Tag

regulations

Browsing

New Airbnb regulations for the City of Toronto

A new set of regulations for short term rental spaces, such as Airbnb, has been approved by Toronto’s city council.

One of the biggest changes is that basement apartments have now been banned from use as a rental space, leaving many potential landlords who use Airbnb to make some extra cash out in the cold. By limiting guests to people’s primary residences, the city hopes to have better insight into the current housing situation in the city. It also allows more of these suites to be available for long-term contract rentals. One of the new regulations states that only long-term tenants of secondary suites, not the owner, could offer up space for nightly rental.

This step will mean that families who take part in home sharing will now be regulated and formally recognized. Alex Dagg, the policy director for Airbnb Canada said, “This is truly a big step forward for the City of Toronto, in terms of supporting the fact that we have thousands of families in Toronto who have been home-sharing and are now going to be formally recognized and regulated. We look forward to working with the city on the next steps.”

Short term home-sharing hosts will now pay the city $50 per-year for a rental maximum of three rooms, which will be rented for no more than 180 nights per year. The unpredictability of the current housing market in Toronto, along with fluctuating costs, could mean there will be more short-term rentals and less room for long- term tenants.

Those fighting to include secondary suites argued these rules put many homeowners at a disadvantage and they should be allowed flexibility in the choice of renting out spaces they choose. Toronto Mayor John Tory voted in support of the regulations, saying that City Council had the responsibility to put reasonable limits on property use.

Airbnb, which is a San-Francisco-based company that allows users to book home-sharing services online, said that in the past year there were over four million Canadians that have used this service to travel domestically. Earlier this year as part of the government’s pre-budget process, Airbnb sent a letter to the House of Commons finance committee asking the government not to over regulate. This request was unrelated to Toronto’s new regulatory process. So far, the regulations seem to be pleasing to both the government and Airbnb.

The government is set to revisit the rules in 2019 as this will provide a timeline in order to observe any major changes to Toronto housing.

What do you think about these new regulations? Comment below.

Uber says “au revoir” to Quebec’s new regulations

There is a reason #Uber is trending. The popular ride-hailing company has made the news twice this week, with both issues spreading negative light on the company’s corporate operations. In a bold move, Uber announced they would cease operations in Quebec due to stricter regulations being imposed by the transportation department in that city. One such condition was the request that Uber drivers undergo 35 hours of training to match the requirements of regular taxi drivers.

Uber was operating in Quebec under a pilot project agreement that allowed the service to operate legally in the province for one year. This permit was initially set to be renewed under the new conditions. The Transportation Minister of Quebec, Laurent Lessard, agreed with these new rules and also requested that Uber carry out criminal checks on their drivers and have their cars inspected every 12 months.

In response, Uber executives felt the decision was brash and unnecessary. The director general for Uber Quebec, Jean-Nicolas Guillemette, said the company will cease operations if these changes and rules are imposed. Guillemette said Uber was not consulted about these changes. Guillemette further want on to say he wants the government to renew the operational permit and then resume negotiations on these new rules after.

Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre said Uber’s response was “bullish” and “condescending,” and that Uber was probably concerned these restrictions will create a precedent for other cities.

“Bye-bye, I don’t care,” were the words spoken by Coderre, who said the extra training should not be a burden for a company of that size company.

The Ministry of Transport remains firm on their decision and noted they are not in negotiation mode. With that being said, Uber decided to officially leave Quebec on Oct 14.

Uber executives have also been busy this week after government officials in London, UK, decided not to renew their operational license in that city, saying they will not be providing private-hire operational licenses. Prior to this decision, Uber was only issued a four-month temporary license.

In some ways this was a test pilot for the City of London and in the end they were not pleased with Uber’s performance. The explanation by London Transport was that Uber held a “lack of corporate responsibility” and would fail to report minor to serious offences. Uber has since issued a public apology to the City of London. Uber’s CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi apologized to the world for all the company’s mistakes, saying “it’s worth examining how we got here, and the truth is that there is a high cost to a bad reputation.”

Last year in Austin, Texas, Uber suspended operations after city council passed regulations to have drivers submit to background checks and fingerprinting. Earlier this year they returned to Austin after the governor in Texas signed a law to overpower the city’s rules

Uber has already been banned in a few countries and cities, including Italy, Denmark, Taiwan, cities in Auatralia, India and now London.

