N.B. rent cap will remain at 3% for another year, minister says
New Brunswick's rent cap, introduced after the Liberals won last fall, will remain at three per cent for the 2025-2026 fiscal year, Housing Minister David Hickey announced in the legislature Wednesday.
"We've seen vacancy rates largely stay the same," Hickey said when asked by reporters why he came to his decision.
The cap means landlords cannot increase rent more than three per cent annually. Landlords are allowed to increase rent up to nine per cent if they apply to the province and prove the increases are needed because of renovations to a their units.
When the rent cap was put in place, there was no expiration date, although the percentage is reviewed every year.
Several loopholes that critics have pointed out, including that the cap isn't tied to a unit, will remain. This means landlords cannot raise rents on tenants renewing their leases, but if a tenant moves out, nothing stops a landlord from increasing the rent for the next tenant.
Landlords can also use a fixed-term lease to increase rent. When a lease ends on an agreed-upon date, the landlord can change the price in the new agreement, regardless of the cap.
When asked why this wasn't addressed, Hickey said the current rent cap has shown a "stabilization" of rent prices in the province, "and that's why we think that there's a need to continue it at its current level over the next year."
WATCH | Housing minister says rents in the province are stabilizing:
Hickey said looking into that question will be part of a larger review of the Residential Tenancies Act — the legislation that lays out rules for renters and landlords — starting in the fall.
He said the review will ensure the act "is reflective of the actual market conditions and reflective of what it actually means to be a renter in New Brunswick."
"Many landlords can be incredibly creative when it comes to getting their money," said Nichola Taylor, chair of ACORN New Brunswick, a tenants' advocacy group. "So we need to make sure that these loopholes are closed and that tenants have better protections in this province."
She said the cap has brought stability and been a "breath of fresh air" for renters, but she's also looking forward to the fall review.
When asked why the province hasn't gone ahead with promised property tax reform, Hickey said landlords would appreciate the province's proposal to freeze property tax assessments for 2026 as a move to help with stability.
But New Brunswick Apartment Owners Association president Willy Scholten said he was concerned about municipal property taxes increasing, despite the provincial assessment freeze and rent cap, because it risks "throwing everything completely out of balance."
Scholten also said he disagrees with the idea of tying the rent cap to a unit, because landlords "have a great deal of cost" associated with turning over a unit between tenants.
The association has been talking to Hickey, and Scholten said he hopes to be at the table in the fall as well.
Interim Progressive Conservative Leader Glen Savoie was quick to question the announcement.
"The government has said that they want to deal with housing" Savoie said to reporters. "Are there more people or less people unhoused now? Have the actions of this government improved the situation?"
"I would argue that they're not making the headway that they're trying to promote, and we should make sure the situation is something that's really looked after rather than talking points and things that they're trying to do."
Under the Blaine Higgs government, a temporary cap on increases was implemented in 2022, but this ended in 2023.
Other measures were put in place instead, including a rent bank and an option for some rent increases to be phased in if they exceeded the inflation rate.
Green MLA Megan Mitton told reporters she was glad to see the rent cap still in place and that she hopes it remains permanent.
"I do think it's needed to preserve what affordable housing we do have left."
