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.”

>> Click here to watch the 45 minute panel discussion

In response to declining revenues in the first quarter of 2009, Google has “imposed severe cost controls and slashed expenses”.  These actions are praised as mature and rational.  The very next paragraph then tells us that the clearest sign of change is a reduction in Google’s workforce.  The implication is that reducing the workforce is mature and rational.  Of course, we are in a recession and “no company is recession-proof”.

But hang on, Google isn’t losing money, their rate of growth has simply declined; they are still growing and still making gads of money, netting $1.4 billion in the first three months of this year to be exact.  What’s more, they have roughly $28 billion in cash and other liquid assets and negligible debt.  They are in great shape!

I will grant you that the layoffs were modest but my point is about the underlying ethos at play here: that it is mature and rational to lay people off during a recession, no matter what.  Google can afford those 58 jobs – they cut them because that is what is expected of a mature and rational company.  But in a climate where savings are at an all time low, debt at an all time high and people more vulnerable than ever, the number one priority ought to be maximum employment.  To me, these praiseworthy measures are reactionary and irrational.

Nearer the end of the article an analyst quotes: “Clearly the upside came from severe cost controls.” Clearly continued revenue growth and a hoard of cash are no longer considered upsides – more and more and more is the only goal.

2) The Crisis of Credit Visualized: Part 1, and Part 2

—-

Creating a Culture of Prevention

The City of Vancouver’s Drug Policy Program (DPP) invites you to set aside March 25 for a day-long event focusing on prevention of harm from substance use.

The DPP is working with a broad-based coalition to initiate a movement towards creating a culture of prevention in Vancouver. The group is planning a day-long launch of this process on March 25.

The event will provide a platform to profile current prevention work in the community, facilitate discussion on current critical issues in prevention and offer a forum for dissemination of recent research and findings. The aim is to build public awareness and support for prevention in Vancouver.

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson will open the March 25 event, followed by presentations from various leaders in the field of prevention. Confirmed presenters include:

• Dr. Anthony Hutchinson, CEO of the Brampton Neighbourhood Resource Centre in Ontario
• Dr. Kimberly Schonert-Reichl, Associate Professor in the Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education in the Faculty of Education at the University of British Columbia
• Chris Kelly, Superintendent, Vancouver Board of Education
• Chelsea, a youth presenter
• Dr. Gabor Maté, staff physician at the Portland Hotel in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.

The event will be held at the Segal Centre in downtown Vancouver.

Current partners in this initiative include the Centre for Addictions Research BC, the City of Vancouver’s Social Policy department and Drug Policy Program, the School Aged Children and Youth Substance Use Prevention Program (SACY), the University of British Columbia, the Urban Native Youth Association (UNYA), Vancouver Coastal Health, the Vancouver Police Department, the Vancouver Board of Education and Watari Research Association.

Please mark your calendar for March 25. We’ll send you a more detailed program later next month. For more information, please contact Zarina Mulla, Drug Policy Program, 604-871-6481, e-mail: zarina.mulla@vancouver.ca.

—

Link to Vancouver’s Four Pillar Drug Strategy webpage: http://vancouver.ca/fourpillars/

Assume that you have the power to change the manner in which nations deal with one another. Assume that the United Nations has hired you to propose a new order of international co-operation to reform “world governance” in all areas of international law and diplomacy. Assume that existing concepts of sovereignty and immunity do not exist.

Here is my answer. I would love to hear your thoughts.

Existing concepts of sovereignty and immunity are the result of a world organized into independent states – a structure which led to two world wars and which we inherited from an era of imperialism. The first priority of an independent unit is to look after itself, putting it in competition with every other independent unit and, thus, creating a system which will ultimately produce winners and losers; the winners reap the resources of the losers and the entire system tends towards convergence and a top-down hierarchy. Such is the history of man. The fundamental change I propose is that the new structure be built on a foundation of the interdependence of people. The organization of the world into discrete units, which we now call the nation-state, would not need to change; only how we view the interaction of those units would change. The first priority of an interdependent system is to protect and strengthen relationships making for a cooperative environment where resources are shared based on the needs of the whole system. Our end goal, then, is an international community made up of free-willed individuals (an unchangeable starting condition) but which operates as a single organism. Thus, our design must serve, above all else, to maximize the total health and life of the system.

Nature teaches us that the strongest systems are ones in which anomalies can be absorbed. Our system, then, must be flexible. Rules and regulations serve us well, but they must be able to bend if and when they do not serve. The system must be ready and able to adapt to new challenges, thus, the strategies employed today may not be the strategies needed tomorrow. Creativity and dialogue must be encouraged for these will undoubtedly serve us better than top-down planning. As much as possible, our system should mimic nature – it should act as an organism, not a machine.

