Province Moves Forward with Controversial Minimum Shelter Amendment

by Devin O’Leary

BC’s Minister of Housing Ravi Kahlon announced last week that a Provincial amendment which defines reasonable alternative shelter requirements that a municipality needs to demonstrate to legally evict people sheltering in tents will be decided on before the end of the month despite controversy. The amendment was introduced on November 6th by Attorney General Niki Sharma to allow courts to approve a decampment if there is available shelter that meeting these criteria:

(a) the person may stay overnight at the shelter,

(b) the person has access to a bathroom and shower at or near the shelter,

(c) the person is offered, without charge, one meal a day at or near the shelter, and

(d) the shelter is staffed when persons are sheltering at the shelter.

The amendment provoked heated criticism, but with two opposing messages. One came from the Union of BC Municipalities who stated that these criteria would make it too difficult for local governments to dismantle tent cities because no city has enough shelters or housing for the number of unhoused people. In their eyes, this bill will be a major protection for those sheltering outdoors because cities don’t believe they can meet this minimum requirement. The Housing Minister stated that the Province has the money to fund these spaces if cities would agree on suitable spaces.   

On the other hand, a group of 155 lawyers and housing advocates signed a letter opposing the amendment on the grounds that it would make tent evictions easier for local governments. Some pointed out that under the Province’s definition, a 24-hour Tim Horton’s could qualify as alternative shelter. It also ignores the rights of people who are unhoused and failed to engage with those affected to ensure that the alternative shelter would be appropriate for their needs and the transition to the space would be dignified. 

In reaction to the undemocratic nature of this decision, The Carnegie Housing Project partnered with the DTES Emergency Response Hub to check in with folks who have used the shelter system to let them know about the amendment and find out what they think a reasonable alternative shelter requires. So far, we have received 145 responses from the community outlining the current issues with Vancouver shelters and making it clear that the minimum definition set by the Province would put folks in dangerous situations. Many respondents stated that it was the unsafe conditions that led them to choose sheltering outside. 

The top responses for minimum shelter requirements were:

1. Longer hours of operation and maximum permitted length of stay

2. Clean and bug-free facilities

3. Storage for belongings

4. Better security and safety

5. Well-trained staff with skills in crisis management, preferably with lived experience

6. Housing advocacy

7. More privacy

8. Good food

9. More locations

10. More couples spaces

There were another 26 common answers that were taken from detailed accounts of shelter experiences, indicating that people’s shelter and housing needs are quite extensive and setting an arbitrary minimum, especially at the abysmal standard defined by the Province, is likely to lead to more violent and dehumanizing experiences than what people are already subjected to. 

It is our recommendation that the Province and City of Vancouver not evict people sheltering in tents and instead meet with folks to explore multiple options for rapidly increasing housing and shelter spaces in the DTES that people want. Our government has a responsibility to empower those harmed by the current housing system to participate in creating spaces that are safe and dignified. For a full list of the Carnegie Housing Project’s immediate housing recommendations, email carnegiehousingproject@gmail.com