Editor’s note:
On June 14, 2024, REM received the following information from Tehreem Kamal: “More than 10 per cent of MREB’s members have signed a petition for an SGM to be called to rescind the vote to amalgamate with WRAR, RAHB and SDREB. MREB is holding the SGM for its members on June 26.”
Over the past several months, members of the Mississauga Real Estate Board (MREB) have been expecting to amalgamate with several other Ontario boards on July 1, as the new Cornerstone Association of Realtors (Cornerstone).
What they likely weren’t expecting are some major concerns that have come up since January’s membership vote.
Background
In October 2023, the Realtors Association of Hamilton-Burlington (RAHB), the Waterloo Region Association of Realtors (WRAR), the Simcoe & District Real Estate Board (SDREB) and MREB announced that SDREB and MREB signed a letter of intent to join the amalgamation of the four organizations.
On January 31 of this year, MREB members voted to amalgamate with RAHB, WRAR and SDREB to become Cornerstone Association of Realtors on July 1, 2024.
Tehreem Kamal, broker with Royal LePage Real Estate Services Ltd., Brokerage, sat down with REM to explain the issues concerning many members and past presidents of MREB — with less than a month to go before the change takes place.
Kamal, a past president herself, has not served MREB or its committees (or any other board) since her term finished in 2019. She was alerted to the concerns in May at an event hosted by MREB, where conversation ensued about the landscape rapidly changing and what MREB is doing.
“I inquired further to find out the facts, what has changed, why there are concerns and who has them,” she explains. “A few questions were asked of the board of directors and president, and a meeting of past presidents was called on May 8 where (they) answered questions.” This included an inquiry about where the strategic plan could be found. Kamal says the group was told MREB is working under status quo and to “trust the process.”
Original vision for amalgamating
Initially, the two immediate past presidents of MREB were tasked to engage in conversations on behalf of MREB about an amalgamation, as per their leadership positions. They provided their consent for amalgamation, along with and based on the unanimous consent of MREB.
“All sides came together and started working on a plan and feasibility, and there was a lot of work done from all ends. MREB has spent a lot of money and staff resources,” Kamal notes.
The original vision of the proposed amalgamation was for MREB and other Ontario boards to be part of one board and one MLS system: Information Technology Systems Ontario (ITSO)’s Matrix. MREB, Oakville, Milton and District Real Estate Board (OMDREB), London and St.Thomas Association of Realtors (LSTAR), Niagara Association of Realtors (NAR) and WRAR all use this system.
Boards from Mississauga to London, Niagara and others in between were to become part of one amalgamated organization with better representation and collaboration among member boards. Members could access all they need to serve clients while not paying too many fees for it.
“The main thing is a member on the street is tired of paying too much for too many boards,” Kamal explains. “Agents are always struggling with the fact that to access one system or one MLS or a particular property, they must pay multiple fees throughout Ontario. With Matrix, a lot of boards were being served from one MLS system. It was very convenient and facilitating — agents can just go into that system and pull up the archives to serve their client better, to get all the information on hand.”
MLS system decision extension
The initial term of ITSO’s MLS services agreement was three years and ends on December 31, 2024. Any association/board that does not wish to renew the term is required to give ITSO six months’ notice, which would have made the deadline July 1, 2024.
However, ITSO confirmed that many of its member groups expressed a desire for more time to decide to continue with the services or switch to a different provider.
For this reason, in February, ITSO’s board of directors notified all its members that they would extend the deadline for giving notice of non-renewal until September 30, 2024.
Tom Lebour, broker at Royal LePage Real Estate Services Ltd., Brokerage, and past president of MREB and the Toronto Real Estate Board (now the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board), says this extension is a result of the changes taking place. “While MREB was given the amalgamation mandate four months ago by membership, since then the MLS landscape has changed quickly and several boards have switched systems.”
He believes that since ITSO has delayed the deadline for its MLS agreement renewal until September 30 — giving three additional months at status quo — this gives boards at least that much time to reassess, take a better look and decide later.
Missing pieces and a changed vision
While Kamal feels the vision was well intended and done in good faith, some key pieces seem to be missing. Early on, MREB’s two immediate past presidents sent concerns in a letter and email to MREB, asking things like what the organizational chart would look like, who would be CEO, what would happen to MREB’s membership money and if MREB was vetting all their contracts with a lawyer.
As a MREB member, Kamal has requested the board provide her with summaries or minutes of the meetings from October to date, so she can review them to see what’s changed and how.
