Date published: 03/10/2024

An insufficient Bill 76 that misses its target

MONTREAL, Oct. 3, 2024 /CNW/ - The Regroupement des gestionnaires et copropriétaires du Québec (RGCQ) expresses its disappointment with Bill 76 tabled yesterday in the National Assembly by the Minister of Labour, Mr. Jean Boulet. From its title, "An Act mainly to improve the quality of construction and public safety," this bill already shows its limitations. The term "increase" reflects an insufficient approach, where a bold reform should ensure the quality of construction and the protection of the public without compromise.

Despite its good intentions, this bill barely touches on the real issues. It proposes a theoretical framework whose details remain to be defined. Among the few measures mentioned is the obligation of three inspections at "key" moments, without these specific moments being clarified before the publication of a regulation by the Régie du bâtiment du Québec.

As it stands, here is what Bill 76 provides in particular:

  1. That a regulation of the Régie du bâtiment will determine in particular the categories of buildings, equipment, installations or construction work to which the obligations provided for in the Act will apply, as well as the terms and conditions surrounding the work inspection process;
  2. That the first regulation of the Régie du bâtiment must be published as a draft, no later than two years after the Act is assented to;

Despite these statements, this bill remains seriously flawed. It does not provide any response to a historic demand: the extension of the mandatory guarantee plan to all new construction of condominium buildings is divisive. Once again, we are faced with an unacceptable dichotomy, with on one side the co-owners protected by the mandatory guarantee plan, and on the other those left at the mercy of the sole provisions of the Civil Code of Québec for poor workmanship and loss of work.

Since 1999, the RGCQ has been campaigning for the elimination of this discrimination. This bill, despite its laudable intentions, fails to adequately protect co-owners and their syndicates in large buildings against the consequences of defective construction. Quality control remains insufficient and no solution has been provided to simplify access to recourse. Co-owners therefore find themselves prisoners of long and costly legal proceedings, without real protection against poor workmanship.