Editor’s note:
In response to feedback and a request for corrections, we have amended this opinion article authored by Cameron Nolan. We take content accuracy and integrity seriously and appreciate the opportunity to address concerns raised by Tim Hudak, CEO of OREA.
Firstly, OREA’s CEO disputes the claim that the approval of the ORWP was undemocratic, clarifying that the decision was made through the Assembly model, with nearly 80 per cent approval from voting nominees representing various boards across Ontario.
Secondly, the article incorrectly alleged that OREA members over 65 with provincial free drug coverage would receive no benefit from the program but still have to pay the full amount. According to Mr. Hudak, members over 65 will receive substantial coverage at a fraction of the cost compared to the open market.
The article uses strong language like “totalitarian,” “oppression,” and “authoritarianism” to describe OREA’s actions. Mr. Hudak emphasizes that OREA follows a democratic process, with extensive consultations and member input for major decisions.
Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA) bylaws were amended on Jun. 20 to authorize an approximately 700 per cent increase in membership dues. Generating an additional $63 million in dues. The purpose: funding mandatory enrollment into a group insurance program for 96,000 registrants.
The persons most affected by this decision cannot opt-out. That is correct. No option. You need to remain a member to conduct your client services; if you do not like it, you have to leave your local association and, with leaving, lose access to the core tool in service to clients: the MLS system. Let this last point sink in, also.
Don’t need the coverage, don’t like the quality of the coverage, don’t like the return on investment of the coverage, are covered by your spouse’s employer-paid plan, the plan does not cover family member needs, have a plan already…but you still pay the full freight. Well, too bad and so sad; pay up or ship out. Let that sink in!
If this were government, it would be totalitarian. If it were a ruling class requirement, it would be oppression. If it were a power relationship, it would be authoritarianism. We, the many independent contractor servants of buyers and sellers of real estate, are not subjects of a realm. The absence of the voice of those most affected is suppression. Those responsible for delivering services realtors have paid to create and manage have exerted control over its use.
Whatever the merits for offering insurance, and there are some, it is egregious to mandate and impose insurance and its premiums upon members who have no direct voice in the matter. And threaten them with loss of income if they fail to pay.
In the 1800’s, realtors created the MLS system on a fundamental principle: helping each other sell inventory, the raison d’être for organized real estate (ORE). Other services offered by ORE to its member are not essential or, if essential, are not otherwise readily available in the broader commercial marketplace. Insurance is available, readily available, in varying levels of coverage and fees.
Unless the service or system is central to the delivery of real estate professional services, such as the MLS, land registry data, forms for creating agreements or implementing regulatory obligations, a mandatory program is predatory. And the egregious nature of this demand for compliance does not go away because 31 per cent of 2.0 per cent of the members said they want coverage.
Those seeking information from the OREA website might have noticed the FAQ information about the wellness program has changed. Specific information about the numbers from the 2019 survey of members is gone, replaced by more general statements like “The results from that survey found that the majority of REALTORS® do not have the specific types of insurance coverage that will be included in the Standard Plan.”
Interesting. A majority do not have the “specific” coverage which “will be included” in the plan. The June website provided some interesting numbers: one was that 51 per cent wished to have a safety net, another that 69 per cent have that safety net in place, and that 31 per cent do not have a safety net.
OREA would have you believe that a” majority” induced them to push forward with this initiative when the reality is that fewer than 2.0 per cent of the membership responded to the survey/poll, and of those, only 31 per cent indicated an interest. This means that the decision to bind 96,000 members was based on 595 people.
OREA would have you believe that it will cost only $2 per day for those benefits. When, factually, the cost is $172,000 per day.
OREA would have you believe the phrase “time and time again,” yet this is an untruth perpetrated by OREA to justify this fiasco. They specifically said that in their surveys, the membership had told them time and time again that a benefits program is a top desire. Yet nobody can find these multiple surveys. It’s more smoke and mirrors.
Confused? You bet it is confusing. It is also woefully lacking in foundation to support this plan.
According to OREA, 1900 members responded to a survey in 2019. That was four years ago. At best, the data is outdated, and at worst, it is falsely applied to new or newly crafted benefit program terms and policies. The times have changed dramatically from pre to post-pandemic circumstances, and yet OREA failed to ask for more current opinions. Well, maybe they will take notice, and they should, to the petition with 8,300 signatures (and growing in number daily) from those who oppose the mandatory enrollment (that is 10 times the number who indicated they had no coverage and wanted some). You can give them coverage, and it does not require that everyone get coverage.
