Victoria Greens
Working together for a better Victoria

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Homeless people are pitching tents in our parks. Why this is happening? On Oct. 15, as most Canadians were waking up to the results of the federal election, far too many homeless Canadians were waking up on our streets, in alleyways, under bridges and in our parks.

Probably a few did not wake up at all.

The election results might have overshadowed the results of a three-year battle fought by lawyers Irene Faulkner and Catherine Boies Parker on behalf of a handful of Victoria homeless people. They have obtained a ruling that might do more to protect homeless people than anyone can imagine.

By allowing temporary shelters in our parks, this case will create a highly visible barometer of the level of poverty, dislocation and despair in our cities.

No longer will these problems be hidden under bridges and in back alleys. The ability of the police to roust these people from public view and confiscate their goods will be restrained.

The case is complex, and some will not like it, but it is worth understanding.

The judge did not decide that homeless people have the right to live in our parks. Madame Justice Carol Ross of the B.C. Supreme Court did not decide the government must provide shelter or refuge for homeless people.

She held that a city bylaw, which had the effect of prohibiting homeless people from erecting temporary shelter in parks, violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because enforcement of the bylaw deprived homeless people of life, liberty and security of the person.

How did she get to such a messy result? She found, based on expert reports, testimony of witnesses and the Mayor’s Task Force Report on Homelessness, that Victoria had more than 1,000 homeless.

We had only 104 shelter beds, expanding to 326 beds in extreme weather conditions. Hundreds of homeless people are having to sleep in public spaces in the city every night.

Some of the homeless are children under 16, and young people. Victoria’s shelters do not accept children. Forty per cent of the homeless suffer from diagnosable mental illness. Fifty per cent have problematic substance abuse. Twenty-five per cent of the homeless suffer from both mental illness and substance abuse combined.

Not surprisingly, many homeless, when they have been able to get into the crowded shelters, felt unsafe or afraid. There were fights, violence, thefts and disease. These frightening and unsafe conditions are in spite of the wonderful and tireless efforts of many workers and volunteers.

The city bylaw prohibited taking up temporary abode overnight in parks, which the city interpreted as using a tent, stringing a tarp or using a cardboard box or other structure.

Expert testimony established that lack of such rudimentary shelters was causing severe adverse health impacts. These included extremes from sunburn and heat stroke in summer to hypothermia in winter. Lack of adequate sleep was causing or aggravating other illnesses, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, depression and other injuries, as well as generally reducing capacity to function.

Of course, these problems are compounded by the near impossibility of maintaining good health behaviours while homeless, even if mentally sound and non-addicted.

For some of these people, taking shelter under their own tarp or in a small tent will be the difference between life and death, health or illness, safety or risk of violence and abuse.

Any bylaw which would force these people into the open and toward death, illness or danger could not stand against the charter. Not when there is no safe and reliable alternative.

So long as our society does not provide even rudimentary safe shelter for these people, or at least keep them from becoming ill or from dying due to lack of shelter, they cannot be prohibited from looking after themselves by use of a temporary tent or tarp.

That is all they were awarded. Our government is simply not allowed to interfere with this last-ditch attempt to survive and stay healthy. If we give them safe places to go, they will not be allowed to tent in their and our parks. If we draft more bylaws trying to drive them from our parks without giving them safe places to go, we will be violating their rights to life, liberty and security of the person.

We must protect our parks, but not at the expense of these peoples’ lives.

These are our society’s refugees. Let’s at least start with striving to reach the standards of a basic refugee camp. Surely, that will be cleaner, more orderly, more compassionate and more cost effective than what we are doing now.

Many of the homeless do not have a mirror to look into each morning. We do.

Until we give them a place to go, we will have to face them and ourselves each day.

With tough times ahead, there will be more of them. We must judge ourselves and our society by how we treat them.

Perhaps we can judge our mayor and candidates by whether they will spend our money on legal fees appealing this well-reasoned decision, or spend it on rudimentary safe shelter for the homeless.

David Mulroney is a Victoria lawyer.