Poor people in Canada pay for funerals through provincial social assistance programs (like BC’s Ministry of Social Development or Ontario Works), the federal Canada Pension Plan (CPP) Death Benefit.
Many today are choosing simpler, lower-cost options like direct cremation, with funeral homes often guiding families through these limited financial resources. Government aid covers basic services, but often falls short of average funeral costs, requiring families to supplement or choose minimal arrangements.
Government Financial Assistance Provincial Programs: Most provinces have programs, often through social development or welfare ministries, to help with funeral costs if the deceased’s estate and family can’t pay.
British Columbia: The Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction provides assistance, covering basic services, burial/cremation, and interment, working directly with funeral homes.
Ontario: Ontario Works helps cover basic funeral expenses for those in need, with a process involving your local office.
FederalProgram: Canada Pension Plan (CPP) Death Benefit: A one-time payment of $2,500 (a flat rate) is available if the deceased contributed to CPP for a minimum number of years, helping families with costs.
How the Process Works Contact the Ministry: After a death, the legal representative (executor) contacts the provincial ministry (e.g., Social Development) to see if the estate qualifies for assistance.
Work with Funeral Homes: Funeral directors are familiar with these programs and guide families to choose services within the available budget.
Ministry Pays the Funeral Home: If approved, the ministry pays the funeral home directly for approved services, which may cover cremation or burial and other basic costs.
Cost-Saving Options Direct Cremation: This is often the most affordable option, as it avoids embalming, viewing, and elaborate ceremonies. Simplified Services: Choosing basic services (no casket upgrades, flowers, or extensive visitations) keeps costs down.
Challenges Funding Gaps: Government funding often doesn’t cover the full average cost of a funeral, leaving a significant gap for families to fill. Limited Choices: Financial constraints restrict choices, making it hard to provide the send-off families desire.
Peace to All and Best Wishes to All in the New Year of Life and it’s passing encounters.
A groundbreaking trial for a prostate cancer treatment with fewer side effects has launched in the UK.
Backed by the Government-funded National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the trial will examine whether Aquablation – a therapy using robotics, AI and real-time imaging – works as well or better than traditional surgery, known as radical prostatectomy.
Radical prostatectomy involves removing the entire prostate gland in a bid to cure men of prostate cancer. The treatment is suitable for men whose cancer has not spread outside of the prostate gland or has spread to the area just outside the gland.
However, the operation carries a risk of serious side-effects, such as infection, erectile dysfunction and urinary problems.
Researchers hope Aquablation will minimise these issues.
The therapy is currently used in some centres to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
The treatment is suitable for men whose cancer has not spread outside of the prostate gland (Getty/iStock)
Aquablation involves a robotic-assisted, high-pressure waterjet. Surgeons can also map the entire prostate in real time with ultrasound.
Using the technique, medics find cancerous tissue to remove while avoiding surrounding nerves and muscles associated with erectile function and the bladder.
The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust in London is the first hospital in Europe to recruit a patient to the trial, which is being run in seven countries.
Overall, 280 patients will be recruited globally, all with early-stage, localised prostate cancer who have already decided to have surgery.
Philip Charlesworth, consultant urological surgeon at the Royal Marsden, said: “For men with prostate cancer confined to the prostate, curative options are excellent, however, we are becoming increasingly focused on the side-effects of the cancer treatment and how we can embrace new technology to maintain a man’s quality-of-life following their surgery.
“This trial is measuring Aquablation therapy, which uses a robotic approach to surgically remove the cancer, and to preserve a man’s ability to remain continent and maintain sexual activity.
“The potential for this trial is very exciting. It has an opportunity, depending on the results of the study, to add an alternative surgical treatment option for patients with localised prostate cancer across the globe.
“The ultimate aim, and my passion, is to improve prostate cancer treatments so that they cause less harm and are less invasive for the patient.
“I feel that this is an incredibly exciting prospect for the future of prostate cancer care.”
The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust in London is the first hospital in Europe to recruit a patient to the trial (Getty)
Other potential treatments for localised prostate cancer include active surveillance or monitoring of the cancer and radiation.
The new trial is sponsored by the US company, Procept BioRobotics.
To date, there are more than 25 centres globally recruiting patients for the trial.