It is a ruse to suggest the 2019 survey indicates a majority want this plan; heck, the plan was not crafted till most recently. It’s a ruse to suggest that a majority want this plan. No one asked those surveyed if they supported mandatory enrollment. It’s a ruse to suggest a majority want this when nearly 70 per cent already have some form of coverage. And it’s a ruse to suggest 1.0 per cent is enough of a majority to warrant this unilateral and imposing action.
I dare say if the members were surveyed as to the one need they have, it would be a coordinated single MLS system in Ontario. Now that is essential. But apparently not essential enough for OREA to mandate its association members, the voting members, either join a single system or they must leave OREA. Let that sink in!
Cameron Nolan is a real estate broker with RE/MAX Escarpment Realty Inc. serving clients across Ontario since 2004 and a recognized top producer. Cameron was REALTORS® Association of Hamilton-Burlington 2012 President, serving many years as director, on key RAHB Board committees, and served on OREA’s Finance & Audit Committee. He served as Hamilton Health Sciences Trustee, Hamilton Entertainment and Convention Facilities Inc. director, Chair of Hamilton-Wentworth Housing Corporation, Chair & President of WSCC 563, Chair & President of Eastbrow Cooperative Apartments Limited, among many other nonprofit directorships and volunteer roles. He is President of Nolan Services Group Inc. a consulting and business management services firm, with expertise (presentation and articles for some of these) with matters of strategic planning, association governance, human resources, labour relations, building codes, hospitality events, and alternate dispute resolution. Cameron served as Business Development Director with Alberici Constructors Ltd., CEO of the Hamilton Construction Association, Electrical & Mechanical Contractors Associations, and is a graduate of McMaster University and lives in Hamilton, ON.
As of Wednesday, July 26th my understanding is the Facebook group opposed to mandatory enrollment has +/- 5,902 participation and the petition is at +/- 10,350.
How many of those “signatures” are not even realtors? A quick RECO search shows that many are not registrants of RECO in Ontario therefore not OREA members at all. I’m all for free speech and opposition if thats how you feel, but a petition that cant be confirmed as members? Pretty useless.
CG, would be nice to know your connection, for how do we know if you are a REALTOR®. But I digress.
I believe the petition has been vetted as best as it can be and to the best of knowledge and belief all are registrants in Ontario. However, let us presume that 10% are not, that is still a large number of affected, unhappy, and non-interested in this program registrants.
So really, is your argument that some are not registrants as contrasted with the argument there is a large number of vocally opposed registrants?
Your article just made my day, thank you. There seems to be some great leadership coming out of Hamilton and quite frankly it is refreshing.
Thank you also.
Same can be said about OREA’s survey. Anybody with the link could participate in the survey. It tracked IP address. The same person can participate in the survey multiple times at different IP addresses.
I did not know that detail. Most interesting. Thank you Karl.
We are all still learning about these hidden details everyday.
That’s why any leader or decision maker should’ve understand the magnitude of the task of informing members to make an educated decision.
Such impactful decision was made in such haste. It is neither proper nor is it wise.
I am a senior realtor told I have tom pay $660 membership in wellness program I do not want or need
Only get half benefits
79 people do not speak for 93,000 realtors There should be a vote
Or a legal challenge
Well done! The questions keep piling up, all of them have yet to be answered. In fact, even the attempt at answers raises more questions.
The most recent OREA fluff of ‘proto’ explanations comes once more from Tania Artenosi who proclaims, “You deserve to know the facts.” Then in the blink of a period and a space, she immediately delivers this ditty:
“The members of the Task Force went in with no preconceived notions.”
Clear enough, right? – they went in [to discover what they need to know about the viability of a wellness insurance program] as blank slates. No preconceived notions are by definition, no forethought of a belief, idea or conception. They simply went in to seek information from the insurance experts. After all these are Realtors not insurance brokers.
Then she immediately stomped all over the fingers that typed that line to dispel any ‘notion’ of truth within those 12 words:
“Unless the insurance experts could deliver a plan that would meet the Task Forces’ stringent demands, the Program wasn’t going to happen”
So, they had no preconceived notions but they did have stringent demands, not just demands, but stringent as in, ‘strict, precise, exacting’ demands that the insurers had to deliver on or they would pull the plug on the very program they had no belief,idea or conception about when they went in.
Nothing coming from OREA or any of the proponents behind this plan is believable.
