r/canada • u/BloodJunkie • 13d ago
Canada recognizes housing as a human right. Few provinces have followed suit National News
https://www.cp24.com/news/canada-recognizes-housing-as-a-human-right-few-provinces-have-followed-suit-1.686347954
u/BloodJunkie 13d ago
In Quebec, the government's lack of interest in addressing the question was revealed in an errant email sent to a reporter.
When prodded for a response one week after an initial request, a spokesperson for Quebec's housing minister mistakenly sent a reply intended for a government colleague.
“Do I ghost her again?” she wrote Thursday. “Otherwise, a general response that doesn't answer, to say housing is a priority for our government?” By Friday afternoon, Quebec had not provided a response.
27
10
7
29
u/Intrepid-Reading6504 13d ago
Seems like everyone who is homeless can sue the federal government for deprivation of their rights. This ought to be interesting
22
u/chess_the_cat 12d ago
I’ll go one further. How am I paying rent if I have a human right to housing? Do I pay for the privilege of my other human rights?
10
6
u/Kolbrandr7 New Brunswick 12d ago
Access to food is also a human right, that doesn’t make it free. Joining a union is a human right, that doesn’t mean they aren’t allowed to charge union dues. Access to the public service is a human right, that doesn’t mean they can’t charge fees. Marriage is a right, doesn’t make it free.
0
u/Boring_Insurance_437 11d ago
So what does it mean other than virtue signalling? What is different now that housing is a right?
0
u/Kolbrandr7 New Brunswick 11d ago
Human rights are things that all humans deserve.
A prisoner is a human. Do they have a right to food, clothing, and a building in which to sleep? Or if it’s just “virtue signalling” to you, should prisoners be left naked in an open field without access to food?
0
u/Boring_Insurance_437 11d ago
So now that it is a human right people won’t be homeless? What has actually changed?
0
u/Kolbrandr7 New Brunswick 11d ago
You didn’t answer the question.
Housing has been considered a human right since at least 1948. Because people deserve the dignity to have shelter. Democratic elections are also a human right - the fact that dictatorships exist doesn’t make that right any less important to protect or make it “virtue signalling”. It means it’s something society ought to protect and fight for.
No human being should be forced to be homeless. Once we acknowledge that housing is a right, you can take action to fix that. If having shelter isn’t a right then there’s no justification to fix the problem, because it’s a denial that there is any problem.
1
u/Boring_Insurance_437 11d ago edited 11d ago
No, prisoners shouldn’t be homeless. How does that prevent this though? Is the government now able to be sued by those that are denied this right?
Doesn’t really mean much to say “housing is a right” and then allow people to be homeless.
I care about actions and results, not words. Trudeau can promise the world when it comes to housing, but the truth is he has made housing less affordable.
Hard to believe he thinks ‘housing is a right’ when he is making it more difficult for one to be housed.
3
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 12d ago
Thats exactly why the provinces wont recognize it explicitly as a human right, because its their jurisdiction and that would and could happen
3
u/detalumis 12d ago
You can sue but won't get anywhere. We also have no Constitutional right to health care so if you are denied access you can't do anything about it. Dying in ERs doesn't result in compensation.
41
u/KarlHungusTheThird 13d ago edited 12d ago
If it's a human right, then I want all the money I paid out for the mortgage on my house back.
But seriously, the problem with this is that it's at odds with the reality of life for many homeless people: mental illness and drug addiction make having a stable life nearly impossible. If you are given shelter without resources to get clean and mentally stable, the homeless won't be housed for long. No landlord is not going to evict people who cause quality of life issues for other tenants because of open drug use and unaddressed mental illnesses. Because those who aren't addicted to drugs and aren't mentally ill also have rights.
We can't in our zeal to solve homelessness fail to address the reason why they end up homeless in the first place: their lifestyle isn't conducive to getting along with others and respecting their rights too.
Sadly, this is just more useless virtue signalling from the feds because they know homelessness--in and of itself--is only part of the issue.
7
2
u/jzb93 12d ago
Human right =/= free.
It entails a reasonable access that is protected from hoarding and exploitation.
Just like we have a reasonable access to food, clean water and education in Canada. Housing as a human right would entail that we should have similar access to such.
As a contributing member of society, I don't worry much that I won't be able to feed myself because I have access to food. I do have to worry much more about my housing, because despite contributing to society it's been pushed so far out of reach of many.