The four UK centres are the Royal Marsden, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust and Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.
The trial comes after Health Secretary Wes Streeting said earlier this week he was “surprised” by the decision from scientific advisers to limit prostate cancer screening.
In a draft recommendation, the UK National Screening Committee (UKNSC), which advises the Government, said prostate cancer screening should not be made routinely available for the vast majority of men in the UK.
It said it would not recommend population screening using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test because it “is likely to cause more harm than good”.
Experts are expecting data within two years from a large trial launched by Prostate Cancer UK into whether combining PSA with other tests, such as rapid MRI scans, could lead to a recommendation for population-wide screening.
For now, the committee will put forward only a recommendation to screen men with BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic mutations – which puts them at far higher risk of prostate cancer – every two years, between the ages of 45 and 61.
Main symptoms of prostate cancer
Prostate cancer usually starts to grow on the outer part of the prostate. If this happens, it can cause changes to the way you pee, such as:
finding it difficult to start peeing or straining to pee
having a weak flow of urine
“stop start” peeing
needing to pee urgently or often, or both
feeling like you still need to pee when you’ve just finished
peeing during the night
Other symptoms can include:
erectile dysfunction (being unable to get or keep an erection)
blood in your urine or blood in your semen
lower back pain and losing weight without trying to (these may be symptoms of advanced prostate cancer)
Speaking on Wednesday on BBC Breakfast, Mr Streeting said he was surprised by the decision.
He said: “I’m looking very carefully at why the national screening committee reached that decision.
“I’ve always said these things have got to be based on science and evidence, not on politics.
“But the recommendation did surprise me.
“This is contested. I’ve got people in the prostate cancer community and not just really prominent patients and celebrities and politicians who’ve used their experience and their voice in this debate, but among scientists and researchers.
“This is a draft recommendation. They consult on this for three months, and then we have to make a final decision.
“What I’m going to do is get some of those leading, best scientific voices and competing opinions around the table to thrash this out, to really interrogate the data and make sure that when I come on your programme having made a decision, it’s the right decision for the right reasons, the best evidence and the public can then understand why we’ve made the decision and the scientific community can understand why we’ve made the decision.
“But I am interrogating this data and recommendation because it did surprise me.”
Many experts argue that the PSA test is not very reliable because men with a high PSA level may not have cancer, and some men with cancer have a normal PSA result.
A positive test result may lead to unnecessary treatment for slow-growing or harmless tumours, leaving men at risk of side effects such as incontinence and erectile dysfunction.
But others argue that current evidence supports wider testing.
The Homeless Prevention Program provides portable rent supplements and support services to individuals in identified at-risk groups facing homelessness.
About the program
The Homeless Prevention Program is an initiative aimed at providing individuals in identified at-risk groups facing homelessness with portable rent supplements and support services to help them access rental housing in the private (non-subsidized) housing market.
The rent supplements and support services help recipients access rental housing in the private (non-subsidized) housing market and community-based services.
The Homeless Prevention Program operates, in many instances, as an enhancement to the existing Homeless Outreach Program / Indigenous Homeless Outreach Programs and targets individuals at transition points that put them at greater risk of homelessness.
Cost: None. Services are free.
Am I eligible?
To be eligible, you (or someone you know) are at immediate risk of homelessness. This includes:
Youth transitioning out of foster care
Women who have experienced violence or are at risk of violence
Individuals leaving the correctional or hospital systems
Individuals of Indigenous descent
Age
Rent supplements are for eligible individuals aged 19 years and older
Dental care remains a critical yet often overlooked component of overall health, with millions in Canada and the United States unable to afford basic services. For low-income individuals, the high cost of dental care exacerbates health inequities, perpetuates cycles of poverty, and strains public health systems. This article examines the systemic barriers to affordable oral health care in both countries, highlighting policy gaps, socioeconomic disparities, and the human toll of unmet dental needs.
The Canadian Context: Progress and Persistent Gaps
In Canada, approximately one-third of residents lack dental insurance, and one in four avoid dental visits due to cost, often leading to preventable complications like infections, cardiovascular issues, and diabetes-related problems. Recognizing this crisis, the federal government launched the Canadian Dental Care Plan (CDCP) in 2023, targeting uninsured households earning under 90,000 its phased rollout has left gaps. For example, adults aged 18–64 must wait until 2025 to apply, prolonging financial strain for many.
