One of the better perspectives I have read on the negotiations is from Vancouver urban planner Stephen Rees who reminds us that we should not wait for politicians to make changes.  Climate leadership can come from cities; after all, 85% of Canada’s population lives in a city.  This was one of the points I was hoping to make with this panel discussion.  If you live in Vancouver, the best action you can take is to encourage and support the commitment that Vancouver has made to be the greenest city in the world.  And if you live in some other city, then let them know what Vancouver is doing and challenge your mayor and council to take us on.  As Andrea Reimer said in the panel discussion: “we’d be happy to get the pants beat off us if somebody was trying to be even greener.”

Watch the full 45-minute discussion now and let me know what you think.

If you only have a few minutes, then watch this short 3-minute clip from the discussion.

11am: Saturday, December 12
Vancouver Public Library, Central Branch Promenade
(350 West Georgia St – map)

Join Ashley Webster and panelists Andrea Reimer, Emily Chan and Paul Lock for a discussion on climate change, Copenhagen and the potential for leadership from Canada’s cities.

Beginning this coming Monday, world leaders will meet in Copenhagen to, hopefully, replace the failed Kyoto Protocol with a new agreement to cut carbon emissions.  Kyoto was largely unsuccessful because America, then the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, never ratified it, and China, now the world’s largest emitter, was not bound to any real reductions at the time the deal was made.  And let’s not forget that while Canada signed the agreement, we have failed to honour it.  That climate change is real and is being caused by humans is about the only thing that most people agree upon.  Beyond that, it gets very complex and the public debate is rife with misconceptions and myths.  If we are going to take serious action we urgently need to get clear on the facts of climate change, get beyond changing our light-bulbs, and get over the not very motivating idea that we need to live in the cold and the dark to save the planet.

Bring your questions: one member from the audience will be selected to join the panel on the merits of a question or comment submitted during the first half of the discussion.  This event is being filmed for broadcast online and on Shaw Community television; details will be posted in the days leading up to the event.  Please send me an email or follow me on twitter if you wish to be notified when broadcast details are available.

This panel discussion will kick off a full weekend of action including music, kids programming, speakers, theater, and a candle-light vigil - all at the Vancouver Public Library Central Branch.

Special thanks to the Climate Action Network, TckTckTck and the Western Canada Wilderness Committee for making this event possible.

Past Events

• Climate Leadership from Within
• The Vancouver Commons Episode 2: Citizen Engagement
• The Vancouver Commons Episode 1: Busker Idol

11am – 5pm
Saturday, December 12
Vancouver Public Library, Central Branch Promenade
(350 West Georgia St – map)

Join us at the Vancouver Public Library Central Branch for a full day of climate action including a panel discussion, a signature and photo wall, music, kids programming, speakers, theatre, a candle-light vigil, and more.

In Copenhagen, at the site of the negotiations, TckTckTck partners will represent this show of global solidarity using the photos, videos and pledges sent in from around the planet at a special vigil happening just outside the summit building.

Sign up for the event on Facebook or on Avaaz.org.  Click here for other events being planned outside of Vancouver and around the world.  Tell your friends.  Let’s show Harper we care about the climate – and he should too!

Other ways to take action this week

Can’t make it to the library on Saturday?  No problem.  Watch the events live online.

If you are a member of a faith group, please consider adding your name to the Joint Faith Leaders Declaration on Climate Change.

Send a message to your MP.

Join one of the many Fasts for Courage in Copenhagen being planned around the Lower  Mainland.

Here is the interview

The Act also requires that all of BC’s public sector organizations be carbon neutral by 2010 – this includes school districts, post-secondary institutions, and hospitals.  Specifically: by the end of 2010, all public sector organizations must have greenhouse gas auditing systems in place and must purchase carbon offsets for their emissions.  In addition, it is expected that public sector organizations will find ways to reduce their total emissions over time.

“I think the offset obligation is definitely something universities have to deal with but it’s not going to be the biggest challenge. I think the biggest challenge is going to be where they try to push their emissions down over time.  We are going to want to keep seeing reductions down the road.”  – Government respondent

This new policy direction will have profound impacts on how colleges and universities operate.

This study was undertaken to find out how post secondary institutions were responding: what actions they have taken and what challenges they are facing.