The boards that were originally going to amalgamate have changed course, too. Since the start, she says that LSTAR and NAR joined another service provider. OMDREB is also possibly leaving Matrix for another system with 80,000 members in Ontario. “There’s power in numbers,” she notes. “If the strength of membership is with one MLS provider to the tune of 80,000 members, where we’d see most GTA listings, then how does it make sense to create a silo of possibly 8,000 members?”
Although this changing landscape alters the original vision, Kamal acknowledges these decisions were surely made with members’ best interests in mind. She knows the boards are autonomous non-profit organizations serving their membership, and she’s confident they’re listening to their membership and what’s best for them.
Nonetheless, with the original amalgamation plan being multiple boards and a few having since changed their MLS system plans, Cornerstone now comes down to four: MREB, RAHB, WRAR and SDREB.
Key concerns
Kamal and others wonder if MREB is truly listening to what’s going on in the industry as a whole and to what will be most beneficial for membership since the landscape and technology are changing so rapidly. There are a few key concerns about amalgamating.
For one, the original vision is fragmented because the new group of amalgamated boards is smaller and won’t have the same power and benefits as intended. Plus, some MREB members feel they will end up paying for multiple boards all over again instead of one where everyone would be under the same umbrella.
“I have personally listed and sold properties in London, and so have colleagues in my office — we go all over the GTA, wherever the client takes us,” Kamal explains.
“Likewise, many in my office work and live in Niagara, and they work here (in Mississauga), Oakville and Milton, too. For them, it’s going to be the same problem. The solution that was created, unfortunately, is not relevant or realistic anymore.” Kamal stresses that this is why information and access to data and archives are extremely important.
She says another main concern is the premise being presented to Mississauga’s membership that with the amalgamation there will be a stronger voice in the industry at large, with the provincial and national assemblies.
“It’s actually the opposite. On their own right now, the boards left in the proposed amalgamation total (a certain number of) votes in the Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA) assembly. When they come together, the formula that allocates votes kicks in differently and cuts down the votes. How are we a stronger voice if we don’t have the same vote count? This was my question at that (May) president’s meeting with the board.”
The way it works with OREA is a member board’s vote allocation is calculated by a formula set out in the OREA bylaw and is based on the number of individual members of the member board. A newly amalgamated member board’s vote allocation would be based on the total number of individual members of the newly amalgamated member board and calculated according to that formula.
As well, Kamal and others are wondering what happens to MREB’s money once July 1 comes. “More than $2 million of membership money will be folded over to (Cornerstone). How will accessing it be handled if we need to get something done in Mississauga in the coming months to, let’s say, do any advocacy work?”
Lebour echoes this sentiment and is concerned the funds will be much harder to access once they’re within the new organization. “The $2.5 million that will be thrown into the (Cornerstone) pot wasn’t hidden, but it wasn’t pointed out,” he notes.
These concerns were raised repeatedly and Kamal says there’s been no clear answer, “Which means that things are not clear. So why the rush to get into this amalgamation? All over the world, whether it’s real estate or a multinational company, organizations come together. However, they do years and years of feasibility reports, studies and what-if scenarios.
All of this is happening, to my knowledge, from October 2023. Within a span of less than 12 months, how can we fold an organization that has sustained itself for 70 years?”
Advocacy and MREB’s role
Right now, there’s a mayoral by-election in Mississauga. Kamal explains that during these times, MREB has historically reached out to city council and been engaged in government relations and advocacy efforts. But right now, she says MREB is nowhere to be seen.
“This is one of the most important key events in Mississauga. Everybody’s talking about housing and MREB is the pillar, the stakeholder that represents people directly connected with housing — yet, they’re hugely absent in this, which is a huge red flag.”
Lebour points out that in 2021, a rumour surfaced about implementing a land transfer tax and MREB worked with OREA to stop it. “It never materialized,” he recalls. “Now, I’m not sure Cornerstone will be effective at devoting time to local issues, which is very important.”
Wondering why MREB’s focus has shifted, Kamal emailed the board to ask how it’s positioning itself in terms of mayoral debate, reaching out to candidates — and a potential municipal land transfer tax being implemented, again.
Lebour notes one of the leading Mississauga mayoral candidates in the by-election hinted about revisiting the tax and that MREB has a strong government relations committee for local advocacy work. “Mississauga has historically defended imposing a municipal land transfer tax over the years, and I have been part of that,” Kamal affirms.