She said she'd like to see the rent cap tied to units and hopes this will be included in the fall review.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trade bill could trigger 'race to the bottom' in health standards, health groups warn
OTTAWA — Anti-smoking groups are warning the Carney government that its legislation to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers could undermine health standards unless it's amended to add new safeguards. The legislation, which the governing Liberals intend to push quickly through the House of Commons next week, looks to do two things — break down interprovincial barriers to trade and labour mobility and speed up approvals for major industrial projects, such as mines, ports and pipelines. The bill would allow provincial standards to displace federal ones to make it easier to sell Canadian-made goods within the country. But Rob Cunningham, senior policy analyst at the Canadian Cancer Society, said the current wording could lead to unintended consequences since provincial rules are sometimes weaker. He warns that, for example, it could prompt the return of products banned by federal regulation, such as those containing asbestos. "There's a federal measure banning asbestos in products, but provinces allow up to a certain per cent of asbestos in products," he said. "So that would mean that despite asbestos being banned in products for some years now, you could have asbestos return to products. That's not good." He also suggested the legislation could give tobacco companies space to bring back menthol or flavoured cigarettes, something that "shouldn't be happening." Cunningham said the bill should be changed to exempt federal health and environment standards and noted multilateral trade agreements typically contain such clauses. 'We are worried the tobacco (and) vape industry could take advantage of a less strict provincial standard to erode a stronger federal regulation that is protecting the health of Canadians across the country,' said Manuel Arango, vice-president of policy and advocacy at the Heart and Stroke Foundation. Ottawa could still create an exception for health through regulations after the bill is passed. It has not yet indicated it will do so. Cynthia Callard, head of Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, said she worries about the bill being rushed through Parliament since the devil "will likely be in the details in the regulations." "If these are not well constructed, there is a decided risk of health protection becoming collateral damage of a push for greater economic activity," she said. "Provincial and federal governments share jurisdiction for (health and environmental) issues, which is why it is important that there is a legal shield against a race to the bottom when it comes to protective regulations. I do not see this in the bill." The Bloc Québécois, NDP and Green Party are accusing Prime Minister Mark Carney's government of trying to ram the bill through Parliament too quickly without sufficient study. Carney promised to eliminate federal policies that act as a barrier to interprovincial trade by Canada Day. The Liberal government has not yet responded to requests for comment. On Friday, Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc laid out the economic case for the trade aspects of the bill during debate in the House of Commons. He said the bill will remove "useless costs" and "regulatory confusion" that "hobble Canadians' ability to trade, connect and work wherever opportunity calls across our country." 'If a good is produced in compliance with provincial standards, it can move throughout the entire country without again having to go up against federal standards,' he said. He pointed to various levels of energy efficiency requirements that can stop products from being sold across provincial lines. He said an Ontario-made product that meets the province's "stringent energy efficiency requirements" could still be blocked from being sold in Quebec or Manitoba if it also does not meet federal standards. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 13, 2025. Kyle Duggan, The Canadian Press Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
LILLEY: Carney's public safety minister can't skip terror file
Is it wise to have a minister of Public Safety who has to recuse himself from files related to banned terrorist groups? The obvious answer is no, that's an untenable position and shouldn't be allowed to happen. Welcome to Canada in 2025, though, where Gary Anandasangaree is the minister in charge of the terrorism file but has to step out of the room for any decisions related to two banned terror groups. As first reported by Global, Anandasangaree can't be part of decisions on Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) or the World Tamil Movement (WTM). The LTTE, or Tamil Tigers, were part of a deadly civil war in Sri Lanka, engaging in assassinations and suicide attacks. The World Tamil Movement was a group set up in the 1980s to serve Toronto's large and growing Tamil community but was designated a terrorist group by the federal government for their funding of the LTTE. Why did Anandasangaree recuse himself? That's unclear, to be honest. He was asked about this by Conservative MP Frank Caputo in the House of Commons on Thursday but didn't offer much in the way of detail. 'In all national security decisions, my utmost concern is that of the safety of Canadians,' Anandasangaree said. 'I will support law enforcement and national security agencies who do their work impartially and effectively.' That's a boring boilerplate answer that doesn't tell us much. Neither does the second half of his answer. 