CG I am the creator of the petition. I have gathered the data only on the location of the people who’ve signed and the presumption is that they’ve been honest with their locale. You are correct, with the exception of local agents I know personally, I can’t say for certain how many are Ontario real estate association members. But, given a month and a list of each and every agents contact information, I could most certainly make a better effort to gauge member sentiment than OREA did in the lead up to this fiasco. And that right there, is the whole point. In their effort to become an “industry leader, the first in North America”, they forgot their own mandate – to look out for the best interests of their Realtors. This is an important decision, not just for Ontario realtor, but for Realtors across Canada. If this initiative is allowed to go through, other provinces will likely attempt the same. And if that happens, it leaves the door wide open for more professional associations to bind their self employed members to insurance programs. Think about lawyers, investigators, hair stylists, child care providers, o/o truck drivers. Imagine if the associations they belong to take up the same stance as OREA and bind their members. What if every employer everywhere was given carte blanche to not only compel their employees to buy a health plan, but also control the premiums with no input and no oversight. Before you know it, we have no provincial health care coverage because individuals are required to buy their own. This is an important fight. This DOES affect more than just Ontario realtors. I am more than happy to spearhead an effort to reach every realtor in Ontario and get their choice (yes or no) on where they stand with having to buy a sub par insurance policy. I already know the answer… How do I say yes to a policy where I haven’t seen the fine print, where I have no say in premium increases. How do I say yes when the policy is being withheld? Shame on the delegates who voted at the special assembly without having the opportunity to speak but still voted on something that was essentially a proposal at that time. The policy was an outline, they knew ZERO about the fine print. They knew ZERO about how this policy would affect already held policies. Shame on them. Lastly, stop hiding behind initials (probably not even your own) and have a real tree interaction face to face. If you want to defend your position, do it with transparency. But then, most who are in favour haven’t been transparent yet, so I won’t hold my breath for you to proudly, solidly, openly stand by your argument.
Bravo, Well said! In a democratic country Freedom of Choice is the backbone of Democracy. All we ask is for OREA to respect that choice. Some want the insurance, and some do not want it because they already have 2 and/or 3 better policies.
Would all OREA Directors take out 2 or 3 different policies from different auto insurance companies, for the same vehicle? Why do they expect Members who already have excellent policies, independent of OREA’s to opt into this basic bare bones one they have created? Especially since this is a temporary basic Insurance at best. When one retires or ceases to be in the industry all aspect of this policy end.
BRAVO
EXACTLY!
The number of agents that oppose this is greater than those that support. All we want is it to be OPTIONAL. Those who want a plan great, take it. But many of us have spousal plans that are better or through our brokerage. Frankly I’m tired of being told what is MANDATORY, and threatened to comply or lose my current access. That is thug life at its finest, too bad take it.
The straw that broke the camels back is upon us.
Apart from some minor inaccuracies it hits the mark.This debacle will ultimately bring about the demise of OREA, probably much earlier than expected. All of its previously RELEVANT activities sent to the dump. Poor leadership by well-meaning but regrettably misguided amateur executives.
RIP…..OREA! You self-destructed!
I agree Cam. If I remember the survey correctly it asked if I’m interested in a health plan. I answered yes.
However this is not a plan I would want as all it does is subsidize others while giving me nothing. If a plan were to be implemented then more questions needed to be answered. This plan puts others with good coverage at risk…
OREA should have tried this before MLS systems were given the right to license the realtor trademark and access to posting on realtor.ca directly from CREA years ago.
Nolan’s RAHB or PED’s TRREB simply can vote to leave OREA and pay nothing.
OREA of course can survive with No members today because of the War chest built up in the two years leading up to OREA college being closed. The massive influx of students (adding more unneeded agents to an already watered down business) that jumped in to avoid Humber is a windfall that if carefully managed can pay existing OREA staff til they retire without a single penny of dues being required.
I read in GNOHF that OREA was bragging there are now over 96,000 realtors in Ontario but Ontario is on pace to sell fewer than 160,000 full service transactions this year.
The bigger question really is why are REMAX and Royal Lepage silent ?
What advantage has Alexander and Soper found in an insurance requirement for OREA?
If it was just good for the members why didn’t they make it mandatory for their companies years ago as clearly OREA has no advantage to obtain a bigger discount on rates ?
Why are broker owners not up in arms ?
There must be some reason those not actually selling homes but making a profit off us being agents are silent or pretending to be grumbling ?
