MEDIA RELEASE: Sudbury Refuses to Set Up Emergency Shelter for the Homeless this Winter

City Community Services Committee Refuses to Set Up Emergency Shelter for the Homeless this Winter

It took numerous requests for meetings with city staff and a disruption at the beginning of December 10th city council meeting, but the Sudbury Coalition Against Poverty was finally able to meet with the Community Services Committee to make a report about the need for an emergency homeless shelter and necessary changes to the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI). The Coalition was pleased to be able to present the report, that the committee spent close to an hour discussing anti-poverty matters, and with many of the questions that arose out of the discussion but is very unsatisfied with the motion put forward by the committee that the January 28th city council meeting direct the staff to report back to the Community Services Committee on matters relating to options associated with a harm reduction shelter (which would not be set up for at least 6 months to a year), the possibility of extended hours at the Mission during the winter (this would be as a warming station and not a place where the homeless can sleep), and a review of the Ontario Works (OW) discretionary benefits policy which may lead to the raising of some amounts of funding for household items. The revised version of the City CHPI guidelines that S-CAP produced as part of this report  were entirely ignored in the motion. "The wasting of more time and information gathering rather than taking action now shows an incredible lack of concern for the urgency of the matter," says Clarissa Lassaline.

City staff attempted to deflect concerns about the homeless repeating that the 69 shelter beds in the city have not been filled despite our hearing from homeless people that they have been turned away from the Salvation Army Shelter given they do not have proper ID, authorization from OW, the funds to pay, or are suspected of drinking or using drugs. There are also many reasons why some homeless are unable to make use of existing shelter beds, ranging from health
and safety concerns, disagreement with shelter policies. In the past 15 - 35 people have sought shelter in the Elgin Street Mission during winter nights, and at any time there are between 400 and 1,000 homeless or near homeless people living in Sudbury. Now they can go to the Mission during cold weather alerts and it takes heading out into the cold to find out whether the shelter is open or not. We need an emergency overnight shelter, where anyone and everyone is accepted and able to find space, and it needs to be open throughout the winter not just when the temperature drops below -15 degrees (or -20 with the wind chill). Why does the city not open up the doors of Tom Davies square, allowing people to find shelter in the foyer there. Toronto has initiated a pilot project, opening the doors of Metro Hall as a warming center during cold weather alerts, why should Sudbury not open Tom Davies Square doors throughout the winter? So far the City is continuing to leave some homeless people out in the cold this winter with no place to sleep safely and securely.

The other topic of concern at the meeting was the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI), a program that is supposed to 'consolidate' the now defunct Community Start-Up and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB) with other municipal programs. The problems with CHPI arise due partly to the city's narrow interpretation of the program. In Sudbury the program is being interpreted as dealing only with those who are homeless or at immediate risk of homelessness, so many situations that used to allow people to access the CSUMB fund no longer are being permitted. Councilor Claude Berthiaume rightfully asked why a person who must choose between buying needed furniture and paying the rent is not considered 'at risk of homelessness' and the city staff had few answers other than to blame old policy (which says clothing dryers are not a necessity) and provincial restrictions to funding limiting how much is available. The committee motion that staff review the discretionary benefits policy is a good start but the city CHPI policy also needs to be revised to meet people's needs. Right now people are being turned away because they ask for CHPI funding when city staff think they should be asking for discretionary benefits, or when city staff think they are asking for discretionary benefits when they ask for CHPI. It is not the role of people on social assistance to have to understand the ins and outs of all the different bureaucratic policies available but it is instead the responsibility of OW, ODSP and city staff to meet people's needs.

S-CAP is continuing to call for the setting up of an emergency homeless shelter where homeless people can actually sleep for the rest of this winter and for the previous provincial Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB) rates and policies to be maintained for CHPI funding.