The primary focus for implementing the Act is on energy management because this represents the largest opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; but we must remember that climate change is not just about more efficient light bulbs and fewer parking lots, it is about breaking down traditional barriers and disciplinary thinking, it is about new ways of relating to the environment and each other and about reassessing what we value.  Catalyzing these essential cultural changes is where post secondary can make the largest contribution since it is here that each new generation of leaders are trained.  BC’s colleges and universities recognize that they play a critical role in this process and they are all committed to climate action.

Carbon neutrality is not the ultimate goal, but it is a first step which has the capacity to transform higher education in British Columbia which will in turn have profound cultural effects.  Ultimately, this is a grand experiment and people are watching.  What we do here will have an impact globally.

This is a project of the BC Working Group on Sustainability Education, also known as WalkingtheTalk.bc.ca.  Many thank-yous to Janet Moore, professor at the SFU Centre for Dialogue and the driving force behind Walking the Talk, for giving this project life.

Click here to read the full report.

In August of this year, I will be getting married. A few years after that, I plan to have children. Some nights I lie awake and wonder what kind of world they will inherit. For this reason I am strongly in favor of action to reduce carbon emissions and halt the trend of human-induced climate destabilization.

I have followed the debate concerning which is the best strategy: carbon tax or cap and trade. They each have their strengths and weaknesses and, as always, the success of either will come down to the details of implementation. Time is short, we are told, and we must act now – our window is small. 80% by 2050 is the recommended target. Since a cap and trade system is the only option that gives us some certainty we can meet this ambitious timeline, it is my preferred strategy. A carbon tax would, perhaps, be simpler to implement, but there is no way to ensure reduction targets – that part would be left up to the market. Furthermore, taxes are not a permanent structure and are subject to changing politics. Mind you, a cap and trade system as implemented in the EU is an even worse option so let me outline what I believe to be the absolute requirements for an effective cap and trade system.

1) Carbon credits must not be given away free. This will only result in a windfall to the wealthiest and worst polluters. Auctioning credits would be better but care must be taken that this does not create a significant disadvantage for smaller industries and businesses.

2) Carbon offsets – money spent on reforestation or alternative energy research – must not be allowed to substitute for credits. Carbon offsets must be supplementary only or they will erode our efforts.

3) Safety valves that allow additional credits to be issued in times of distress must be disallowed or kept to a bare minimum for the same reason that offsets must be carefully controlled. Safety valves that open too easily will forever leak carbon. If any form of safety valve is used, I recommend a structured reduction in the availability of it over time.

4) For simplicity and maximum coverage, carbon should be capped where in enters the market, not where it is released into the atmosphere. This includes all GHG emissions, not just CO2.

5) Finally, the revenue generated by selling carbon credits must be returned directly to citizens, not added to general government revenue. This will mitigate the hit that low and middle income families will take as the price of energy rises. For this purpose, I recommend delegating, to a regional or national Trustee, the responsibility of setting and selling credits and recycling revenue. Every long-term resident is a beneficiary of the Trust which pays dividends, one share per person. This structure has several benefits:

a. It returns cash to people in the most equitable fashion, helps offset the inevitable carbon cost increase, and sets up a third form of income that will benefit low income families the most. It is, thus, fair and progressive.

b. It can be used to grant representation and rights to future generations, building inter-generational sustainability into the system;

c. It provides better protection for the atmosphere because Trustees are held to a much higher legal duty of care – their responsibilities are specific and dedicated;

d. Since the responsibilities of a Trustee are specific and dedicated, delegation of this most important task would dramatically speed up the transition.

This final point should also help in responding to one of the main arguments against a cap and trade system: namely that it is more complex than a tax and will take longer to implement. That being said, a tax on carbon remains the most expedient options for pricing pollution and is preferable to no action, so I strongly urge you to include it in your next budget. The same requirements apply, though. First, the tax must be revenue neutral. By that I mean that it must be returned to citizens in the form of tax credits. I do not consider spending the revenue on public works or “green projects” to be revenue neutral any more than spending property tax to maintain our roadways is revenue neutral. Second, the tax must be significant. An article on the Progressive Economics’ website titled Carbon Tax vs Cap and Trade suggests that in order to have any real effect, the tax must reach $100 per ton. Obviously this steep a tax cannot be introduced immediately without adverse effects but we must plan towards it. The common consensus is that $30 per ton ought to be the minimum starting point.

