It should come as a surprise to nobody that Canada has one of the colder climates in the world. It ranks number three after Antartica and Russia.
As for for cities in Canada, a 2018 survey of temperatures ranked Sudbury, Ontario as sixth coldest in the country.
Given these facts, it might be a surprise to hear a Sudbury city councillor suggesting that people who experience homelessness could be flocking there to overwhelm their limited support capacity. But it’s not a surprise, because it’s not uncommon for protective councillors to imagine that their city’s supposedly superior amenities will be an irresistible attraction. That’s good when it’s bringing in tourists, but not when it attracts people who are experiencing homelessness.
The unsurprising solution. Put a “cap” on services.
These kinds of local homelessness issues are not unusual in Canada, or in the rest of the world for that matter. Recently, we posted an article about another frosty Canadian city1 that was further hardening its “cap” on services by a series of indignities aimed at people who are experiencing homelessness there. Those were/are clearly punitive, going as far as to forbid them from gathering firewood except at the local dump.
But the Sudbury councillor has valid points to make: for one, her awareness that her voicing considerations of a “cap” on services might be poorly received. Another is a legitimate worry that financing a national homeless problem cannot come from a local bottomless well, even in the depths of winter.
In 2018 we published a story from the northwest United States of a well intentioned civic initiative in winter. It most specifically and publicly attempted to operate without a cap. And yes, indeed, a local solution become at least a regional one. The homeless did flock, eventually “breaking the bank” and forcing Portland, Oregon to draw in its admirable, humanitarian horns2.
There is a sensible conclusion to draw from a threat that is shared nationally but impacts locally. A shifting tide of homeless citizens can only be effectively addressed by a coordinated national response with funds that are gathered from across the country and doled out regionally as needed. Shifts in population need to be addressed by a managed federal response of acceptance and accommodation. Leaving homelessness to the poverty of local resources, even when enhanced with extra federal dollars, seems inevitably to lead to fear and inhumanity.
Back in Canada, it is encouraging to see leadership from the Federal government, through Reaching Home, a program that is dedicated to reducing homelessness. The federal government has designated Sudbury, and about 70 other communities (ranging from large cities to rural and remote centres), to lead local homelessness responses. Along with the designation comes funding. Sudbury’s task: to coordinate support assistance to people in the area who experience chronic homelessness3 to move to permanent housing. Still, as one Councillor was moved to ask at the meeting: is the funding, whether local or federal, enough?
Read more about the coming winter crisis shared by the City of Sudbury and its homeless concerns, plus a tiny bonus of good news, from the CBC: Sudbury city council approves plan for several projects to tackle homelessness. . . and . . . 9-year-old from Sudbury raises funds to help homeless people
Footnotes
- Try: Alberta Enemies: Homeless Workers. Homeless Yourself? Tough Shit
- Try: Portland’s Local “Right To Shelter” Couldn’t Drain A National Ocean Of Homelessness
- In Canada, Chronic homelessness refers to people who have multiple episodes of homelessness and/or are homeless for an extended period of time