The response she received to her email was that the board is too busy hosting events like a golf tournament and receptions. Kamal acknowledges the importance of running well-intended charity events like these but stresses that MREB’s job, first and foremost, is “to protect the interest of the consumer on the street pertaining to housing.”
“We cannot take our eyes off the ball,” she stresses. “If this amalgamation or anything else is detracting from what MREB has actually stood for in the past and should still be standing for, there is something seriously wrong.”
Transparency needed with partner boards
Kamal points out that other amalgamating boards should know about what’s happening. “Do they understand that MREB’s membership is not on the same page as they were in January and that they’re probably moving towards an amalgamation with potential turbulence? They have a duty of care to their membership, so who’s keeping them in the loop?”
Kamal feels that MREB should be very transparent with their partners and not just the people representing the amalgamation task force. They shouldn’t be led into something that MREB isn’t 100 per cent ready for. “Even if a director is not on the task force, they should know they need to go back to their brokerages and say, ‘We’re heading into an amalgamation where one of the key partners coming in with possibly 2,200 members and resources of more than $2.5 million is probably having second thoughts.’”
The SGM request
“Every member that I’ve spoken to, every past president that has discussed, exchanged ideas and brainstormed — we are all for collaboration, but not for creating silos of the Mississauga board and others. This is the challenge and why membership has requested MREB to call an SGM,” Kamal states.
In May, past MREB presidents and industry members collected signatures that would go on a letter petitioning MREB for a special general meeting (SGM). An email (obtained by REM), signed by past presidents John Cassan and Michael Mills, reiterates concerns regarding the proposed amalgamation, mentions the petition being signed with the SGM request, asks MREB to “pause the amalgamation and call for a meeting of the membership” and states, “It is foolhardy, risky and downright reckless to proceed with the amalgamation.”
The pair recount a past error when MREB’s MLS system was sold to the Toronto board in the 1980s, despite membership concerns: “This short-sighted decision cost us dearly. It took us almost four decades to recover from this mistake, making our board a successful enterprise and here we are again.” They warn MREB it’s about to make a “terrible mistake which will cost us dearly.”
Following this, on May 28, 10 past presidents of MREB, including Cassan and Mills, signed a letter to MREB that requested it call a members-only SGM within the next 10 days. The letter advised the board to “not be hasty in signing any contracts without satisfying members’ concerns at the proposed SGM.”
While Kamal acknowledges that MREB’s repeated response, “the membership voted yes in January to amalgamate,” is indeed true, at the same time she points out, “The information the membership was provided in January is not completely relevant anymore. It has changed drastically.
The membership, in view of today’s reality, would like to rescind the vote from January 31, have the board put a hard stop on anything (relating) to this proposed amalgamation and genuinely take stock of what’s happening in the real estate industry at large that will benefit our members.”
From there, she points out there’s always time to look into future options.
MREB’s response
As of the time of writing, MREB had not accepted the SGM request, nor had it responded to the email from Cassan and Mills. However, REM received the following statement from Rita Asadorian, chair of MREB:
“We have respected the clear and decisive mandate from our members. Despite this, a small group of individuals has attempted to disrupt the process. While a petition for a special general meeting was submitted on May 28, 2024, signed by 10 past presidents, it did not meet the 10 per cent member threshold required by the Ontario Not-for-Profit Corporations Act.
Nevertheless, we have been proactive in addressing concerns. The MREB board of directors hosted delegates from our partner boards at a board meeting to discuss and resolve any issues. This session was productive and satisfying for all attendees.
Similarly, we held a session with our past presidents, providing comprehensive information and addressing their questions. Both meetings concluded with a positive consensus supporting the amalgamation.”
Asadorian points out that MREB understands significant decisions can generate some discontent but that, “We have consistently addressed the same concerns and must now proceed with the mandate provided by our members’ unanimous vote. We remain open to all questions and concerns, which can be directed to me at any time.”
She says that all four associations are “eager to demonstrate the benefits of our united efforts,” confirming that the amalgamation documents have been formally filed with the Ontario government and the process will move forward.
Emma Caplan-Fisher is an editor and writer for REM. She has over a decade of experience in various content types and topics, including real estate, housing, business, tech, and home & design. Emma’s work has also been featured in Cottage Life, the Vancouver Real Estate Podcast, the Chicago Tribune, Narcity Media, Healthline, and others. She holds a Certificate in Editing from Simon Fraser University.