The ideas above are not mine. The Trust concept has been put forward by Peter Barnes in the books Who Owns the Sky and Capitalism 3.0, links to which can be found at http://www.onthecommons.org/.

At present, the cost associated with the use of the commons we call the atmosphere, is zero. This must change and I fully support any such action. In addition to immediate action in the upcoming budget, I urge you to adopt a near-term strategy that places management of our atmosphere in Trust for all citizens, present and future.

Sincerely,

Ashley Webster

“Homelessness is characterized as the most extreme manifestation of poverty, social exclusion, and marginalization.” (Wynne-Edwards 1998) [i]

Vancouver, like many other Canadian cities, is experiencing a housing crisis. In 2005, there were 2174 homeless, almost double that of 1121 in 2002[ii], and the homeless population is expected to increase to over 3000 by 2010[iii]. A full half of those without a home are living on the street and one third of those without a home have been homeless for a year or more. According to the 2001 Census, 125,000 people in the GVRD are at risk of homelessness[iv]. It is estimated that an additional 3200 units of supportive housing are needed to meet the needs of the homeless or those at risk of homelessness[v] yet the creation of new Social Housing units (including SROs, non-profit housing, cooperatives and subsidized housing) has virtually ceased since 1994[vi].

These numbers suggest a more systemic problem of decreasing access to affordable housing. Affordable housing is defined by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation as that which costs less than 30% of a household’s gross income. If total housing costs (mortgage payments, interest, insurance, tax, utilities, rent, etc.) equal greater than 30% of a household’s total gross income, then housing is considered to be unaffordable and the household is considered to be in core housing need. The 2001 Census found that in Vancouver one in five was in core housing need and renters were much more likely to fall into core need than owners[vii]. As of 2006, the rental vacancy rate in Vancouver was 0.7%. 3% to 5% is considered healthy[viii]. To purchase an average single family house in the GVRD requires a total household income of $121,921 in order for mortgage payments to be considered affordable yet the average household income is only $42,624[ix]. While the creation of more social housing units and emergency shelters would alleviate short-term problems, any long-term policy solution must address the bigger problem of decreasing affordable housing stock across the entire housing spectrum from private ownership, to rental, to non-market housing. This paper will provide an overview of the current and historical housing policy framework, examine the social and economic context within which such policies must operate, and evaluate current proposals to address the issue.

“The events that make people homeless are initiated and controlled by other people whom our society allows to engage in the various enterprises that contribute to the homelessness of others. The primary purpose of these enterprises is not to make people homeless but, rather, to achieve socially condoned aims such as making a living, becoming rich, obtaining a more desirable home, increasing the efficiency of the workplace, promoting the growth of cultural institutions, giving cities a competitive advantage, or helping local or federal governments to balance their budgets or limit their debts. Homelessness occurs as a side effect.” (Jahiel, 1992) [x]

The history of housing policy in Canada is closely examined in a paper titled The Road to Innovation, Convergence or Inertia: Devolution in Housing Policy in Canada (2000) by Carroll and Jones of the Department of Political Science at McMaster University[xi]. From the end of the second World War until roughly 1980, the Federal Government played a leadership role in housing policy. Initiatives included financial assistance to would-be owners and developers through the National Housing Act (NHA) and the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC); the creation and support of numerous housing coalitions and policy networks; intergovernmental cooperation with the provinces by way of departments such as the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs; and direct subsidies for the creation of social housing. In the decade from 1964 to 1974, the NHA created roughly 200,000 units of social housing across the country[xii]. The focus of the Federal government’s policy was to build a strong housing industry. By the early 1980s, however, Canadians were, by and large, well-housed and financial restraint became the primary political ideology; direct subsidies and grants were cut, federal housing support was reduced to loan guarantees and mortgage insurance and housing policy was effectively devolved to lower levels of government. This trend has continued through to the present with an increased emphasis on privatization and private and third sector[xiii] partnerships. By 1994, the Federal Government had relinquished its leadership role in housing policy and the BC government’s primary strategy since then has been to provide rental assistance to those in need – a strategy that neither reduces housing prices nor increases the stock of affordable housing[xiv].

