In the hiatus between the end of parliamentary work and the 1er July is the business that refuses to die. On the last day of the session, the Minister of Housing, France-Élaine Duranceau, tabled her Bill 31, which proposes a series of measures to supposedly better regulate the right to housing in Quebec.
The bill was presented from the angle of protecting tenants against renovictions and abusive rent increases. We insisted on two measures: first, the increase in the minimum compensation offered to tenants who are evicted to renovate as well as the addition of an obligation, for the owners, to prove to the Administrative Housing Tribunal (TAL ) that they actually hold the permits to carry out the planned renovations.
Then there is the addition of a requirement for landlords of new buildings to indicate the rent increases they plan to impose on tenants for the next five years. Tenants will then know what to expect, they will be able to plan, said the minister. Having the ability to financially plan for its future exploitation — yes, that must be freedom.
However, it is the addition of a right for landlords to refuse the assignment of the lease for any reason whatsoever that has become the bone of contention, and for good reason. The government, it is understood, has thus answered the call of the foot of the real estate developers and the associations of owners.
By presenting her project, the Minister wanted to play the card of defending the rights of small owners to administer their property as they wish. Needless to say, she hit a nerve. The tongues were loosened: finally, finished the “shopping” of rent between tenants, the “imposition” of tenants on landlords, tenants who drive a business of subletting and assignment of lease on the back of their landlord. We had a lot on our hearts.
The Minister justified her remarks deemed insensitive about tenants by saying that she had wanted to express herself in economic and legal terms. The owner is entitled to the full enjoyment of his property, it is the least of things, etc. Let’s reassure her: the absolutism of property rights and freedom of contract are not exactly threatened principles within Quebec legislation. The possibility for tenants to relocate decently, on the other hand, really is.
The assignment of a lease is above all a survival tool. However, if it bothers so much, it is because it is used to implement a principle of solidarity. It is both a safe-conduct and a firewall: when you sell your lease, you stem the spiral of rising rents for everyone. It also serves as a bulwark against discrimination, in a rental market where anyone who deviates from the norm sees their chances of being “chosen” by a landlord radically reduced.
The attack on the assignment of leases reveals the real intention of this law: it is not a question of protecting tenants, but of removing even more obstacles to the commodification of housing.
If we had really wanted, for example, to curb the problem of renovations, the law would not have contented itself with imposing more obligations on owners who retype a building in order to derive more profit from it. By adding a (slightly) more demanding compensation scheme and by requiring owners to show their credentials in front of the TAL when they start a renovation project, we rather sanction the practice. Its legitimacy is affirmed — while stating certain limits — instead of being identified as a root cause of the housing crisis.
Moreover, what is referred to as “protection” for tenants is a narrow formalism, powerless in the face of the reality of power relations between landlords and tenants. Indicate the rent increases envisaged in clause F, fill in clause G to avoid abusive rent increases from one tenant to another, okay. But there is a huge gap between the letter of the law and people’s awareness of their rights, as well as their ability to exercise them.
The minister knows this — especially since she comes from the real estate world. It is not an omission. She knows that in this gap between what the bill claims to do and what it actually allows, the rights of tenants are drowning. And this discrepancy reveals precisely this government’s vision on housing.
The so-called housing crisis — families giving up three-quarters of their salary to live in accommodation that is too small, too far away, poorly maintained, extreme residential instability, fierce competition between tenants in search for housing and all the discrimination it allows, the transformation of working-class neighborhoods into havens for condos — is not, for this government, a problem to be solved. The permanent crisis is at the heart of its policy. It is a business opportunity as well as a social project, that of asserting the domination of the class that possesses over others.
Much has been said about the minister, her predecessor and this government in general that they were “out of touch” with the reality of the housing crisis. They are not. They know very well what they are doing. Their will is clear, transparent: to commodify housing as much as possible, to encourage speculation on real estate, to delegate to private actors even the task of providing social housing. This is not a mistake, not a misunderstanding. In good government of bosses, they simply give force of law to their own conflict of interests.
Columnist specializing in environmental justice issues, Aurélie Lanctôt is a doctoral candidate in law at McGill University.