Despite these efforts, challenges persist. The CDCP’s “payer of last resort” model does not fully address accessibility barriers, such as rural “dental deserts” or provider shortages in marginalized communities. Additionally, Canada’s reliance on employer-sponsored insurance—covering 76% of insured individuals—leaves low-income workers, gig economy employees, and Indigenous populations disproportionately uninsured.
The U.S. Crisis: A Landscape of Inequity
In the U.S., over 76.5 million Americans lack dental insurance, with disparities starkly divided along racial and economic lines 5. Black and Hispanic adults are 68% and 52% more likely, respectively, to have unmet dental needs compared to white Americans, while rural residents face severe provider shortages—Alaska, Montana, and North Dakota have the highest rates of “dental deserts”. Medicaid, the primary safety net, often limits adult coverage to emergency extractions, leaving preventive care inaccessible. Even insured individuals face high deductibles and annual caps, forcing many to delay treatment until crises arise.
The consequences are dire. Poor oral health contributes to lost productivity (4.15 million workdays missed annually) and unnecessary emergency room visits, costing the U.S. healthcare system $1.8 billion in 2017 alone. Vulnerable groups, including veterans and low-income families, endure higher rates of periodontal disease and tooth loss, further entrenching health inequities.
Structural Barriers and Systemic Failures
Both nations grapple with systemic issues that compound affordability challenges:
Geographic Disparities: Rural areas in the U.S. and Canada suffer from dentist shortages, with rural Canada relying on fly-in clinics and the U.S. facing a ratio of one dentist per 3,850 rural residents.
Racial and Economic Inequities: Marginalized communities, including immigrants and people of color, face discrimination, language barriers, and limited access to culturally competent care.
Policy Limitations: Canada’s CDCP excludes those with employer insurance, while the U.S. lacks a federal dental program, relying on fragmented state-level Medicaid policies.
Toward Equitable Solutions
Addressing this crisis requires bold policy reforms. Canada’s CDCP, though imperfect, represents a step toward universal coverage, but advocates argue for a federally funded agency to standardize care and close gaps. In the U.S., expanding Medicaid dental benefits and incentivizing providers to work in underserved areas could mitigate disparities. Both nations must prioritize integrating oral health into primary care and addressing social determinants like poverty and education.
Conclusion
The unaffordability of dental care in North America is not merely a health issue but a moral failing. While Canada’s CDCP offers hope, its success hinges on addressing accessibility and inclusivity. In the U.S., systemic overhaul is urgently needed to ensure oral health is treated as a fundamental right. Until then, millions will continue to suffer needlessly, their pain a testament to the enduring divide between privilege and poverty.
Central Heights Church in Abbotsford is planning a 30-bed emergency shelter for older adults. Ben Lypka/Abbotsford News file
Listen to this article by accessing the above player.
A 30-bed emergency shelter for older adults is being planned at Central Heights Church in Abbotsford.
The plan came before city council on Tuesday afternoon (Feb. 25), when a temporary-use permit and housing agreement were approved.
A staff report to council states that 30 individual “sleeping units” will be provided in an existing building on the church property at 1661 McCallum Rd.
That area at the north end of the building has been operating by Sparrow Community Services Society as a severe weather shelter for older adults.
A letter to the city from BC Housing in September 2024 states that in order to accommodate the emergency shelter, the building will be renovated to include sufficient washroom and shower facilities, accessible entry and operator spaces.
The space is expected to be completed this winter.
The Central Heights Church Shelter will continue to be run by Sparrow – which serves older adults (50+) who are at risk of homelessness – under an agreement with BC Housing.
Support services will be provided 24/7 under the Homelessness Encampment Action Response Temporary Housing (HEARTH) and Homelessness Encampment Action Response Team (HEART) programs.
The staff report to council says a temporary-use permit was required to accommodate the proposed use as it abuts an existing residential use.
The permit will be valid for three years, with the opportunity to request one three-year extension.
The housing agreement includes that the operators must form a good neighbour committee with monthly meetings for the first four months and then on an as-needed basis.