This policy vacuum helps to explain how we have arrived at today’s housing crisis. In short, for the past 25 years, all levels of government have taken a hands-off approach to housing and have instead relied upon the private sector to meet demand across the entire housing spectrum. The modern private-market ideology goes something like this: where there is demand, there is profit and the private market will rise to fill that demand. When one market, such as privately owned residences, has been filled, the private market will turn its attention to secondary markets such as rental suites and low-income housing thus ensuring a home for all. For a number of reasons, however, including the Asian economic crisis, leaky condos, increasing demand for Vancouver homes from overseas owners, and zoning regulations that have encouraged low-density, single-use neighbourhoods, the private market has been unable to meet the demand and this supply shortage is expected to continue[xv]. When demand exceeds supply, inflation results; this is one of the most basic principles of economics and is exactly what we are seeing in Vancouver with regard to affordable housing, including privately owned housing, rental housing and non-market housing. Given that the private market as the primary mechanism for creating new homes will always focus on the largest and most profitable market first, it is no great mystery that secondary markets such as rental and non-market housing remain low on the agenda. What we effectively have is a climate in which the demand for residential property far exceeds the supply and thus the available property goes to those who can afford to pay the most.

As demonstrated, since homelessness is simply the most severe symptom of a larger problem of lack of affordable housing, any solution to homelessness must address the entire market and not just low income clients; after all, it is unrealistic to think that those earning moderate to high incomes but who are still having difficulty finding a home will care much about, let alone support, a policy that provides solutions only for those on social assistance. In a policy proposal paper, Smart Growth BC makes the following recommendations[xvi]:

5.2 Municipal and regional governments should adopt and implement land use policies and regulations that support affordable housing and compact, complete communities. Such policies and regulations should promote:

a. A wide range of housing choices (including a variety of dwelling types, tenures, and sizes) throughout all neighbourhoods

b. A match between the type, tenure and price of the housing stock and the income levels and demographics of the community (see item 5.5)

c. Integration of rental, ownership, market and non-market housing (see item 5.5) within neighbourhoods and buildings

d. Protection of the existing affordable rental housing stock

e. Development and re-development at sufficient levels of density to promote transportation choice and efficient use of infrastructure

f. A mix of uses within neighbourhoods and within buildings

g. Infill and intensification in existing areas that are already served by municipal or regional infrastructure (such as sewers, water, roads, transit, schools, health facilities, and community facilities)

h. An appropriate range of transportation choices

i. Proximity of housing near employment centres

j. A high standard for design of buildings and neighbourhoods

5.5 Federal and provincial governments should fund and/or provide housing as necessary.

5.6 Federal and provincial governments should ensure that infrastructure investments (e.g. transportation projects) contribute to and are compatible with compact, complete communities with a range of housing choices.

5.7 Federal and provincial governments should provide incentives to local governments for promoting housing affordability and Smart Growth (such as cost sharing for infrastructure in compact communities, or grants in response to zoning changes that increase capacity, density and affordability).

Most of these recommendations are aimed at municipal governments which directly control land use and planning and revolve around increasing density, encouraging mixed use / mixed tenure / mixed market housing, and planning complete communities in which residents have easy access to transportation, amenities and employment. Those recommendations that target the provincial and federal government are focused primarily on funding since it is those levels of government that have the greatest financial resources. In short, while municipal governments must take a lead role in land use planning and community building, housing policy in general must be a coordinated and cooperative activity across all levels of government, each contributing according to their strengths and areas of influence. Housing Policy for Tomorrow’s Cities[xvii], a report published by the Canadian Policy Research Network, and A National Affordable Housing Strategy[xviii], a report published by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, both contain very similar recommendations. The latter goes so far as to calculate that the annual federal contribution required to solve the national housing crisis is approximately $1.5 billion per year for the next 10 years.

The Federal Government’s 2007 budget contains no direct spending on affordable housing. The 2006 budget provides “$800 million for a major, one-time investment to increase the supply of affordable housing in our cities and communities through a new Affordable Housing Trust” [xix]. This money is to be allocated over three years on an equal per capita basis among all provinces and is intended to alleviate short-term pressures only. Presumably this fulfills the housing commitment made in the Conservative Party’s 2005 policy statement[xx]. Of this $800 million, $130 million will be paid to British Columbia under the Canada-British Columbia Affordable Housing Agreement with the province contributing an additional $34 million annually[xxi]. Recently, the BC Government made a surprise announcement that it will spend $80 million to purchase 11 SRO buildings in Vancouver and Victoria and fund the creation of more supportive housing units in the Lower Mainland[xxii]. These are steps in the right direction but fall dramatically short of the $1.5 billion per year that will be required. Further, there continues to be no real policy leadership from either the provincial or federal government. BC Housing recently published a document titled BC Housing Service Plan 2007/08-2009/10 [xxiii] which reads more like an annual report than a clear policy statement.