Now let us turn to the details.

In keeping with the many-as-one model outlined above, I propose a new international governing body that we will call the International Assembly (IA). The powers of the IA will be broad, encompassing any aspect of life provided that it is directly relevant to international relations and the furtherance of its goals as spelled out in its constitution which may read in part:

The purpose of the International Assembly is to enhance the total quality of life for all current and future residents of Earth. The IA can assume authority in any area of international relations if it can demonstrate before the International Supreme Court that the authority it seeks has a specific and necessary purpose which cannot be achieved at a lower level of government, which does not contradict any existing purpose, and which interferes as little as possible with individual freedom.

The constitution would itself be a living document split into two parts. The first part, which contains primarily the piece described above, could only be changed pursuant to a strict amending formula. The second part would delineate the specific powers of the IA and the purposes for which those powers were created as per the formula in the first part. In other words, once the IA had successfully demonstrated that it required a specific power, that new power and the purpose for which it was created would be added to the second part of the constitution. Thus, the constitution would form a coherent and evolving document. The first part of the constitution would also include a formula for reviewing the second part and removing powers created for purposes no longer relevant.

Once a power is added to the constitution, a committee is struck to initiate the work required to fulfill the identified purpose. Every citizen of every state which is a member of the IA is legally required to make themselves available to serve on a committee as determined by random ballot and subject to a qualification assessment. Committee positions are all well and equally paid and carry significant prestige. Committee members serve for as long as necessary to fulfill the purpose for which they were called with the ultimate goal of devolving continued operations to lower levels of government, intergovernmental organizations, or non-governmental organizations.

The IA has three permanent organs: the international assembly, an executive, and a secretariat. The international assembly is the only body which can seek to add new powers and is composed of democratically elected representatives from anywhere in the world. Anybody may run except those already serving in governmental positions at any level. Elections are held every six years and voting is a two-stage process. The first vote, which we will call the nomination vote, merely qualifies candidates to enter the second round upon collection of a minimum number of nomination votes. There are strict limits to campaign financing during the first round and there is no limit to the number of candidates. Each candidate must pay a nomination fee directly to the IA. Second round campaigns are again subject to strict rules but this time the rules relate to the campaign methods with campaign funding provided equally to all nominees by only the IA. The executive is composed of a single representative from each state and is charged with overseeing the powers and purposes of the IA and its committees. In the role of executive, each person is held to the standard of a trustee. Finally, the secretariat carries out normal day to day operations of the IA. Funding for the IA comes from two sources: a very modest universal tax and a percentage of the gross domestic product of each member state.

So much for general governance. Now I will turn my attention to justice. Overall, I am very satisfied with the current structure of international law. The new international court would function much like the current International Court of Justice except that, where the ICJ is an organ of the UN, the new Court would be independent from the IA. It would consist of seven Justices, each appointed by a different country with appointments being rotated among all states, for staggered terms of seven years. The appointing state would pay the Justice’s salary plus an additional administration fee to cover the operating costs of the court. Sources of law would remain as they are now: custom, treaty, and flexible precedent. Like the ICJ, the new Court would only be available to hear disputes between member states. As much as possible, personal disputes should be handled by municipal courts. With regards to human rights, I would set up a universal declaration of human rights that was legally binding but subservient to similar municipal declarations that met the minimum standard. Other than that, I would not change a thing. I believe that disputes should be resolved at the lowest level possible.

In constructing this proposal, I am assuming that such institutions as the IMF and the WTO do not exist. As such, other aspects of the existing model such as currency convertibility, trade, and the regulation of business would fall under the administration of the IA if it was able to demonstrate the need to acquire such power. All other areas of policy and administration would fall to lower levels of government. Underlying this essay is the belief that the primary flaws in the current structure are: (1) A core philosophy which splits the world into independent units rather than interdependent units, and (2) the lack of a single governing organization. This second flaw requires clarification, however, since it may conjure up images of a one-world government. This is not what I propose, not only because it would be ineffective but also because it would be impossible to achieve democratically given the difficulties of obtaining consensus. Thus, my proposal is for a flexible international governance organization whose only starting point is a formula by which it can acquire further powers and a formula by which those powers can be again removed and devolved. It is by design that many of the other specifics are left out because to put too many in now would undermine the very philosophy which is at the core of this model; namely flexibility and evolution.

In the end, governance would continue as it does today with people retaining the right of self-determination. Indeed, this right is at the core of my proposal. Governance and dispute resolution would be left to the lowest level possible. Such a system would be flexible and highly resilient because it would tap into individual’s creative potential and it would balance people’s individual and social selves.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4 

“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…