It is very disappointing that someone accuses MREB that the board is not doing anything about municipal elections where the board is conducting interviews with the candidate and getting them on record to say they will not bring MLTT to Mississauga. When someone sits down to do interview with REM they should check all the facts before going on record. There is a great GR chair and also excellent committee. Nothing is changing about the advocacy for MREB at local level. Also the person who gave the interview to REM forgot to mention that this same person resigned from an elected director’s position of MREB to try to run for OREA unsuccessfully.
Thanks for the feedback. While we reported on specific accounts from two interviewees and the entire advocacy section is attributed to their experiences, MREB should still have the chance to respond. We’ll check on this and add any additions to the story if they decide to comment on it.
Tehreem Kamal shared two email responses to her questions mentioned in the advocacy section. On May 27, MREB’s communications & government relations manager said: “Regrettably, due to amalgamation meetings, our upcoming golf tournament, and being short-staffed by two people, we do not have the time or available personnel to plan a mayoral debate event before June 10th, the date of the Mississauga by-election. However, I am attending the mayoral debate today at UTM and have extended an invitation to the rest of the GR committee. I plan to address the MLTT issue during the debate. Additionally, I will contact Michael, Chair of the GR Committee, to develop questions on this issue for each of the candidates, as I am aware that this has been a matter of significant concern before. Based on current information, Carolyn Parrish intends to reintroduce the issue and Alvin Tedjo is against it.” Also on May 27, MREB’s chair said: “The Chair of GR will be happy to give you an update on that.” So far, the government relations chair has not provided an update.
Emma, It is very disappointing that you did not fact check any of the information provided by this member. There were interviews being conducted and the comments from the Mayoral candidates are posted on MREB social media . Also when this member mentioned that she has not been part of MREB since 2019. She was elected to the board in 2023 where she resigned and ran for OREA. Also the information about all the Boards from Mississauga to London, Niagara and others in between were to become part of one amalgamated organization from the start is false as there were only four board agreed to amalgamate form the start and once this amalgamation is complete other boards will be welcome to join. There is so much miscommunication from this member and I am surprised that REM did not fact check. This is not journalism by any standard it seems you are printing anything that is sent to you to post.
I understand that this is emotional to people on all sides of this issue but the true character of a person is demonstrated when they repeatedly post messages behind anonymous names. The repeated posts suggest desperation.
Posting anonymously is necessary for some, unfortunately. It is a byproduct of the cacophony of social media and commentary spaces (such as here), where the lack of tolerance for opinion other than one’s own is rampant. Anonymity becomes the defensive starting point relative to the unpredictable nature of the responsive cabal.
Commentary is able to avoid this, simply, and purely, with a focus on factors worthy of discussion in lieu of suggesting an authors anonymity means the comments are unworthy or ill intended.
Reading the article, it seems much ado about nothing. There are several streams of movement towards a single MLS® for Ontario. That is a good thing, provided the rank and file members across this province can individually make a choice among them. Which, sadly they cannot.
Still, there is alternate arrangements and all seemingly are leading to a promised land.
One is aligned with PropTx (if I got this title correct), which to most understanding is a for profit entitity owned by a single shareholder TRREB. Effectively, that is controlled by TRREB. And with all respect to comments suggesting that TRREB’s PropTx is like ITSO in that it is not the association is substantively incorrect in comparison for ITSO is a not for profit group (to my understanding) similar to all of our ORE which is made up of ORE associations as members.
One is the amalgamation of smaller groups into medium sized groups, likely a precursor to the medium sized groups leading to larger single entiities.
At the end, if we are not careful, someone other than the collective registrants in this province will own the fields we play on. That may be TRREB or it may be others.
Commentary that says the upset is out of place, warrants some attention. MREB is now part of a medium sized group and is not part of the largest group. Its members have a choice to join into TRREB or stay with Cornerstone.
If one wishes to draw inferences as to intention or importance of position, wonder which of the existing organizations in the province would data share with all others today. ITSO has a track record of data sharing, even with dissenting groups or associations. Do the other entities now existing or their leaders have the same record?
Not-for-Profit Corporations Act – surely there is a mechanism within this Act that describes a process for members to appeal to a govt supervisor/regulator for a higher authority to review a decision or action by the N4P Board /Executive ? Yes? No?
Bob, It would need to be in their bylaws. These provide members with actions they can take if they believe directors are not acting in the best interests of the corporation.