Recently, Vancouver City Council unveiled two policy proposals that take aim at the affordable housing crisis. Project Civil City has the stated goal of reducing homelessness by at least 50% by 2010. This project recognizes the multi-faceted nature of housing issues, proposes needs-based solutions that are tailored to each unique housing market, and aims to “build effective partnerships across all three levels of government, the community and the private sector.”[xxiv] While these proposals are extremely general, they at least demonstrate that the city is willing to take a leadership role in addressing the homelessness crisis. Of greater interest is a policy proposal termed EcoDensity[xxv] that essentially mirrors the recommendations provided by Smart Growth BC in calling for increased density and changes to zoning regulations that will encourage mixed use buildings, a broad array of housing options in every community, and increased access to transportation, local amenities and local employment. The policy statements made in EcoDensity are remarkably similar to those put forward in the City of Vancouver’s Homeless Action Plan[xxvi] but I suspect that this repacking was done in an attempt to increase the policy’s profile and acquire more community support[xxvii]. According to EcoDensity, more than half of Vancouver’s population live in low density neighbourhoods accounting for 70% of the city’s total land. Obtaining the support of these residents to reconfigure their communities to medium and high density use will be difficult but I applaud the City for taking a realistic look at the issues and having the courage to propose the controversial but correct solution.

Affordable housing is not just about the 0.001% who are homeless; lack of affordable housing affects us all. If people are required to spend an increasing amount of their income on housing, this leaves less for other expenditures and less for saving[xxviii]. Education suffers, so do the arts, so does community, and ultimately so does the economy. A home is one of the most basic human needs yet there has been almost no policy guidance in the housing market for the last 20 years. What we are seeing now as a result is a housing market in crisis. To get it back on track and ensure that everyone has a minimum standard of living and equal opportunity, affordable housing must become a priority for all levels of government and they must work together to create clear housing policy that ensures social justice for all Canadians.

[i] Wynne-Edwards, Jeannie, The Homelessness Crisis in Canada: If Not In My Backyard, Then Whose? (1998), filed in the National Library of Canada

[ii] Homeless Count 2005: One our Streets and In Our Shelters (September 2005), Social Planning and Research Council of BC, Retrieved on Sept 24 2007 from: www.gvrd.bc.ca/homelessness/pdfs/HomelessCount2005Final.pdf

[iii] Eby, David, Cracks in the Foundation: Solving the Housing Crisis in Canada’s Poorest Neighbourhood (September 2006), Pivot Legal Society, Retrieved on Sept 24 2007 from: www.pivotlegal.org/pdfs/CracksinFoundation.pdf

[iv] Engeland, John and Roger Lewis, Steven Ehrlich, Janet Che, Evolving Housing Conditions in Canada’s Census Metropolitan Areas, 1991-2001 (January 2005), Statistics Canada and Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp, Retrieved on Sept 24 2007 from: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/hoficlincl/homain/stda/stda_003.cfm

[v] City of Vancouver, Homeless Action Plan (April 2005), City of Vancouver Housing Centre, Retrieved on Sept 24 2007 from: http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/commsvcs/housing/homelessness.htm

[vi] Chisholm, Sharon, Affordable Housing in Canada’s Urban Communities: A literature review (July 2003), Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation

[vii] Engeland, John and Roger Lewis, Steven Ehrlich, Janet Che, Evolving Housing Conditions in Canada’s Census Metropolitan Areas, 1991-2001 (January 2005), Statistics Canada and Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp, Retrieved on Sept 24 2007 from: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/hoficlincl/homain/stda/stda_003.cfm

[viii] National Rental Vacancy Rate Inches Down to 2.6 Per Cent (December 2006), Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, News Releases, Retrieved on Sept 24 2007 from: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/corp/nero/nere/2006/2006-12-14-0815.cfm

[ix] Swanson, Jean and Andrew Yan, Affordable Housing Policy Brief (no date on document),Carnegie Centre Community Association, Retrieved on Sept 24 2007 from: www.earthblog.ca/elgg/carnegie/files/-1/173/CCAP+housing+brief.pdf

