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.
They may be small and swift, but if you notice this tiny silver creature scurrying around your home, you could be facing a significant and costly issue. Experts are advising anyone who spots a silverfish in their property to promptly check for dampness.
These shiny, teardrop-shaped insects thrive in moist conditions and are particularly fond of areas with water.
If you see one darting into or out of your skirting boards or crevices around window sills, it’s likely a sign of damp and moisture within your property. If not addressed, dampness can lead to a host of problems, including cracked bricks, rotting joists, decaying plaster, and spreading mould spores. In extreme cases, it can even compromise the structural integrity of the property and impact air quality.
Dampness can result from various factors, such as leaky drainpipes, condensation, ageing damp proofing, or inadequate ventilation, especially in bathrooms or kitchens where water vapour tends to linger. Identifying the cause can be tricky, but the presence of silverfish indoors usually signals that there’s dampness requiring attention.
Silverfish can be a sign of huge issues -Credit:Getty
The sooner signs of dampness are detected, the easier it will be to eradicate the bugs. It recommends looking for indications on walls like wet or damp patches, peeling wallpaper, and flaking plaster.
Other telltale signs include damp and musty smells, rotting wood, and the emergence of mould and mildew on walls, floors, or ceilings.
Among the proposed remedies are utilising a dehumidifier, maintaining good ventilation in your home, inspecting your gutters for leaks, applying damp-proof paint to your walls and, if necessary, engaging a professional to address areas impacted by rising dampness.
A slumlord is a derogatory term used to describe a landlord who knowingly maintains rental properties in poor or unsafe conditions, often while charging high rents. Slumlords typically neglect necessary repairs, ignore health and safety codes, and exploit tenants, often those in low-income or vulnerable situations who have limited housing options.
Characteristics of a Slumlord:
Poor Property Maintenance: Failing to address issues like leaky roofs, broken heating systems, mold, pest infestations, or structural problems.
Health and Safety Violations: Ignoring building codes, fire safety regulations, or sanitation standards.
Exploitation of Tenants: Charging high rents for substandard housing, often targeting tenants who lack the resources or knowledge to advocate for themselves.
Lack of Responsiveness: Ignoring tenant complaints or requests for repairs.
Illegal Practices: Engaging in unethical or illegal activities, such as wrongful evictions, rent gouging, or refusing to return security deposits.
The Shifting Sands of the Hourglass of World States, is there a Fourth World?
Legal Context in Canada and the US:
Both Canada and the US have laws and regulations to protect tenants from slumlords, but enforcement varies by region.
Canada: Provincial and territorial laws govern rental housing. Tenants can file complaints with local housing authorities or tenant boards if landlords fail to meet their obligations. For example, in Ontario, the Residential Tenancies Act outlines landlord responsibilities, and tenants can seek recourse through the Landlord and Tenant Board.
US: Housing regulations are enforced at the state and local levels. Tenants can report violations to local housing authorities or take legal action. Many cities have tenant rights organizations that assist renters in dealing with slumlords.
Tenant Rights:
Tenants in both countries have the right to:
Live in a safe and habitable environment.
Request necessary repairs.
Withhold rent or take legal action if the landlord fails to address serious issues.
Be free from retaliation for reporting violations.
Addressing Slumlord Practices:
Document Issues: Tenants should keep records of complaints, repairs, and communication with the landlord.
Report Violations: Contact local housing authorities or tenant advocacy groups.
Legal Action: In severe cases, tenants may sue for damages or force the landlord to make repairs.
Slumlords contribute to the broader issue of housing inequality and the lack of affordable, safe housing in many urban areas. Combating their practices requires stronger enforcement of housing laws and increased support for tenants.
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.
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.
One of the more daunting questions related to astrobiology—the search for life in the cosmos—concerns the nature of life itself. For over a century, biologists have known that life on Earth comes down to the basic building blocks of DNA, RNA, and amino acids. What’s more, studies of the fossil record have shown that life has been subject to many evolutionary pathways leading to diverse organisms. At the same time, there is ample evidence that convergence and constraints play a strong role in limiting the types of evolutionary domains life can achieve.
For astrobiologists, this naturally raises questions about extraterrestrial life, which is currently constrained by our limited frame of reference. For instance, can scientists predict what life may be like on other planets based on what is known about life here on Earth? An international team led by researchers from the Santa Fe Institute (SFI) addressed these and other questions in a recent paper. After considering case studies across various fields, they conclude that certain fundamental limits prevent some life forms from existing.