The operators must also provide support services – directly or through referrals – such as life-skills training, counselling and substance-use services.
They must also at least have two staff on site 24/7, and ensure that guests “do not disturb the peace, quiet and enjoyment of the neighbourhood.”
The project has drawn support from Fraser Health and the Abbotsford Police Department, which states that the current services offered at the site have required fewer police resources than comparable facilities.
The city says there are currently 40 encampments and more than 400 unhoused individuals across Abbotsford.
Market Necessity: In areas with severe housing shortages, slumlords may provide the only available option for low-income individuals, preventing homelessness.
Economic Realities: Some landlords claim they cannot improve properties without raising rents, which could displace tenants. Low-income tenants might prioritize cost over quality due to limited options.
Criticisms of Slumlords as a Blight:
Exploitative Practices: Charging high rents for substandard housing capitalizes on tenants’ desperation, often violating health/safety codes.
Health and Safety Risks: Poor conditions (e.g., mold, pests, structural issues) harm physical and mental health, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities.
Moral Concerns: Profiting from inadequate housing perpetuates inequality and dehumanizes tenants, prioritizing profit over human dignity.
Community Impact: Neglected properties contribute to neighborhood blight, reducing investment and perpetuating cycles of poverty.
Systemic Context:
Root Causes: Slumlords thrive in systems with inadequate affordable housing, weak regulation, and income inequality. They are a symptom of broader failures in housing policy.
Regulatory Gaps: Weak enforcement of housing standards allows slumlords to operate, while insufficient subsidies or public housing leave tenants with few alternatives.
Conclusion:
Slumlords are primarily a blight, exacerbating poverty and inequality through exploitation and neglect. While they may fill a temporary gap in housing supply, their practices harm individuals and communities. Addressing the issue requires systemic solutions:
Ethical Alternatives: Promote public housing, rent control, and community land trusts to provide dignified, sustainable housing.
Ultimately, the existence of slumlords underscores the need for structural reforms rather than tolerating exploitative stopgaps.
slumlords provide affordable housing. In many cities, there’s a shortage of affordable housing, so even if the housing is substandard, it might be the only option for low-income individuals or families. Without these slumlords, maybe there would be even fewer options, leading to homelessness. But then, the counterargument is that the conditions in these properties are terrible, possibly violating health and safety codes. So even if it’s affordable, is it acceptable for people to live in such conditions?
You’ve highlighted a critical tension in the debate about slumlords and affordable housing: the trade-off between availability and quality. Let’s break this down further:
The Argument That Slumlords Provide Affordable Housing:
Housing Shortages: In many cities, affordable housing is scarce due to rising costs, gentrification, and insufficient public housing. Slumlords fill a gap by offering low-cost options, even if the conditions are poor.
Preventing Homelessness: For some low-income individuals or families, substandard housing may be the only alternative to living on the streets or in shelters, which can be even more precarious.
Market Realities: Slumlords often operate in neighborhoods where property values are low, and the cost of maintaining or improving housing exceeds what tenants can pay. Without them, these properties might remain vacant or be redeveloped into unaffordable housing.
The Counterargument: Unacceptable Living Conditions:
Health and Safety Risks: Substandard housing often violates health and safety codes, exposing tenants to hazards like mold, lead paint, pests, faulty wiring, and structural instability. These conditions can lead to serious health problems, especially for vulnerable populations like children and the elderly.
Exploitation: Slumlords often charge rents that are disproportionately high relative to the quality of the housing, exploiting tenants who have no other options.
Moral and Ethical Concerns: Allowing people to live in such conditions raises ethical questions about dignity and human rights. Affordable housing should not come at the cost of basic safety and well-being.
Long-Term Costs: Poor housing conditions can perpetuate cycles of poverty by affecting tenants’ health, education, and employment opportunities, ultimately costing society more in healthcare, social services, and lost productivity.
The Broader Systemic Issue:
The existence of slumlords is a symptom of deeper systemic failures:
Lack of Affordable Housing: Governments and private developers have not built enough affordable housing to meet demand, leaving low-income individuals with few options.
Weak Regulation and Enforcement: In many places, housing codes are not strictly enforced, allowing slumlords to operate with impunity.
Economic Inequality: Rising income inequality and stagnant wages make it difficult for many people to afford decent housing, forcing them into substandard options.