'In an abundance of caution, and to ensure that there is no perception of any conflict, I have asked the public safety officials to implement a screen on national security issues relating to the Tamil community,' he added. If Anandasangaree has no ties to the LTTE or WTM, there should be no need to recuse himself from decisions about these organizations. Simply being Tamil, as Gary Anandasangaree is, doesn't mean he can't make informed decisions. Of course, if the Carney government were looking to lift the terrorist designation on the LTTE and WTM, having a minister of Public Safety who was born in Sri Lanka and is Tamil could have a bad look. Is that the reason for Anandasangaree to declare that he won't take part in decisions about these groups? It's an idea that has been pushed by many in the Tamil community for years, noting that the civil war ended in 2009 with the defeat of the Tigers. In April 2022 while campaigning for the leadership of the Conservative Party, Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown said he would lift the ban if elected. It would be a foolish move for Prime Minister Mark Carney to make but in keeping with a longstanding tradition for Liberals that winning over votes of specific ethnic groups is what really matters. Another possibility is the allegation that Anandasangaree has ties to the LTTE. That allegation was made back in 2014 as Anandasangaree was seeking the Liberal nomination in Scarborough-Rouge Park. Stories from diaspora media stated as fact, repeatedly, that Anandasangaree was part of the Tamil Tigers network. Many of those stories were posted to the website of the Sri Lankan government's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and are still available there. That's not proof that Anandasangaree is or was part of the Tigers, nomination races can be nasty affairs and in ethnic diaspora politics, this is especially true. It is equally true that Anandasangaree has to answer more questions on this front and that the Sri Lankan government's actions should also be called into question. Questions about this matter sent to Anandasangaree's office on Thursday resulted in a one-line response regarding LTTE involvement. 'That statement is categorically false,' said spokesperson Alice Hansen. Questions to Carney's office about having a minister of Public Safety having to recuse himself and facing allegations on a Sri Lankan government website were met with bland, general statements. 'Minister Anandasangaree has been a lifelong advocate for his community to ensure it is supported and represented. He has made clear that his utmost concern in all national security decisions is the safety of Canadians,' said the reply. That doesn't quite seem good enough, transparent enough. Either Anandasangaree can do his job fully, or he should be replaced. blilley@
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Mark Carney was right: He's not Justin Trudeau. He spends more
By Franco Terrazzano Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The federal government just released its main spending plan, formally known as the Main Estimates. These early numbers provide no evidence the Carney government will be different from the Trudeau government. If anything, they suggest it will intensify the Trudeau government's debt-fuelled spending spree. This year's spending will increase to $488 billion — 8.4 per cent higher than in last year's Main Estimates. Spending rises in about 80 per cent of federal departments and agencies, with 26 seeing funding up by more than 20 per cent over last year's estimates. The largest growth in spending goes to Canada Post. It gets a $1-billion bailout 'to prevent insolvency.' The money is supposed to be 'repayable funding,' but with Canada Post having lost $3.8 billion since 2018, taxpayers shouldn't hold their collective breath waiting for the money to be paid back. The National Capital Commission, which spends about $8 million a year on Canada's official residences and still cries poor, will see its funding balloon 90 per cent. The Main Estimates doesn't explain why the NCC's taxpayer-funding is ballooning this year, but it shows funding for both its operations and capital expenditures are increasing significantly this year — by 38 and 231 per cent respectively. Telefilm Canada, the Canadian film industry's slush fund, will get nearly 60 per cent more this year. The CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) gets 21 per cent more and the Department of Industry, 40 per cent. It was François-Philippe Champagne, former industry minister and current finance minister who captained the government's electric vehicle crusade and put taxpayers on the hook for about $30 billion to build battery factories. During the federal election, candidate Carney promised his government would be 'significantly reducing reliance on external consultants.' But the estimates say spending on 'professional and social services' will be $26 billion. That's a broad category of spending that captures spending on consultants, contractors and outsourcing. But the $26 billion is a 37 per cent increase from last year. On top of that, the government's own bureaucracy will cost taxpayers $3.4 billion more, up six per cent. Given the Liberals' history of overspending their own targets, if the Main Estimates actually come to pass, that might be a best-case scenario for taxpayers. Last year's Main Estimates said the government would spend $450 billion. But it ended up spending nearly $40 billion more than that. This year's new spending is piled onto a mountain of spending hikes over the last 10 years. In 2016, the Main Estimates announced $250 billion in spending. This year, the government plans to spend about 33 per cent more, even after accounting for inflation and population growth. This spending spree means Canadians' kids and grandkids will be making payments on Ottawa's debt for the rest of their lives. The federal government's debt, or accumulated deficits, stood at $616 billion when Justin Trudeau first became prime minister in 2015. It has since doubled, now totalling about $1.3 trillion. We haven't had a budget yet but the Liberal platform said the new government would add another $225 billion to the debt over the next four years. In its ill-fated Fall Economic Statement, the Trudeau government planned to add $131 billion over those years. Let that sink in: The Carney government plans on adding almost $100 billion more debt than the Trudeau government did. More debt means more money for interest charges and less for services or tax cuts. Every dollar the federal government collected through its sales tax went to pay interest on the debt last year. It spent more on interest than it sent to the provinces through health transfers. Opinion: Will the infrastructure act bring economic growth? Why turning Canada's new defence spending into economic growth may be 'easier said than done' The Main Estimates say that this year the government will spend $49 billion on interest. If debt interest were its own federal department, it would be the third largest, after Finance and Employment and Social Development. Without spending restraint, Ottawa's debt mess will only get worse. The Parliamentary Budget Officer projects interest charges blowing a $70-billion hole in the budget by 2029. Mark Carney sold Canadians on the idea he was different from Justin Trudeau. So far, the numbers suggest, he's the same or worse. To live up to the expectations he himself set, he must reverse course and end the government's runaway spending. Franco Terrazzano is federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data