Back in the spring of 2016, Uber threatened to suspend operations in Toronto if city council passed rules to impose high-fees on drivers. The rule was not passed and Uber still continues to operate in Toronto.

Canada remains dedicated to Paris Agreement despite U.S. decision

The Paris Agreement has been making headlines worldwide after the Trump administration removed themselves from the Paris Climate Agreement and ignited world-wide criticism. Though the United States seems to be doomed to a coal-filled future, where does Canada stand when it comes to Paris Agreement goals?

As it turns out, Canada has a lot of work to do in order to achieve the objectives set out in the Paris Agreement, but remains dedicated to the accord. When the U.S. dropped out of the Paris Agreement, not one other country followed suit and Prime Minister Trudeau went as far to release a statement criticizing President Trump’s decision: “We are deeply disappointed that the United States federal government has decided to withdraw from the Paris agreement,” Trudeau said. “Canada is unwavering in our commitment to fight climate change and support clean economic growth. Canadians know we need to take decisive and collective action to tackle the many harsh realities of our changing climate.”

It appears the Canadian government understands climate change is an important issue, but is this country doing enough to combat the devastating effects of carbon emissions? The Columbia Institute, a non-profit dedicated to research and building sustainable communities, released a report card assessing the federal government’s climate change achievements and outlining which areas need improvement. According to the report, entitled Top Asks for Climate Action report,  as of 2015, Canada ranked 58 out of 61 countries for climate protection performance. The government has met certain climate change goals by implementing a national price on carbon, establishing a national transportation strategy, and offering dedicated funding to public transit in its municipalities. Alternatively, things Canada needs to work include setting greenhouse gas targets that would meet the requirements of the Paris Agreement, eliminating subsidies to fossil fuel industries, and moving towards renewable energy instead of locking the economy into a high carbon path.

The next step would be for Canada to adopt science-led and legally binding greenhouse reduction targets and follow best practices of countries like Finland, Denmark, the United Kingdom and Mexico. As a part of the Paris Agreement, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC) mandates nationally determined commitments by 2020. Canada’s current targets do not meet the Paris Agreement standards, and these new objectives would need to be set at 50 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 from the current standing goal of 30 per cent.

South of the border, the Trump government announced on June 1 the United States wouldn’t remain in the Paris Climate Agreement, citing the accord as ‘unfair’. Ignoring the pleas of many U.S. stakeholders, Trump instead offered to renegotiate the terms. The European Union outright refused to engage in negotiations. Instead, the EU plans to bypass the federal government and work directly with U.S. businesses, governors, and mayors to keep up with the climate change commitments.

Though this decision is devastating from an environmental perspective, it opens up key opportunities for Canada. If the U.S. is solely dedicated to promoting fossil fuels, the clean technology sector is ripe for the taking and Canada has the option to become a leader in renewable energy. Since there are only three countries in the world that haven’t signed the Paris Agreement (Syria, Saudi Arabia, U.S.), there are a lot of stakeholders looking for ways to implement clean technology and the green economy will only grow from here.

Though the U.S. has made a critically bad decision to leave the Paris Agreement, Canada and the rest of the world remains dedicated to slowing climate change and saving planet earth. Trudeau is leading the country towards becoming one of the more sustainable places to live in the world, but a lot of work remains. If Canada does set concrete greenhouse reduction goals that match targets set in the Paris Agreement and then actually implements them, the country will be well on its way to trying to combat the inevitable pollution caused by our climate-change-denying-neighbour down south.

Toronto to end commercial tax rebate, adopt rent control

Next week’s executive committee meeting is gearing up to discuss sweeping changes to housing in Toronto.

Mayor John Tory recently proposed phasing out the vacant commercial and industrial tax rebate program that gives businesses that are sitting empty a tax rebate. The tax rebate program, which has been in place since 2001 offers unoccupied commercial properties a 30 per cent tax rebate and industrial properties get 35 per cent. The program requires owners to try and rent the space, but does not provide a time limit on how long a business owner can receive the rebate. A city report revealed the program has given more than $367 million in subsidies to property owners, much-needed revenue that could be better spent elsewhere.