Is It Acceptable?
While slumlords may provide a temporary solution to housing shortages, the conditions they offer are fundamentally unacceptable. Affordable housing should not come at the cost of health, safety, or dignity. The solution lies in addressing the root causes of the problem:
Policy Solutions: Governments should invest in affordable housing, enforce stricter housing codes, and provide subsidies or incentives for landlords to improve properties.
Community Initiatives: Nonprofits and community land trusts can develop and maintain affordable, high-quality housing for low-income residents.
Tenant Protections: Stronger tenant rights and rent control measures can prevent exploitation and ensure that housing remains affordable and habitable.
In conclusion, while slumlords may fill a gap in the short term, their existence is a symptom of systemic failures that need to be addressed. Affordable housing should not mean substandard housing, and society must strive to provide safe, dignified living conditions for all.
Getting a loan without a job can be challenging, but it’s not impossible. Lenders typically look for a stable source of income to ensure you can repay the loan. However, if you don’t have a job, you may still qualify for a loan if you can demonstrate other sources of income or assets. Here are some options to consider:
1. Show Alternative Income Sources
If you don’t have a traditional job, you may still have income from other sources. Lenders may accept:
Government benefits (e.g., Social Security, disability, or unemployment benefits).
Retirement or pension payments.
Rental income from properties you own.
Alimony or child support.
Freelance or gig economy work (e.g., Uber, DoorDash, freelance writing).
Investments or dividends.
Be prepared to provide documentation, such as bank statements or tax returns, to prove these income sources.
2. Use Collateral for a Secured Loan
If you have valuable assets, you can apply for a secured loan, which uses collateral to reduce the lender’s risk. Examples include:
Home equity loans or lines of credit (if you own a home).
Auto title loans (using your car as collateral).
Secured personal loans (using savings accounts, jewelry, or other assets).
Be cautious with secured loans, as you could lose the asset if you fail to repay.
3. Get a Co-Signer
A co-signer with a stable income and good credit can help you qualify for a loan. The co-signer agrees to repay the loan if you can’t, which reduces the lender’s risk. This can be a family member or close friend who trusts you to make payments.
4. Consider a Payday Alternative Loan (PAL)
Some credit unions offer Payday Alternative Loans (PALs), which are small, short-term loans designed for borrowers with limited income. These loans typically have lower interest rates than traditional payday loans.
5. Explore Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Lending
Peer-to-peer lending platforms connect borrowers with individual investors. These platforms may have more flexible requirements than traditional banks. Examples include LendingClub and Prosper.
6. Borrow from Family or Friends
If traditional lenders aren’t an option, consider asking family or friends for a loan. Be sure to formalize the agreement with a written contract to avoid misunderstandings.
7. Improve Your Credit Score
A strong credit score can increase your chances of getting approved for a loan, even without a job. Pay down existing debt, make payments on time, and check your credit report for errors.
8. Look for No-Income-Verification Loans
Some lenders offer no-income-verification loans, but these often come with high interest rates and fees. Be cautious, as they can lead to a cycle of debt.
Sackcloth money bag with loan inscription and metal coins
9. Use a Credit Card or Line of Credit
If you already have a credit card, you can use it for cash advances or purchases. Alternatively, you may qualify for a new credit card or line of credit based on your credit history.
10. Consider Nonprofit or Community Assistance
Some nonprofits and community organizations offer low-interest or no-interest loans to individuals in need. These programs are often designed to help people cover emergency expenses.
Important Tips:
Avoid Predatory Lenders: Be wary of payday loans or high-interest loans that can trap you in debt.
Compare Options: Shop around for the best terms and interest rates.
Have a Repayment Plan: Make sure you can afford the loan payments, even without a job.
If you’re struggling financially, consider reaching out to a financial counselor or nonprofit organization for guidance.
Introduction In cities worldwide, the visibility of homelessness often prompts punitive measures, including arrests for offenses like sleeping in public or loitering. However, jailing homeless individuals is a counterproductive approach that exacerbates systemic issues rather than resolving them. This article explores why criminalizing homelessness is ineffective, inhumane, and costly, while advocating for evidence-based alternatives.
