BC government seeks to define "reasonably available alternate shelter"

Today the provincial government tabled a highly contentious amendment to the Community Charter and the Vancouver Charter which, it alleges, is meant to provide guidance to municipalities on what "available shelter" is supposed to mean pertaining to sheltering municipal bylaws. Here's the link: https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2023HOUS0150-001730

It's generated a furor online, especially among advocates who see it as a mean for the provincial government to override the jurisprudence, which has set the bar quite high for the definition of available shelter. Indeed I can already see it challenged on the grounds that it violates Article 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which of course supersedes provincial legislation. The main issue is that it decides overnight shelter is sufficient; that notion has already been overruled in The Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. Persons Unknown and to be Ascertained. Vague language is also being introduced: for example, it stipulates that services have to be provided at or near shelter, without precising how 'near' that's supposed to mean, and that's a huge issue for people with limited mobility.

That being said, even that would be an improvement over the city of Victoria's definition of "better shelter" which is anything better than a tent on the grass. At least the proposed amendment requires the shelter to provide a meal and a shower, which is more than most shelters currently offer.

Of course this isn't meant to make the amendment look good (it's tepid and of dubious constitutionality), but rather to make this city's approach look bad in contrast. At this rate, city council will have to go back to the drawing board before it's even done negotiating with BC Housing because that's already throwing a wrecking ball into its plan.

I'm looking forward to see how the city's legal team is going to juggle with this newest hot potato.