The proposal that will be discussed at next week’s meeting recommends the city lower the tax incentive to 15 per cent, beginning on July 1, 2017 to June 20, 2018, and then permanently shut down the rebate program on July 1, 2018. The report also recommended the rebate expenditures be reinvested in job growth programs and the poverty reduction strategy. This decision has been widely embraced by the city because poverty reduction is in dire need of funds in Toronto, and promoting businesses to stay empty is bad business after all. The rebate program has been criticized in the past because it allowed property owners to sit on their vacant stores while the value of the location increased. This has left several stores empty and little available business real estate in Toronto.

The executive committee also plans to focus on rental affordability in Toronto. Recently the province has put forward a bill on rental control, and has indicated that municipalities will be able to implement it at will. City council is moving forward with this initiative and will discuss how to implement rental control with a specific provision to have the rent control tied to the unit and not the tenant. There will also be an update on inclusionary zoning and laneway suites in Toronto.

The city is taking sweeping steps to respond to the high-pressure housing crisis in Toronto. By removing the tax rebate to empty businesses, it incentivizes business owners to fill their storefronts and reallocates much-needed funds to poverty reduction. Moving forward with rent control, inclusionary zoning and changing the regulations around laneway housing are all necessary to make Toronto a more liveable city. The outcome of the meeting will be interesting indeed, and will set up for a sure-to-be exciting May City Council.

Will Ontario’s new housing regulations do anything of value?

Ontario is cracking down on the red hot housing market by introducing a series of incentives that will, hopefully, control inflating real estate in the Golden Horseshoe region.

The province plans to bring in a series of 10 different initiatives to help placate the housing and rental markets — but the proposed regulations are a mixed bag. The non-resident speculation tax (NRST) is the primary regulation the Ontario Liberals hope to pass and the plan has immediately fallen under criticism. NRST would tax individuals that are not citizens or permanent residents of Canada 15 per cent when they purchase a home. The tax would apply to transfers of land, including “single family residences, detached homes and condos”. It would not apply to residential apartment buildings. This tax is similar to the foreign buyer’s tax in Vancouver, but differs because it would allow people to refund the tax if they obtained permanent residency within four years of living in the home.

NRST is one of the less impactful initiatives announced Thursday morning because it only applies to foreign buyers and doesn’t adequately represent most of the buying market in Toronto. Blaming foreign buyers for the problems of a mostly localized Canadian real estate market echoes the xenophobic tendencies seen lately in the United States, and won’t help the housing sector in a large or meaningful way. Why not instead implement a vacancy tax so that local homeowners, including foreign buyers, wouldn’t be allowed to keep their homes empty? This would directly respond to the desperate need for housing in the city.

Luckily, one of the other initiatives does leave room for municipalities throughout the province to enact a vacancy tax if they so wish. This puts the onus on each individual city to make the decision, which is either an avoidance tactic or a way to appease a heightening tension between Canada’s largest city and the province. The province will also crackdown on assignment clauses, which allows a buyer to pass on the right to another person to buy a property, and is a ‘scalping’ strategy to avoid taxes.

In the renting sector, the province will allow rent control again, which was banned in 1991. This will prohibit landlords from raising rent by more then 2.5 per cent, which has recently become a massive problem in the Golden Horseshoe. This is a positive change for renters who are currently at the whims of greedy landlords without rental control in place. The province also plans to strengthen the Residencies Tenancy Act to further protect renters from corrupt landlords.

The province of Ontario is finally taking action on the over-inflated housing market in the Golden Horseshoe, but it still stands to ask whether the initiatives introduced are too weak? By introducing a non-resident tax, the province avoids tackling the larger issue. With an election around the corner, the province may be hesitant to bring the hammer down on wealthy homeowners. Hopefully, the City of Toronto takes the initiative instead and enacts a vacancy tax on behalf of the province.

That being said, the incentive to crack down on speculation driving the market up and re-introducing rent control are fantastic incentives for the province. It remains to be seen what the new regulations will actually do for Ontario — but it will be clear what works and what doesn’t have an incredible impact on the red-hot housing sector.