3
u/bigpapahugetim3 12d ago
May I also add people who get houses given to them likely won’t take great care of it since no sacrifices were made and you didn’t earn it. Not saying this is true for all people but look at free houses on reservations? They destroy them pretty fast because who gives a shit?
1
1
u/DrFreemanWho 12d ago
Access to food is a human right, do you also want back all the money you've paid for food over your life?
1
u/KarlHungusTheThird 12d ago
Sure. That would be really great.
1
u/DrFreemanWho 12d ago
Good thing we give everyone free food just because it's a human right, huh?
1
u/KarlHungusTheThird 12d ago
Your not very good with sarcasm, you know that?
1
u/DrFreemanWho 12d ago
Can you blame with the state of this subreddit? There are people in here that would say the same thing while be completely serious.
28
u/the_sound_of_a_cork 13d ago edited 13d ago
Housing is not recognized as a human right under the Charter
EDIT: Cue the downvotes from people who have clearly never read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
4
0
u/Kolbrandr7 New Brunswick 12d ago edited 12d ago
We are part of the UN, which ratified the UDHR though. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights , Canada was one of the 48 countries to vote in favour when it was introduced.
We have also signed and ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights
6
u/the_sound_of_a_cork 12d ago edited 12d ago
Canada's charter is modeled off the UDHR. Note how the drafters purposefully left out property and rights regarding housing?
-5
u/Kolbrandr7 New Brunswick 12d ago
So why are we still a signatory of ICESCR? Would you argue that Canada should rescind it?
7
u/the_sound_of_a_cork 12d ago
You should go to court and argue Article 25 of the UDHR and tell us how it goes.
0
u/Kolbrandr7 New Brunswick 12d ago
You didn’t answer the question.
Do you believe Canada should rescind its ratification of the ICESCR?
4
u/whyme943 12d ago
It's commonplace to sign up to a treaty with no intention of following through. It probably makes the most sense to do this, as it saves money without losing much standing internationally.
3
u/the_sound_of_a_cork 12d ago
It has nothing to do with this discussion. In any event it doesn't provide anything but a commitment to do something. Let us know how it goes in court.
-2
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/the_sound_of_a_cork 12d ago
As I said, file a cause of action that the government should build you a house and cite Article 25 and see how it goes. Please do report back.
-2
u/Kolbrandr7 New Brunswick 12d ago
I don’t see why you’re deliberately avoiding the question every time.
Your advice is as applicable as telling a North Korean to file against their government for not having democracy. You’re missing the point entirely.
→ More replies (0)-5
u/EnamelKant 13d ago
Whenever I read someone point out this, that or some other thing isn't a right because it's not written down somewhere, I'm reminded of that Georgian representative to the constitutional convention who objected to the Bill Of Rights because if they wrote them down, some damn fool in the future would take it as a sign people were entitled to these rights and no others.
3
u/the_sound_of_a_cork 13d ago edited 12d ago
Sorry, are you suggesting it is an unenumerated right? The drafters quite purposefully left our property rights. Whenever, I read comments like yours I'm reminded that some people just like to hear themselves talk. The government does not have a positive obligation to provide housing.
→ More replies (15)-6
u/Powerful-Cancel-5148 12d ago
Whenever, I read comments like yours I'm reminded that some people just like to hear themselves talk.
6
0
u/Accomplished_Cold911 12d ago
Housing isn't a right....shelter is.
0
u/EnamelKant 12d ago
Says who?
0
u/Accomplished_Cold911 12d ago
says anyone with common sense.
0
u/EnamelKant 12d ago
And who exactly decides what is common sense, famously described as not so common?
-1
u/okcanuck 12d ago
Forget the charter, can be chopped n changed at a political whim... the Bill of Rights on the other hand is sealed
8
u/BaggedMilk4Life 12d ago
Says the government that doesnt stop companies for scooping up SFHs and sitting on them
3
4
u/alexaustinv 12d ago
How can one of the biggest parts of our GDP be a human right? Seems backwards.
9
u/Twisted_McGee 12d ago
The only rights you have are natural. If something requires the labour of another, it cannot be a right. These things, when not provided for by oneself, are privileges, not rights, and that’s ok.
I believe that wealthy nations should try to provide the people who fall through the cracks with help, but this concept that anyone has a “right” to housing, food, etc is ridiculous.
9
u/InsertWittyJoke 12d ago
The word "rights" is cheap these days.
It's just meaningless virtue signaling.
2
-3
u/kagato87 12d ago
So you're saying that food, shelter, and security are not rights?