By-laws help govern the corporation’s internal business and do not need to be filed with the government. By-laws can be fairly basic when they regulate the activities or affairs of the corporation. I rewrote them for an NFP. They set out the rights and responsibilities of the members, directors and officers. They also set out the procedures for decision-making and provide further details about the corporation’s structure. Both federal and provincial NFP Acts were amended not to long ago and are now much less stringent for an NFP.
Jerry (First Sales Rep Pres of TRREB) England has long-winded obscured my point.
Notwithstanding the changes in 2010/2011 surely the Provincial Govt or a Ministry/ Dept must still retain supervisory/regulatory control over Not For Profit corps (like TRREB, Mreb, Orea and RECO)
We just saw the govt slap RECO a year or so after the Auditor General Report pointed out inefficiencies’.
Let the investigation into Cornerstone, spill over into MLS computer and jurisdictional battles and maybe even ORWP
It is an interesting take that federal and provincial non-profit corporation acts are less stringent for an NFP. They are not less, they are more stringently requiring particular behaviour on the part of the Board of Directors, while also allowing members to increase director discretion authorized in member approved bylaws. Balancing these additional to the Corporation Act freedoms, directors have more personal liability for their actions.
Ontario does not have supervisory/regulatory oversight of non profit corporations. The Income Tax Act does, but says little (Charity NFP’s have a Charity Directorate which is more involved in oversight).
The Act does provide at Section 26 for removal of a director(s) at a meeting of members by ordinary resolution (majority of those present). Getting the meeting called and organized is set out at Section 60, the calling of a meeting is required to consider a resolution contemplated by Section 26; a board is unlikely to call a meeting for that purpose, but might. So Section 60 sets out the manner in which members may call for a meeting and it requires (unless bylaws provide for a lesser percentage) 105 of members making a requisition for a meeting and the Board shall then call it and if not calling the meeting within 21 days the members may do so.
NFP Bylaws usually do not provide for significant outside accountability. Most will include a provision for removing directors, are arduous and high bar to achieve. And the Act is not providing any easier of a process.
It is an interesting take that federal and provincial non-profit corporation acts are less stringent for an NFP. They are not less, they are more stringently requiring particular behaviour on the part of the Board of Directors, while also allowing members to increase director discretion authorized in member approved bylaws. Balancing these additional to the Corporation Act freedoms, directors have more personal liability for their actions.
Ontario does not have supervisory/regulatory oversight of non profit corporations. The Income Tax Act does, but says little (Charity NFP’s have a Charity Directorate which is more involved in oversight).
The Act does provide at Section 26 for removal of a director(s) at a meeting of members by ordinary resolution (majority of those present). Getting the meeting called and organized is set out at Section 60, the calling of a meeting is required to consider a resolution contemplated by Section 26; a board is unlikely to call a meeting for that purpose, but might. So Section 60 sets out the manner in which members may call for a meeting and it requires (unless bylaws provide for a lesser percentage) 10 of members making a requisition for a meeting and the Board shall then call it and if not calling the meeting within 21 days the members may do so.
NFP Bylaws usually do not provide for significant outside accountability. Most will include a provision for removing directors, are arduous and high bar to achieve. And the Act is not providing any easier of a process.
My comment was duplicated, and should read 10% not 105 or 10.
Sorry, Bob for my convoluted response but my point was that their is no government oversight on NFP’s and any other oversight is in solely within their bylaws. Industry run MLS systems, which are in reality business operations, therefor avoid scrutiny by being an NFP and surprisingly allowed to function within an NFP by CRA.
Sorry, Bob for my convoluted response but my point was that their is no government oversight on NFP’s and any other oversight is in solely within their bylaws. Industry run MLS systems, which are in reality business operations, therefor avoid scrutiny by being an NFP and surprisingly allowed to function within an NFP by CRA.
Jerry, there is legislated NPO (NFP) oversight both provincially and federally; not very assertively enforced, yet existing. Perhaps you meant there is no enforcement, in contrast there is no oversight.
Should ownership of MLS® systems become a corporate activity versus an NPO governed group, government oversight is not a given. If a publicly traded share, it might, but that is unlikely and a non-publicly traded share held by industry professionals only is the more apt circumstance which is essentially private corporation with share (versus the NPO non-share capital) structure. An inference that NPO alone avoids the oversight is an overreach of expression, IMO. And the inference that somehow publicly or privately traded corporations can be told how to govern themselves and operate (aside from other legislative obligations for things like environment, consumer laws, etc.) by government oversight is misguided.