[x] Jahiel, Rene, Homeless-Making Processes and the Homeless-Makers (1992) In R.I. Jahiel, ed. Homelessness: A Prevention-oriented Approach. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

[xi] Carroll, Barbara, and Ruth Jones, The Road to Innovation, Convergence or Inertia: Devolution in Housing Policy in Canada (Sept 2000), Department of Political Science McMaster University, Retrieved on Sept 24 2007 from: http://ideas.repec.org/a/cpp/issued/v26y2000i3p277-293.html

[xii] Hulchanski, David, Housing Policy for Tomorrow’s Cities (Dec 2002), Canadian Policy Research Network, Retrieved on Sept 24 2007 from: http://www.cprn.org/doc.cfm?doc=161&l=en

[xiii] Third sector refers to non-profit, NGO and volunteer organizations

[xiv] Swanson, Jean and Andrew Yan, Affordable Housing Policy Brief (no date on document),Carnegie Centre Community Association, Retrieved on Sept 24 2007 from: www.earthblog.ca/elgg/carnegie/files/-1/173/CCAP+housing+brief.pdf

[xv] Forecast Demand for Affordable Housing in Greater Vancouver (April 2004), Price Waterhouse Coopers, A Report for the GVRD, Retrieved on Sept 24 2007 from: www.gvrd.bc.ca/growth/pdfs/AffordableHousingDemand.pdf

[xvi] Affordable Housing Policy (Oct 2005), Smart Growth BC, Retrieved on Sept 24 2007 from: www.smartgrowth.bc.ca/Portals/0/Downloads/Affordable_Housing_Policy.pdf

[xvii] Hulchanski, David, Housing Policy for Tomorrow’s Cities (Dec 2002), Canadian Policy Research Network, Retrieved on Sept 24 2007 from: http://www.cprn.org/doc.cfm?doc=161&l=en

[xviii] A National Affordable Housing Strategy (Oct 2000), Federation of Canadian Municipalities

[xix] Federal Government of Canada, Budget Speech 2006, Retrieved on Sept 24 2007 from: http://www.fin.gc.ca/access/budinfoe.html#year

[xx] Conservative Party of Canada, Policy Declaration 2005, Retrieved on Sept 24 2007 from: http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2692/41647

i) The Conservative Party believes that all Canadians should have a reasonable opportunity to own their own home and to have access to safe and affordable housing.

ii) A Conservative Government would develop a policy of broad based tax relief, income support programs and tax incentives, to make home ownership and rental accommodation more attainable and accessible.

iii) A Conservative Government will address homelessness by assisting in the provision of shelters and by recognizing, addressing and seeking solutions to contributing factors of homelessness.

iv) A Conservative Government will partner and link with the respective jurisdictions of provincial, territorial and municipal governments, business initiatives and the work of social agencies and non-profit organizations, in dealing with housing, homelessness, social infrastructure and related support services, such as skills development, literacy, substance abuse treatment, health and social development.

v) A Conservative Government will work with the provinces and municipalities to develop framework agreements that help low-income city dwellers access affordable housing, through the use of tax incentives for private sector builders. The Conservative Party recognizes that most renters live in urban centres, and that the pressures of population growth as well as certain economic factors have made it increasingly difficult for many renters to find housing.

[xxi] Canada – British Columbia Affordable Housing Agreement, BC Housing, Retrieved on Sept 24 2007 from: http://www.bchousing.org/aboutus/partners/funding/agreement

[xxii] $80M pledged to target homelessness in B.C. (April 3, 2007), CBC, Retrieved on Sept 24 2007 from: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/04/03/bc-housing.html

[xxiii] BC Housing Service Plan 2007/08-2009/10, BC Housing, Retrieved on Sept 24 2007 from: http://www.bchousing.org/aboutus/Reports/Service_Plan

[xxiv] Project Civil City (Nov 2006), City of Vancouver, Office of the Mayor, Retrieved on Sept 24 2007 from: http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/councillors/mayor/announcements/2006/112706.htm

[xxv] EcoDensity: An Introduction to Building Communities That are Green, Livable and Affordable in Vancouver (2007), City of Vancouver, Retrieved on Sept 24 2007 from: http://www.vancouver-ecodensity.ca/