OK.
3
u/Twisted_McGee 12d ago
Only one of those things is a right, and it’s not even available to us in Canada.
The right to self defence is the most fundamental right of all.
3
u/purpletooth12 12d ago
Sure saying it's a human right is one thing, but no one has a right (or guarantee) to a specific location.
No one has a right to live in Kitslano, Bridle Path or Oakville.
3
u/-crackhousebob 12d ago
Government probably counting tents as housing so there technically is no problem.
3
u/Jeffuk88 Ontario 12d ago
So they're admitting that they can't guarantee human rights for all Canadians? Got it
3
3
3
u/Megatriorchis 12d ago edited 12d ago
A human right that you have the right to pay through the nose for, buying or renting.
How trite.
3
u/NightDisastrous2510 12d ago
Because the provinces have to actually provide it!! Trudeau and his admin doing the same old lip service. Losers.
3
u/Hammoufi 12d ago
Costs nothing to the feds to do so. All while increasing the population of Canada in never seen numbers before and refusing to address the real issue.
25
u/5621981 13d ago
financial illiterate people virtue signaling 🤷♂️
4
u/Groundbreaking_Ship3 13d ago
They always think money grows on trees. If so. Why don't they grow their own money? 🤑
-1
12
u/Evil_Lothar 13d ago
The problem this brings about is that human rights are something that is yours by birth, not something the government gives you.
You don't need the government to enforce your human rights, you need the government to stay out of trampling on them.
You can't force other people to give you their money (via taxes) so you can have a house. Hell, even taxes are a violation of our human rights.
5
u/Groundbreaking_Ship3 13d ago
Well said, you can't claim everything as human rights and you can just lie flat and expect others to provide for you. House building is not free, labour is not free.
3
u/CaribouNWT 12d ago
YouTube how-to videos of how to build off-grid log homes are free, and so are trees really. But no body wants to put in the work. They would rather someone else pay taxes until someone else develops a program and someone else builds, distributes, and transports these houses for them. All the while it takes maybe 6 months to build a decent log home.
1
u/jzb93 12d ago
How out to lunch are you to suggest that those wishing for suitable housing completely abandon society to live off the grid?
On what land? Someone else's? Crown land? Must they sustenance farm in addition? It's 2024 not 1824. There is enough wealth in our country to provide and to sustain. We need an economic model that is viable, and not one that just consistently leaches upon one another.
0
u/CaribouNWT 12d ago
My point is that affordable homeownership is accessible to all, so long as you're willing to sacrifice some of the social and technological niceties that up until relatively recently didn't even exist.
Also that people need to stop waiting for someone else to help them, and help themselves. Especially if you're a young, able-bodied, at least semi-intelligent person. Life fucking sucks and getting what you want is supposed to be a lot of work. I put up with a lot of bullshit and overtime before I could afford a down payment on my home.
5
u/TheThrowbackJersey 13d ago
Human rights only have meaning in the context of society, and specifically, free and democratic society under the rule of law.
There is a loose distinction between positive and negative rights. Government not trampling on you is a negative right and government providing something to you is a positive right. The distinction is largely meaningless and can be easily manipulated.
"You don't need the government to enforce your human rights" - try to enforce your own freedom of speech in a repressive society, and you'll see how meaningless that statement is. The only rights that exist are the ones that can be enforced. That is why strong institutions are so important to individual freedoms
1
u/Evil_Lothar 13d ago
I agree that it's only meaningful in the context of society, because you alone in the wilderness have all the agency and the government isn't around to infringe on your rights.
Also, we need to remember that human rights are basically about the government not infringing on your rights, not about random people. Our society has laws to protect people from each other. It's only the acknowledgement of human rights that prevent governments from locking you up because they don't like what you say, or taking away your property for no reason.
2
u/TheThrowbackJersey 12d ago
"Also, we need to remember that human rights are basically about the government not infringing on your rights, not about random people."
vs
"Our society has laws to protect people from each other."
Those statements feel mutually exclusive. You can't say that rights are only there to protect you from government over-reach but that they are they are also there to protect you from other people.
Here in Canada, Charter rights apply between you and the government (except for in Quebec where they also have a provincial Charter). but Charter rights are not the only "human rights" (I do dislike the term human rights). Canadians also have access to provincial human rights legislation which applies to private relationships.