Artist’s impression of Earth during the Archean Eon. Credit: Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
The team considered what an interstellar probe might find if it landed on an exoplanet and began looking for signs of life. How might such a mission recognize life that evolved in a biosphere different from what exists here on Earth? Assuming physical and chemical pre-conditions are required for life to emerge, the odds would likely be much greater. However, the issue becomes far more complex when one looks beyond evolutionary biology and astrobiology to consider synthetic biology and bioengineering.
According to Solé and his team, all of these considerations (taken together) come down to one question: can scientists predict what possible living forms of organization exist beyond what we know from Earth’s biosphere? Between not knowing what to look for and the challenge of synthetic biology, said Solé, this presents a major challenge for astrobiologists:
“The big issue is the detection of biosignatures. Detecting exoplanet atmospheres with the proper resolution is becoming a reality and will improve over the following decades. But how do we define a solid criterion to say that a measured chemical composition is connected to life?
“[Synthetic biology] will be a parallel thread in this adventure. Synthetic life can provide profound clues on what to expect and how likely it is under given conditions. To us, synthetic biology is a powerful way to interrogate nature about the possible.”
The sequence where amino acids and peptides come together to form organic cells. Credit: peptidesciences.com
To investigate these fundamental questions, the team considered case studies from thermodynamics, computation, genetics, cellular development, brain science, ecology, and evolution. They also consider previous research attempting to model evolution based on convergent evolution (different species independently evolve similar traits or behaviors), natural selection, and the limits imposed by a biosphere. From this, said Solé, they identified certain requirements that all lifeforms exhibit:
“We have looked at the most fundamental level: the logic of life across sales, given several informational, physical, and chemical boundaries that seem to be inescapable. Cells as fundamental units, for example, seem to be an expected attractor in terms of structure: vesicles and micelles are automatically formed and allow for the emergence of discrete units.”
The authors also point to historical examples where people predicted some complex features of life that biologists later confirmed. A major example is Erwin Schrödinger’s 1944 book What is Life? in which he predicted that genetic material is an aperiodic crystal—a non-repeating structure that still has a precise arrangement—that encodes information that guides the development of an organism. This proposal inspired James Watson and Francis Crick to conduct research that would lead them to discover the structure of DNA in 1953.
However, said Solé, there is also the work of John von Neumann that was years ahead of the molecular biology revolution. He and his team refer to von Neumann’s “universal constructor” concept, a model for a self-replicating machine based on the logic of cellular life and reproduction. “Life could, in principle, adopt very diverse configurations, but we claim that all life forms will share some inevitable features, such as linear information polymers or the presence of parasites,” Solé summarized.
The first implementation of von Neumann’s self-reproducing universal constructor. Three generations of machines are shown: the second has nearly finished constructing the third. Credit: Wikimedia/Ferkel
In the meantime, he added, much needs to be done before astrobiology can confidently predict what forms life could take in our Universe:
“We propose a set of case studies that cover a broad range of life complexity properties. This provides a well-defined road map to developing the fundamentals. In some cases, such as the inevitability of parasites, the observation is enormously strong, and we have some intuitions about why this happens, but not yet a theoretical argument that is universal. Developing and proving these ideas will require novel connections among diverse fields, from computation and synthetic biology to ecology and evolution.”
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.
Duty to Assist is a homelessness prevention approach that works upstream and uses a human-rights lens. Originating in Wales, it is also known as the Housing (Wales) Act 2014, which created a legal obligation for local authorities, such as governments, to make reasonable efforts to move individuals out of homelessness or stabilize their housing.
The fourth session of the Prevention Matters! series was hosted by Stephen Gaetz from the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness and dug into the details of how Duty to Assist works. Gaetz interviewed Peter Mackie of the Centre for Homelessness Impact at the University of Cardiff who was a key player in the implementation and creation of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. They discussed the implementation of Duty to Assist in the United Kingdom, as well as challenges faced in the process and what Duty to Assist might look like in the Canadian context.
How Does Duty to Assist Work?
Individuals affected by homelessness are eligible for assistance at three stages:
Prevention stage: When an individual is at risk of homelessness, authorities can intervene by trying to address the factors contributing to the risk, such as paying rental arrears or providing a rent subsidy.
