stakeholders in the rental world and measure the negative impact of these new provisions. There is still time to review them and modify them so as not to further increase the imbalance of rights and obligations between tenants and landlords, concluded the APQ.
Bill 31 in housing: The APQ hopes that when consultations resume, the experience of rental housing owners will be considered