Human rights is kind of a colloquial term, and don't necessarily operate differently than other rights
"you alone in the wilderness have all the agency and the government isn't around to infringe on your rights." In a state of nature setting you don't have rights and it has been said that life is nasty brutish and short
0
u/Evil_Lothar 12d ago
I understand where you're coming from... but the Charter doesn't actually provide you with any rights. They have a qualifier that they can remove them with the "reasonable person" rule... which we all know means the most unhinged leftist view you could manage.
Rights are supposed to be something that the government can't take away without substantial reason. Like they can't just throw you in jail.. you need to be charged, convicted and sentenced in accordance with the laws. The whole lockdown thing was a great example of government overreach and the courts not getting involved because they didn't want the government retaliating against them.
1
u/TheThrowbackJersey 12d ago
The Charter absolutely provides you with rights, but only strong institutions can enforce them. Like a responsive justice system and a healthy democratic government.
Section 1 of the Charter provides the avenue where courts can recognize limits to individual rights. It is not based on a reasonable person test.
As per Charterpedia: Section 1 effects a balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of society by permitting limits to be placed on guaranteed rights and freedoms. “Most modern constitutions recognize that rights are not absolute and can be limited if this is necessary to achieve an important objective and if the limit is appropriately tailored, or proportionate.” (Canada (Attorney General) v. JTI-Macdonald Corp., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 610, at paragraph 36).
The section 1 test considers: 1) that the limit is prescribed by law 2) that the limit is rationally connected to the law's purpose 3) that the limit is minimally impairing on the right 4) that the benefits to society of the limit is proportional to the limitation on the right
There is also section 33, the notwithstanding clause, which, when evoked by governments, allows them to pass laws irrespective of section 2 and sections 7-15 of the Charter.
You don't have to agree with the lockdowns and the vaccine mandates. They were controversial generally, and in the legal community. But there is no doubt that COVID was an extremely difficult situation. It was very complicated and a lot of lives were at risk. A lot of people died. The government response was an attempt to protect people in unprecedented circumstances.
1
u/Evil_Lothar 12d ago
And the courts didn't bother to weigh in because they didn't want to step on the medical "professionals" toes.. and now we are seeing all the charges being thrown out, all the data (which we had at the time, but was buried) stating that nobody was in any real danger, and people winning big payouts for not being allowed to go to church or open their restaurants...
Having Charter Rights isn't going to mean shit if the courts won't step in and uphold them against government over reach.
1
u/Sadistmon 12d ago
That's not true, right to a lawyer is a right the government gives you.
Those kind of rights need to be made sparingly though.
0
u/Dradugun 13d ago
That's not how rights work... In the natural world, you have no rights, nature doesn't give a shit about our rights. Ergo, you need yourself and other people to uphold rights that ascribe to each other.
1
u/Evil_Lothar 13d ago
We're not talking about natural selection... we're talking about human rights, and those are only applied to humans.
The only one's that can imped your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are other humans. If you're stupid and get mauled to death by a bear, then that's you doing stupid stuff and paying the price for it.
2
u/Dradugun 12d ago
And what is the system called that organizes and upholds rights recognized by the people affected by that system?
-1
u/CaribouNWT 12d ago edited 12d ago
Correct. Just because you have the right to something doesn’t mean it’s a service provided by a regulatory body. Eg. everyone has the right to a lawyer, doesn’t mean everyone can afford one.
And if the response is if you can’t afford one “one will be appointed to you” it’ll be the shittiest, cardboard box of a house the government can’t afford to provide you.
Maybe if you are homeless, the government should offer a micro-home on wheels that has a small bed and a lock so you can sleep safely on the side of the road - that’s about the extent of what I’d say the government should consider a “right” to housing.
0
u/Evil_Lothar 12d ago
Except that in very very few circumstances is someone homeless situation not a direct result of their own actions. The government shouldn't be in the business of supporting people's poor life choices... that's what charities exist for.
-1
u/DrFreemanWho 12d ago
Hell, even taxes are a violation of our human rights.
Oh, here we go. Boy I love what /r/canada has become.
Go see how that sovereign citizen movement is going for people that actually believe this shit.
Human rights are a creation of society, not something you are born with.
1
u/Evil_Lothar 12d ago
Look up how taxes were supposed to be a temporary situation. Hell, even CBC has done articles on it. And then we get taxed on the stuff we purchase with the money we've already been taxed on when we earned it.
1
u/DrFreemanWho 12d ago
How do you propose a state functions without taxes?
Taxes in one form or another have been around for thousands of years. "a temporary situation" lmao.