Relief stage: After a person’s housing is lost, the authorities can intervene by trying to find them new accommodations.
In the event that both options fail, individuals in priority groups who are covered by previous legislation will have housing secured for them.
Duty to Assist works upstream, meaning that it assists individuals earlier than previous legislation allowed. Those who are at risk of homelessness or have just become homeless can seek out help from local authorities earlier. This allows issues to be addressed in a more timely and cost-effective manner.
According to Mackie, Duty to Assist has proven to be much more effective in the prevention stage. The intervention can be something as simple as paying off arrears or providing first and last month’s rent, which is a much simpler approach than trying to find brand-new accommodation.
“If you are already homeless, to take steps to resolve your homelessness, we’re way less successful there because you don’t have the home to try and keep somebody in.” – Peter Mackie
Challenges with Duty to Assist
While the implementation of Duty to Assist is a win for prevention in Wales, the legislation is still riddled with difficulties that go beyond the homelessness sector. As Promise Busulwa, the producer of Prevention Matters! always says in her opening remarks: “The housing crisis cannot be solved by the homelessness sector alone.” Mackie has written articles outlining the need for “…effective universal prevention to be the foundation of any strategy to end homelessness.” Many of the ongoing issues with the Duty to Assist model are the lack of consolidated, systematic care and collaboration between public bodies and other organizations to address the root causes of homelessness.
“But what we don’t have in the legislation is a requirement that, for instance, a landlord would notify the local authority.” – Peter Mackie
Another challenge noted by Mackie is that people can be hesitant to change. Individuals who are impacted by impending or current homelessness, and who therefore qualify for Duty to Assist, need to be aware of the program itself and request assistance. This has proven to be difficult, especially given that the legislation and the supports offered looked very different prior to the implementation of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. Prior to the implementation of Duty to Assist, the legislation only provided assistance for families with children and other priority groups.
Currently, there is a gap as public institutions, like hospitals and prisons, do not call for assistance from local authorities when releasing an individual into homelessness. Mackie also noted push back about the universal nature of Duty to Assist. Many parties involved in the legislative process pushed to maintain the focus on priority groups, clashing against the universal prevention model that applies to everyone experiencing or at risk of homelessness.
Mackie spoke to the difficulties involved in imposing a “duty” on public bodies that had the power to intervene in the creation of an individual’s homelessness situation. Simply put, these parties could not be mandated to provide assistance because “ somebody is going to fail.” Instead, the legislation mandates a ‘best efforts duty.’ A duty to assist means providing assistance to those who willingly consent to receiving help and are, in return, expected to comply with attempts to provide them with assistance.
“In government, there’s often a reluctance to actually use the word ‘must.’” – Peter Mackie
To combat these challenges, Mackie calls for better data sharing and a more person-centred focus when providing services. As the legislation is currently being revised for what has been coined as “Duty to Assist, Mark II,” Wales aims to have these issues addressed and changes implemented, which involves including a more diverse range of voices. While Mackie expresses frustration with the lack of support both financially and from public systems for Duty to Assist, he does acknowledge that it has been very helpful as Wales traverses a housing crisis.
What Does this Mean for Canada?
While Duty to Assist cannot be precisely replicated in Canada because of the lack of infrastructure, Stephen Gaetz noted it is regarded as a fundable homelessness prevention method by the Government of Canada. Mackie also mentioned that the overall principles of Duty to Assist can be implemented without legislation—although they may be less effective without the legislative aspect—on a community or municipal level. While it would be ideal for there to be legislation to hold public bodies to account, Wales has not experienced any high court cases surrounding the Duty to Assist, leading Mackie to believe that the implementation of the Duty to Assist principles without legislation should be possible.
Mackie recommended implementing Duty to Assist in a community to prove that it works before aiming to scale it upwards, and Gaetz replied this had been in progress before the COVID-19 pandemic. Here’s hoping Duty to Assist gets the chance to prove its value in Canada.
Interested in more diverse perspectives on homelessness prevention? Check out the rest of the Prevention Matters! Series. Want to learn more about Duty to Assist? There is a free, self-paced training on the Homelessness Learning Hub.
Originally published on The World-Wide Web’s Homeless Hub On Monday October 21st, 2024
The analysis and interpretations contained in these blog posts are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness.
