Ashley Webster

Archive for the ‘Social Justice’ Category

An Analysis of Housing Policy in Canada & the Vancouver Affordable Housing Crisis

November 19th, 2007

“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.

» More: An Analysis of Housing Policy in Canada & the Vancouver Affordable Housing Crisis

Leave your comment »

Posted in Politics, Social Justice, Sustainability

Tags: affordable housing Canada Politics Social Justice Vancouver

Bill C-27 is not likely to do anything except keep the courts of appeal busy

November 16th, 2006

In my last post I discussed Bill-C27, the Conservative’s new Dangerous Offender legislation, or rather, proposed legislation. My question was, will Bill C-27 make society safer? I received one response that it will not, it will just give lawyers yet another way to lock people up. I would argue that it won’t even do that because Bill C-27 is unlikely to remain law for very long. Why? Because of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – that tiny little piece of constitutional legislation that has made a gigantic mark on Canadian justice and politics.

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.