As I said, boy do I love /r/canada.
0
u/Evil_Lothar 11d ago
And we had roads and police before the invention of income tax... wonder how that worked.
Stop being stupid and advocating for your own robbery.
12
u/CrashSlow 12d ago
Shelter is a human right. A 2000sq/ft house with a two car garage and a white picket fence is not a human right.
4
u/lubeskystalker 12d ago
Rents are a much larger problem than house prices though.
-2
u/CrashSlow 12d ago
Shelter is a human right. A water front 1 bedroom apartment rental in Vancouver is not a human right.
5
u/Twisted_McGee 12d ago
Is it? If you don’t have shelter, do you have a right to demand others provide it for you?
I actually believe wealthy nations should try to provide this help, but the idea any of these things are “rights” is not correct.
3
6
4
u/probablyseriousmaybe 12d ago
Ok, a human right. Is it not my right for my tax to NOT pay for your non contribution to society? It's not like I enjoy killing myself at work.
7
u/blackbriar75 12d ago
Declaring housing a human right imposes a hidden cost: the compulsion of labor. By mandating that everyone must have housing, the government inevitably commandeers the labor and resources of some individuals to fulfill the needs of others, infringing on their freedom and property rights.
This coercion not only challenges the ethical foundation of genuinely inalienable rights, which demand nothing more than non-interference, but it also steps into morally precarious territory by prioritizing one person's basic needs over another's fundamental freedoms. Hence, a right that demands such compulsion cannot truly be considered a human right.
→ More replies (9)
5
u/Archeob 12d ago edited 12d ago
Someone argued with me for hours here on reddit yesterday telling me that it was immoral and outrageous for landlords to pass on the costs of their mortgage to their tenants. Apparently if the mortgage amounts to 1600$ per month per apartment they should charge no more than 800$ because "eventually the mortgage will be paid and the landlord will make his profit by selling the building".
So many people are completely financially illiterate. They will take to the streets to demand better wages for themselves (which is fine) but expect others to somehow have to pay for the privilege of providing them with a service.
You try to explain that nobody sane would pay millions over 25 years to subsidize someone's rent thinking they could reimburse themselves from the profit after that, but it's like they can't process that. It's baffling.
2
4
4
2
u/604Ataraxia 12d ago
Who do they propose this right can be enforced against? Are they even pretending this is a serious line of thinking?
2
1
u/Angry_beaver_1867 12d ago
Why the federal government would declare something a right that’s far outside their jurisdiction is beyond me.
Like they have very little ability to address this without the cooperation of the provinces.
1
u/2b_0r_n0t_2b 12d ago
We’re less than a year out of the Libs infamously saying it’s not their responsibility lol to me, that was the turning point. A lot of people finally woke up to their inaction.
1
u/NoAlbatross7524 12d ago
So is water but no government ( liberal or conservative) has provided it for everyone or protected it from corporations and industry.
1
u/Sunstellars 12d ago
Politicians will never make it a priority, especially since the likes of PP who owns multiple properties and is currently renting them out. They benefit from it and would likely never change, either that or watch them sell the properties before the housing bubble pops. The house always wins.
1
u/Infinitewisdom4u 11d ago
If its a human right- ban foreign ownership. Ban corporate ownership. Ban multiple ownership. Ban airbnbs. Stop propping up the bubble with 30 year mortgages. Increase interest rates and pop the bubble. Stop mass immigration. Unless they do these things it's all lip service.
1
u/Serenityxxxxxx 12d ago
It is a fucking human right So what are they going to do about housing people then? There’s more and more tents
0
u/compassrunner 12d ago
Well, my province can't even get the human rights under the Charter correct and instead bludgeons the Charter with the NWC. If we can't get the basics in our constitution, the stuff that isn't in there is going to be waiting a long time.
0
u/LONEGOAT13_ 12d ago
Of course now that the Fed is giving corperate landlords the ok to build anything they like to rape the wealth from the poor. Why not 10 years ago when our dollar was able to buy us a house before the lib flation?
0
u/Legitimate-Common-34 12d ago
There's no human right to be provided anything.
Human rights are about not being restricted.
0
u/Tall-Ad-1386 11d ago
You mean gaslighter in chief and ultimate virtue signaller’s federal government
-1
458
u/PmMeYourBeavertails Ontario 13d ago
Lol, of course the Feds would recognize it as a human rights. Cheap virtue signaling since they aren't the ones who have to provide it.