1. The Ethical Failure of Punishing Poverty Homelessness is rarely a choice. Systemic factors such as unaffordable housing, wage stagnation, mental illness, and lack of healthcare drive individuals into homelessness. Criminalizing these circumstances is inherently unjust, punishing people for conditions beyond their control. As the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Housing noted, laws targeting homelessness often violate human rights by discriminating against the poor. Jailing vulnerable populations ignores the root causes of homelessness, perpetuating cycles of marginalization.
2. Financial Costs: Jails vs. Solutions Incarceration is expensive. The average annual cost to incarcerate one person in the U.S. exceeds 35,000,whereas providing permanent supportive housing—a proven solution—costs roughly 20,000–$25,000 per person annually. Cities like Houston and Salt Lake City have reduced chronic homelessness by up to 90% through Housing First initiatives, which prioritize housing without preconditions. Taxpayer dollars spent on jails could instead fund housing, mental health services, and job training, generating long-term societal savings.
3. Overburdening the Legal System Arresting homeless individuals for minor offenses clogs courts and jails, diverting resources from serious crimes. In Los Angeles, for example, homeless individuals are disproportionately cited for low-level violations, straining law enforcement and judicial systems. A 2019 study found that 11% of LA County Jail inmates were homeless, highlighting how incarceration becomes a revolving door for those without stable housing.
4. Public Health and Safety Concerns Jails are ill-equipped to address the complex needs of homeless populations, particularly those with mental health or substance use disorders. Incarceration often worsens these conditions, leading to higher relapse rates and vulnerability upon release. Conversely, access to healthcare, counseling, and harm reduction programs has proven more effective in improving outcomes. A 2020 study in Health Affairs found that supportive housing reduced emergency room visits by 40% among chronically homeless individuals.
5. The Cycle of Criminalization A criminal record creates barriers to employment, housing, and benefits, trapping individuals in homelessness. For example, a 2018 report by the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty revealed that 70% of U.S. cities ban camping in public, pushing homeless populations into further isolation and legal jeopardy. This punitive approach undermines trust in institutions, discouraging people from seeking help.
6. Alternatives That Work Successful models emphasize dignity and support:
Housing First: Provides immediate housing with wraparound services, showing a 99% retention rate in Denver.
Mental Health Courts: Divert individuals to treatment instead of jail, reducing recidivism by 58% (Council of State Governments).
Outreach Programs: Cities like San Diego employ teams to connect homeless individuals with services, reducing street homelessness by 14% in two years.
Conclusion Jailing homeless people is a costly, short-sighted strategy that deepens societal inequities. Compassionate policies addressing root causes—affordable housing, healthcare access, and economic support—offer a sustainable path forward. As a society, we must choose investment over punishment, recognizing that homelessness is not a crime but a systemic failure demanding urgent, humane solutions.
References:
United Nations Human Rights Council, “Report on Adequate Housing” (2016)
National Alliance to End Homelessness, Cost Studies (2021)
Journal of the American Medical Association, “Health Outcomes and Housing First” (2020)
U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, Housing First Evidence (2023)
Vancouver has been hit with a lawsuit over what human rights advocates call the city’s “cruel, dehumanizing, and deadly” daytime ban on homeless outdoor sheltering. Kier Junos has more.
The BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) says it is taking the City of Vancouver to court on behalf of unhoused people affected by a ban on daytime shelters.
Calling the ban “cruel, dehumanizing, and deadly,” the association is challenging the city bylaws that make it illegal for unhoused people to shelter outdoors during the day.
“Unhoused people deserve to have their government treat them with dignity and respect,” the BCCLA said. “Instead, many municipalities choose to enforce bans on daytime sheltering with callous cruelty by forcing people to either carry their belongings around all day or be violently decamped if they try to shelter.”
According to the group, unhoused people in Vancouver are subject to constant harassment, surveillance, and violence. In its enforcement of the ban, the association says, the city engages in daily street sweeps that destroy people’s personal belongings, including tents, sleeping bags, and medications.
The city’s website says unhoused people are permitted to set up temporary shelters in parks from dusk to dawn but they must be removed at sunrise “to make parks available to support the health and well-being of the whole community.”
In a statement, the city says it can’t comment on matters before the courts, but confirmed staff will review the legal documentation once it is received.