Animal Protections Act needs our support

As an animal activist, I am continually surprised by how little protection there is for animals in Canada against extreme acts of cruelty. Even if people try to obtain justice for animals that have been mistreated, it is extremely difficult for the current laws to make any credible difference in court. Animals deserve to be treated with respect, and updating Canadians laws is necessary to do just that.

That’s why Beaches-East York Liberal MP Nathaniel Erksine-Smith has introduced a private member’s bill called the Modernizing Animal Protections Act.

Bill C-246, also known as the Modernizing Animal Protections Act, was introduced on Feb. 26, 2016 and focuses on three main elements. The act looks to tighten shark finning laws, ban dog and cat fur in Canada, and, most importantly, to change the criminal code concerning animal cruelty. Section 446 of the criminal code currently states that a person cannot “willfully neglect” an animal, but this can be difficult to prove in court because of the vague language used. Prosecutors often have a hard time proving willful neglect, meaning that an animal abuser can commit egregious acts of cruelty and go unpunished if they can prove they didn’t “wilfully” do it.

“The most significant component is modernizing the provisions to the criminal code. They were slightly modified in the 1990s but it is necessary to close loopholes related to severe negligence conditions,” Erksine-Smith says. “Crown prosecutors have said on a number of occasions that it is harder to secure convictions on the criminal code because of the language used. One of those terms is “willful neglect”. The willful component can be hard to prove”.

Animals became protected under the criminal code in 1892 and that section of the legislation has not been greatly changed since 1954. There have been several attempts to amend the criminal code in the past that have been met with limited success, including proposed reforms by former Justice Minister Anne McLellan in 1999 that were shot down. Current Liberal MPs Mark Holland and Hedy Fry have also tried to champion legal reforms in the criminal code. In the last 16 years, there have been 13 attempts to change animal rights laws in Canada that have been denied, despite the fact that 92 per cent of Canadians support changing the criminal code for animals. This lack of success in parliament is confounding.

Erksine-Smith also noted that Canada’s animal rights laws pale in comparison to other countries worldwide, such as New Zealand who has gone as far as to declare all animals sentient beings. “I refer to it as helping to bring our animal protection laws into the 21st century. Other countries are moving well beyond what we are doing,” Erksine-Smith says. “I choose these three issues because I thought I was selecting three issues I thought everyone could get behind.”

The Humane Society International, among other supporters, stand behind Erksine-Smith’s bill, but he has yet to convince Parliament to bring it to committee. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has even gone as far to reject liberal support for the bill because of pressure from the hunting and fishing communities. “We had the opportunity to meet Nathaniel and he is a strong advocate for supporting our work in Canada,” Humane Society International Political Officer, Michael Bernard says. “We are surprised and disappointed the government isn’t supporting it. We had at least hoped they would send the bill to committee. This bill goes after the most brutal offenders and worst cases. It is really just modernizing and giving protection to animals across the country.”

Erksine-Smith also pointed out that the bill doesn’t threaten hunters and fishers to any capacity because regulations concerning those parties fall under different jurisdiction and wouldn’t be applicable to the amendments proposed to the criminal code. The newly-appointed MP also expressed frustration at turning a private member’s bill into a forum for political gain, instead of looking at the bill as a way to create a new and much-needed standard of ethics for animals in Canada.

“These practices are frustrating as a new MP. I’m open to changes, I just don’t want to lose the good elements of the bill,” Erksine-Smith says. “I’ve gotten no uptake on that front unfortunately. The government has allowed the political pressure to get to them. People need to contact their MPs and the Minister of Justice.”

Erksine-Smith and supporters still have the summer to influence other members of the house as the MPs can vote independently of their respective parties because it is a private bill. The second reading is set to occur on September 21 2016 and if the bill is approved, it will then go to committee. Erksine-Smith encourages people to write to their MPs, the Prime Minister’s office and the Justice Minister to show support for the bill.

“I never like to give up hope. We need to engage with politicians and for Canadians to engage with this bill. Over the summer, we hope they look at changing their position,” Bernard says. “Realistically I know there is some opposition to it. Our job is to communicate with people and get the law passed.”

If you would like to help support the Modernizing Animal Protections Act, contact the Prime Minister’s Office and Minister of Justice here.