Could the real reason be the end goal is business illness insurance where our desk fees and mls fees are covered through a clever addition to the initial insurance being demanded ?
A) Firstly, OREA’s CEO disputes the claim that the approval of the ORWP was undemocratic, clarifying that the decision was made through the Assembly model, with nearly 80 per cent approval from voting nominees representing various boards across Ontario.
A bit of my opinion to (A) ——- With 49% or OREA Board Members are from TRREB (There was not information provided at any time to any Realtor® at TRREB) and few others shook their hands behind the closed door and finalized in just few hours (if not in minutes) on June 20th, amended the by-laws and now forcing 96000 people to pay a sum of $64000000 in the first year and much more in the coming years is VERY DEMOCRATIC for the respected BoDs and members at OREA.
(B) Secondly, the article incorrectly alleged that OREA members over 65 with provincial free drug coverage would receive no benefit from the program but still have to pay the full amount. According to Mr. Hudak, members over 65 will receive substantial coverage at a fraction of the cost compared to the open market.
A bit of my opinion to (B) ——- Realtors® bellow 65 age will get $100,000 life insurance and over 65 age will get $50,000. Trust me you will not be able to buy a full Bathroom with that money. And the other “benefits” are ridiculously low. NO VISION & NO DENTAL on this “Safety Net”. If you use the benefits on 1st year, OREA’s beloved Insurance Broker and Insurance Company (Unknow to 96000 Realtors®) will increase the premium. And Those respected BoDs, CEOs, Presidents will receive much more benefits FOR FREE at our cost.
(C) The article uses strong language like “totalitarian,” “oppression,” and “authoritarianism” to describe OREA’s actions. Mr. Hudak emphasizes that OREA follows a democratic process, with extensive consultations and member input for major decisions.
A bit of my opinion to (C) ——- all most all 96000 Realtors® should have a chain of pre drafted emails if you read them all you will definitely remove Quotation Marks from the words above. Those email are somewhat threatening, “Pay us or you will loose your Real Estate business.”, ” vicious personal attacks on Social Media”, “That’s shameful” and more worlds like these used by Respected Tania Artenosi, 2023 OREA President
I understand orea wanting to control the semantics – I can’t understand the editor simply allowing it.
I also can’t understand the editor printing …..
” According to Mr. Hudak, members over 65 will receive substantial coverage at a fraction of the cost compared to the open market.” without feeling compelled to ask for substantiation –
I guess the office of eo is enough to preclude scrutiny.
I agree Dave. Was surprised!
Once again Time for OREA to go the way of the Dodo bird.
It is obvious that since they lost their education entitlement to RECO they have been searching for something to validate their existence. Well here it is folks!
Where can I find this online survey opposed to OREA’s new mandate as our healthcare provider. I would like to pass it on to the thousands I advised of this before it was approved by our elected TRREB board. Remember, that it was TRREB who pushed this through!
Are you sure that “Mr. Hudak emphasizes that OREA follows a … process, with extensive consultations and member input for major decisions.”
1) Part of the problem with the mandatory ORWP is that OREA did not do extensive consultations. They reference 1 survey from 2019, and don’t event want to share results of the survey despite many asking for it on numerously occasions. There was also the survey from April 2023 and it did not asses members’ interest in the plan. It asked what components to include in the plan. Some results were shared but with little substance. Were there any other consultations with members around the issue of mandatory ORWP between 2019 and 2023? No one knows, and OREA is not sharing.
2) Another part of the problem with the mandatory ORWP is that OREA did not consider member input. The Task Force had no time to find volunteers among non-voting members, and none were included. The Task Force had time to process 8 RFPs in less than two months but had no time to add few volunteers to the team! What’s the rush?
Members were also given days notice about the mandatory component of the ORWP. Certainly not enough time for OREA to gather feedback from members. The communication has been so poor that some members are still unaware that ORWP is coming and that it is mandatory!
Furthermore, over 11,000 members have been providing feedback (through a petition, numerous emails, and even social media) on the mandatory ORWP and OREA insists on ignoring them and shaming anyone who speaks out against the program.
Are these examples of OREA’s idea of “extensive consultations and member input for major decisions”? Or is increasing dues by 700% and implementing mandatory plans, that are not related to real estate, not an example of “major decisions”?
Is this survey going anywhere has there been a lawyer hired
93,000 realtors and 79 voted for this plan
The realtors should have an option At my age I only get 50 5 benefits
I do not want the program . I am 71 and the Ontario drug plan and OHIP is all I need
This is a scam