About the existing oversight, perhaps everyone knows (or maybe not) the Income Tax Act at paragraph 149.1(l) provides that “a club, society or association that, in the opinion of the Minister, was not a charity within the meaning assigned by subsection 149.1(1) and that was organized and operated exclusively for social welfare, civic improvement, pleasure or recreation or for any other purpose except profit…” is exempt from income tax. IT Bulletin 496R provides a NPO can only retain surplus funds if it can show a “need” to do so. (“Archived” designation merely confirms that the page is not subject to Government of Canada Web standards and that the content will not be altered or updated, so the bulletin remains active). And CRA undertook and reported (February 2014) on results of its Non Profit Organizational Risk Identification Project. This research effort informed CRA regarding NPO compliance with Section 149.(1)l and concluded a significant portion of 30,000 (incorporated) NPO’s in Canada have a higher risk of not meeting at least one of the tax exempt status requirements; missing even one item puts their NPO status at risk.
So while we are asking about government oversight…we, our selves, are not following the law in organizational operations, a state of things that if known broadly would put our organizations at risk of poorer reputation, which we only avoid because the CRA is not actively enforcing its own requirement. But what is our excuse at not enforcing it….I do not know CREA or TRREB surpluses, but OREA seems to have just shy of $100M….
Great Article, great timing on this. It’s all interesting, and I’m glad they (past presidents concern on member and member money ) coming into play here. Its one thing to amalgamate but yes where is the money going and how to access it, like they said, something comes up that they actually do for the community. I think that in itself can be the decision maker to join or not. But let’s be clear the landscape across southern Ontario is changing, the paradigm is changing and it’s great that it is, as us realtors have always said access is our greatest concern.
Dear Emma,
I been reading your paper, since it was first published. Overall, the paper has had some good articles, offers useful information to real estate salespeople.
Recently I have been disturbed by the some of the negative and hostile comments coming from a certain unidentified individual, using the alias “Informed member”.
Anyone, who lacks the courage to disclose their identity, their comments, should not be published.
Thank you.
Let’s stop all this bickering between boards and Realtors about MLS systems and, has been requested/suggested for many years, have a single Ontario wide MLS, we are licenced to trade anywhere in the province so we should only have one MLS system to reference. one reason is Its confusing for the public when they see a property listed twice, they also don’t understand, or are they advised by all, that under the present system, their property has to be listed on multiple boards for all Ontario Realtors to see, when properties are not listed on multiple boards vendors lose out on other board members clients.
Real Estate could be run much the same way as government, a provincial system, which we already have, that could administer the MLS and local boards which could operate the same as Municipalities where they represent their local areas with reps from those areas having proportional seats administering the provincial board, one fee for membership with a proportion going to the local boards, which could be based on where members live, trade or wish to be a member.
If there was ever a time for the province to step in and bang heads this would be it. The endless bickering within and between associations is doing a great disservice to all Ontarians. In the absence of such an action, here’s how I think things should unfold:
a) post amalgamation, Cornerstone should announce their intention to directly affiliate with CREA, and terminate their ties to both OREA and the ORWP. This option is possible under bylaw changes TRREB pushed through CREA back in early 2018.
Direct affiliation isn’t automatic and TRREB and its allies could easily kill the application, but if they were smart they wouldn’t. However, since malice and institutional dumbness are always possibilities, it would be best if the federal and Ontario governments and/or the opposition parties make it known they were watching closely.
b) Cornerstone should also welcome out of board members and further integrate with ITSO, crafting a meaningful alternative to the TRREB/PropTX juggernaut.
c) OREA and TRREB should merge, eliminating redundancies in their operations and two new regional entities should be set up to represent the interests of Beyond-the-Green Belt southern Ontario realtors and those from the North. Since these two real estate markets and economies are very different from the GTA, they deserve their own representation.
d) the federal government or the Conservatives should pledge to terminate the mandatory linkage between realtor MLS access and CREA/OREA/association membership. The local, provincial and national associations should live or die on their own merits, not because they are the data/system gatekeepers.
Since systemic inefficiency, imposed bureaucracy and rentier influence are driving up the cost of buying and selling homes in this province, you’d think systemic reforms might make it into someone’s campaign housing plan. Here’s hoping.
Ken, offers insightful suggestion(s) and observation. We have seen the enemy, and it is us, comes to mind.