Homelessness in Canada is a real challenge despite the little attention and poor documentation accorded to it. It has been reported that close to 32,000 Canadians in Toronto city lived in emergency tents in 2002. Since then, this figure has been steadily increasing (Gaetz et al., 2006); consequently presenting a challenge to the Canadian government and non-governmental stakeholders.
Historically speaking, homelessness in Canada was restricted to urban areas. This trend appears to be changing with time since the crisis has become evident in virtually all regions. The issue of homelessness seems to elicit one critical question whenever it is brought up: what is the correct and most acceptable definition of a homeless person?
This question has been the source of contention for many years. Although there is general consensus that a homeless individual suffers socially and needs urgent help, the search and implementation of appropriate solutions often leads to disagreement with regard to “who really is homeless”.
Disagreements about the definition of homelessness originate from the fact that the funding and resources meant to be allocated to homeless individual are limited. These complications have meant that caution should be exercised in trying to craft the definition of a homeless person. As a measure to circumvent this challenge, a rather abstract and generalized definition has been suggested:
“A homeless person is an individual who lacks access to adequate housing facilities” (Gabbard et al., 2007, p. 90).
Being bogged in to details of definitions is, however, not important. Emphasis should be placed more on generating ideas which will in turn form the basis for sustainable remedies for the problem.
This essay emphasizes the need for the Canadian government to offer special support for the homeless community. The government’s laxity in implementing recommendations and the implications of homelessness are also discussed.
A critical examination in to the causes of homelessness in Canada raises a myriad of questions as to what the Canadian government is doing to contain the situation. Statistical evidence shows that 53% of all cases of homelessness in Canada are caused by inability of individuals to foot rental bills. The government can fix this situation by availing low-cost housing facilities.
Although the government made an attempt to this effect in 1998 by putting up over 30,000 low-income houses, this number has drastically reduced year by year since then. For instance, only 16 new houses were constructed in Calgary city in 1996. About 40% of homeless individuals are mentally ill.
This situation has been attributed to the international policy to deinstitutionalize mental patients. This move saw the release of the mentally ill from asylums. There were no efforts by the government to structure a follow-up strategy for ensuring clinical care for the patients.
While some of the discharged patients integrated quite well with the public, many of them (75%) worsened. This significantly contributed to the ever growing number of homeless Canadians. But what saddens any descent Canadian is that no substantial remedial measures have been adopted by the government to reverse the situation.
According to the United Nations Organization (2009), Canada is the only nation that lacks a national housing strategy. Most of the federal governments draw budgets that give little attention, if any, to the homeless. The United Nations reports show that the government’s laxity in solving this problem is the major contributor to its perpetuation.
During the introduction of the housing legislation in 1973, the then minister in charge of Urban affairs (a ministry which no longer exists), Ron Basford, delivered a speech which clearly demonstrated the importance of adequately housing all people:
When we talk … about the subject of housing, we are talking about an elemental human need – the need for shelter, for physical and emotional comfort in that shelter. When we talk about people’s basic needs – the requirements for survival – society and the government obviously have an obligation to assure that these basic needs of shelter are met.
I have already acknowledged this obligation in stating that good housing at reasonable cost is a social right of every citizen of this country. … [This] must be our objective, our obligation, and our goal. The legislation which I am proposing to the House today is an expression of the government’s policy, part of a broad plan, to try to make this right and this objective a reality. (Basford, 1973, p. 2257).
Had the government moved on with this kind of enthusiasm, the social dilemma of homelessness would have been adequately resolved. There is also need to for the federal governments to have a provision for a ministry in charge of urban housing.
The government views the issue of homelessness as an urban problem. The resulting consequence is that the responsibility has been shifted to municipalities, which lack a comprehensive policy implementation framework. Homelessness should be an issue of national interest and therefore calls for concerted efforts of all government organs.
During the national IYSH conference in 1987, a document proposed by the conference, named “Canadian Agenda for Action on Housing and Homelessness through the Year 2000” was presented. The agenda stated in clear terms how the federal government had not only failed to take appropriate action but also ignored the plight of the homeless. The following is an extract from the document:
A significant component of the homelessness problem is that housing has not been a high priority for governments at any level…. [O]nly a small proportion of government resources are directed to improving housing conditions….
In all regions of the country, the demand for housing that is adequate and affordable to low-income persons and the willingness of local organizations ready to build greatly exceed the availability of government funds to carry out effective social housing programs. (Canadian Association of Housing and Renewal Officials, 1988, p.92).
This attitude by the government is a key factor that has led to housing problems in Canada. This is evident from the rejection of Social Housing Agenda in 1987. In 1993, all federal governments terminated fund allocation towards building of new social units and in 1996, there was no longer any federal involvement in the provision of low-cost housing.
Homelessness can have tremendous effects on societal values. It tends to strengthen vices such as drug and substance addiction, sexual abuse, violence, incidences of school drop-out and teenage pregnancy.
However, the most important consequence of homelessness is the loss of available manpower to drive the economy. This is true because a homeless individual cannot be productive, taking in to account the social burden associated with the condition.
Another consequence with direct economic implications relates to the health risk the homeless are often exposed to. Their out-door lifestyles greatly predispose them to many infections. This again reduces the labor force available to drive industry. In addition, it is costly for the government to foot medical bills for all these individuals.
People empowerment would be a critical but long-term step towards resolving the crisis of homelessness. The government must invest in the youth of today in terms of education and relevant training. This will guarantee self reliance and nurture independent individuals. This move needs to be reinforced further by construction of affordable units.
Similarly, appropriate social support programs should be initiated throughout the country with the idea of reaching out to drug addicts and other social misfits. Such programs need also address the dilemma of the homeless mentally ill individuals. Research-based responses are equally imperative.
Well organized data systems for the homeless community can be instrumental during the study of trends such as the growth rate of the homeless population, predominant age group, and average level of education. These data forms the foundation upon which appropriate remedial measures can be based and should be collected as frequently as possible.
The actual task for the government is not to look for solutions. Solutions already exist. The housing policies are superb. What lacks is the drive and enthusiasm to implement the policies.
If the government can impress upon the relevant departments the gravity of the matter, and if it can be in the interest of every Canadian to support this worthwhile course, homelessness in Canada will only exist in our memories.
References
Basford, R. (Minister of State for Urban Affairs). (1973). National Housing Agenda (NHA) Amendments. Canada: House of Commons.
Canadian Association of Housing and Renewal Officials. (1988). New Partnerships – Building for the Future: Proceedings of the Canadian Conference to Observe the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. Ottawa: Canadian Association of Housing and Renewal Officials.
Gabbard, W.J., Snyder, C.S., Lin, M.B., Chadha, J.H., May, J. D., & Jaggers, J. (2007). Methodological issues in enumerating homeless individuals. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 16(2), 90-103.
Gaetz, S., Tarasuk, V., Dackner, N., & Kirkpatrick, S. (2006). “Managing” Homeless Youth in Toronto: Mismanaging Food Access & Nutritional Well-being. Canadian Review of Social Policy, 58(43), 1-19.
United Nations Organization. (2009). Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context. Canada: Miloon Kothari.