The liberties association says it is “impossible” for those with physical or mental disabilities to set up and take down their shelter daily and then carry it throughout the day.
Jason Rondeau, one of the plaintiffs, was living on the streets for five years until recently when he got into social housing in the Downtown Eastside.
“For myself, it’s not really affecting me anymore because I am housed now,” Rondeau said.
“But I’ve got a lot of friends out there who are still in the thick of it, and their life is hard. Without the sweeps, their life is already hard.”
Vibert Jack, litigation director for the BCCLA, says the lawsuit will also address city bylaws that govern tents on the sidewalk.
“The courts have said already that these types of bylaws are unenforceable at night because it makes it impossible for people to sleep overnight in shelter,” Jack said.
“Our position is the same logic applies during the day.”
For three years, CRAB Park in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside was the only place in the city where unhoused people could legally camp in the daytime. This was closed late last year.
Now if you’re an unhoused person and you want to camp overnight in a Vancouver Park, you have to take down your tent every morning at 8 a.m.
In its claim, the BCCLA says the daytime shelter ban violates three separate sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in that it subjects citizens to “extreme cruelty,” puts peoples’ safety, security, and survival at risk, and threatens equality rights of diverse people, including those with disabilities.
With files from Kier Junos and The Canadian Press.
The Canada Disability Benefit (CDB) is set to launch in July 2025 but not much is known about it, yet
(Play Media above to listen to this article)
In July 2025, a new era dawns for Canadians with disabilities. The Canada Disability Benefit (CDB) is set to launch, promising a much-needed financial lifeline for adults aged 18 to 64. It’s a significant shift in how the government approaches disability support, but the devil, as they say, is in the details.
The CDB will offer a maximum annual payment of $2,400 – that’s $200 a month – for the initial period from July 2025 to June 2026. Think of it as a foundational layer, a structured payment designed to ease the crushing financial weight many disabled Canadians carry. It’s a far cry from a silver bullet, however.
——————–
Before the CDB, the landscape was a patchwork quilt of provincial programs and the Canada Pension Plan Disability (CPP-D). While helpful, these existing systems often left individuals struggling.
“It won’t make much of a difference, $200 doesn’t go very far these days,” she adds, “If the government really wants to make a difference in my life and other disabled people they need to turn $200 into $500,” says Rae-Darlene Lavoie, who lives with Multiple Sclerosis and is wheelchair bound.
Many provincial programs are notoriously stingy, imposing restrictive eligibility criteria and offering paltry sums that barely cover the basics. It’s like trying to fill a bathtub with a teaspoon – a Sisyphean task, to say the least.
Amanda MacKenzie, national director of external affairs for March of Dimes Canada, painted a stark picture. She highlighted the pervasive reality of many disabled Canadians living on less than $30,000 annually. This isn’t just a statistic; it’s a reflection of a system that, until now, has fallen short.
The CDB aims for a more equitable, consistent approach, tailoring payments to individual and spousal income. While this is a step in the right direction, critics argue that $200 a month simply isn’t enough to meet the escalating cost of living, especially for those with complex medical needs. The whispers of inadequacy are loud, and advocates are pushing for a substantial increase.
——————–
Service Canada promises detailed application information in Spring 2025. This is good news; clarity is crucial. However, the CDB’s true efficacy hinges on its implementation and the government’s responsiveness to ongoing concerns. Will it alleviate the financial strain, or will it merely offer a palliative, a band-aid on a gaping wound?
The CDB’s arrival coincides with a broader, much-needed conversation about disability rights and financial security. Advocacy groups are pushing for a holistic approach, viewing the CDB as a single piece of a much larger puzzle. They’re clamouring for increased funding for support services, accessible housing, and improved healthcare – all vital components of a truly inclusive society.
The CDB Is both a beacon of hope and a test of the government’s commitment. It’s a starting point, a foundation upon which a more equitable system can be built. But its success depends entirely on continuous dialogue, active listening, and a willingness to adapt and adjust based on the lived experiences of those the benefit is intended to serve.
The journey to true inclusivity is a marathon, not a sprint, and the CDB could mark a significant mile marker, but the race will still be far from over.
Article Originally published by Elliot Lake Today’ Web Site, click here.