[xxvi] City of Vancouver, Homeless Action Plan (April 2005), City of Vancouver Housing Centre, Retrieved on Sept 24 2007 from: http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/commsvcs/housing/homelessness.htm

[xxvii] NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) opposition to residential land use changes have proven to be a major stumbling block in efforts to find solutions to the growing homelessness crisis. (Wynne-Edwards, Jeannie, The Homelessness Crisis in Canada: If Not In My Backyard, Then Whose? (1998), filed in the National Library of Canada). While low density neighbourhoods are extremely inefficient and counterproductive from an affordable housing policy perspective, those who own homes in low density neighbourhoods are rarely open to increased density.

[xxviii] Bryant, Toba, The Current State Of Housing In Canada As A Social Determinant Of Health (March 2003), Centre for Health Studies York University

A very similar reverse-onus clause exists under the Youth Criminal Justice Act in which a young person, when convicted of any one of several presumptive offences, such as murder, is immediately presumed to receive an adult sentence – the harshest of which is life imprisonment. Compare that with the harshest youth sentence of 3 years. The onus then falls on the youth to demonstrate why a youth sentence would be sufficient to hold them accountable. This reverse-onus clause has been challenged twice as contravening the Charter. The BC Court of Appeal ruled in February of 2006 that the reverse onus is not unconstitutional and does not present the offender with an unreasonable burden (R. v. K.D.T., [2006] B.C.J. No. 253), while the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in March of 2006 that the reverse onus does breech the young person’s Charter rights (R. v. D.B., [2006] O.J. No. 1112). This issue is likely to make its way to the Supreme Court of Canada for a definitive ruling on the constitutionality of the reverse onus portion of the YCJA. There is every reason to believe that the same will happen if Bill C-27 becomes law.

If it becomes law and then immediately undergoes constitutional challenges that could eventually result in it being struck down, what would it have actually done? Nothing. In fact, this seems to be the general consensus – outside the Conservative camp at least, but then even the Conservatives must know this (it would be unwise to assume they are simply stupid). The only other option then, is that it is some form of political wrangling; just a politicians game really, the point of which is totally irrelevant. What is relevant, is that it will not, or should we say, is not likely to, make society any safer. But that’s the sell line.

ash…

Here goes. My topic this week is Canada’s new “Reverse Onus” bill, Bill C-27, which also goes by the name, “Three Strikes and You’re Out”.

The Background

Reverse Onus: A fundamental right enshrined in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. Sounds familiar to all I’m sure. However, section 1 of the Charter gives government a small out if it can reasonably demonstrate why the infringement on any Charter right is justified in a democratic society. This is not used very often, but there are a few examples. Reverse onus clauses are one such example where the law says it is up to the accused person to prove themselves. Several of these types of clauses have been struck down over the years by the Supreme Court, as not being reasonably justifiable; others have survived.

Dangerous Offenders: In the interests of public safety, an offender may be classified as a dangerous offender if it can be shown that there is a significant risk they will commit future violent or sexual crimes. It is up to the prosecution to prove to the court why a particular offender should be deemed “dangerous”. An offender thus categorized may be imprisoned for an indefinite period of time, without the benefit of statutory release, until it is shown that the risk no longer exists. Dangerous offenders are eligible for parole after 7 years and if released, will remain under supervision for life. Those typically categorized as dangerous offenders include habitual criminals, sexual offenders and those committing violent offences such as armed assault, kidnapping or forced confinement.

Bill C-27: Bill C-27 proposes to remove, from the crown prosecution, the burden of proving why someone should be labelled as a dangerous offender, and put the burden of proof on the accused to prove why they are not a dangerous offender. This only comes into play when someone has been convicted of a third sexual or violent offence.

The Arguments

For:

It is right to lock up the worst, repeat offenders.
It will deter recidivism.
Recent incidences of repeat violent and sexual offences are frequently cited.

Against:

The reverse onus in this case will not stand up to a Charter challenge, so it’s a waste of time.
The reverse onus is an unreasonable burden on the accused and this legislation will therefore have the effect of creating too many “dangerous offenders” who may otherwise have been rehabilitated.
It is simply unnecessary. Current legislation is more than sufficient to protect society and this is nothing more than political posturing.

My Question

Will Bill C-27 make society safer?

ash…