OK, the southwestern part of the West Island is somewhat sheltered from this phenomenon; poverty in Pointe-Claire is usually hidden. Nonetheless, if anyone visits downtown Montreal or rides the Metro, it is impossible to ignore the increasing number of vulnerable people who are huddled in alcoves or sleeping in public spaces. A natural human reflex is to respond with fear or judgment, but this response is almost always inappropriate. However, we should be asking ourselves some very pointed questions. We live in a country that has plenty of food and abundant resources. How can we make sense of the fact that a growing number of people are not able to enjoy fundamental things like groceries or affordable housing?
The easiest way to frame this problem is to reflect on how we deal with the loss of belongings in the face of natural disasters. When a community experiences destructive wildfires or sudden floods, there are often hundreds of destroyed homes and displaced people. If an unthinkable catastrophe struck or a major fire burned through a residential neighbourhood like Cedar Park, the residents would not need to sleep at the Pointe-Claire Plaza or camp in tents in Terra Cotta Park. Of course not. We have systems and resources that get marshalled to respond to those affected. It would take a little while for everyone to get back to a level of residential stability, but everyone would benefit from a variety of sources of assistance in the process.
We are totally comfortable with the idea that effort and action are required to end the experience of homelessness if it is caused by a natural disaster. Why are we less comfortable with the idea of ending the experience of homelessness, which is a product of poverty and social disconnection? There might be three main reasons:
The challenge has been defined improperly.
There is a general assumption that the challenges associated with poverty are intractable. Some folks still blame the victims. The more popular trope is to point to drugs, alcohol, or mental disorders and suggest that “those people” need to be compelled to undergo some sort of treatment. Interestingly, the majority of people who struggle with mental health and/or addiction are not homeless. Some of them might be our next-door neighbours. The number one reason why people are unhoused is the inability to afford housing combined with social isolation–meaning that they don’t have a network of close friends or family. The number one reason why people seek out groceries at a food bank is because their revenue is barely able to cover the cost of essential expenses like rent and transportation, and the purchase of food is the only significant elastic item in their monthly budget.
The reflex of decision-makers has been to fund patches.
Over a number of years, most of the funding provided by the government has targeted symptoms rather than the cause. It has been reactive and short-term. Money is typically provided for temporary shelters, warming centres in the winter, and beefed-up security efforts in public areas of greatest concern. This sort of funding does little more than make a feeble attempt at managing the problem rather than solving the problem. It has encouraged well-meaning members of the public to try to compensate for the obvious funding gaps by exercising noble charitable reflexes that are insufficient. This is particularly obvious in the domain of food insecurity, where there is almost zero government funding.
The majority of our community service organizations are ill-equipped to lead the effort to respond to this challenge.
The care of many of our vulnerable citizens has been assumed by underfunded community organizations. We have come to expect local community-based non-profits to carry the load. Let’s be clear, civil society does have a very important role to play–they are in the front line and can respond to needs when they are resourced properly. However, at the moment, more than 92% of the charitable community organizations in Canada have annual revenues of less than three million dollars. Much of the funding they obtain is non-recurring. This does not allow them to build institutional capacity and therefore their activities are limited to anemic efforts anchored to deficient service models. They are frequently stuck in the middle of the problem, unable to actually resolve the problem. They do not lack passion and determination–but passion and determination alone cannot resolve complex social problems.
How can members of the public help? There is a longer answer… but the short and simple answer is that we must collectively appeal to all levels of government to collaborate and focus on funding real solutions. Poverty and homelessness are a consequence of policy failure–it is not due to some sort of moral failure on the part of the people who find themselves in precarious situations. Public policy can only advance when propelled by public opinion, and it is important that we compel our decision-makers to act. The good news? We know exactly what needs to be done. It will require political courage. Reducing poverty is an economic driver. When people are housed and able to afford the basics of life they cease being a cost to the system and begin making a significant contribution to society.
Sam Watts is the CEO of Welcome Hall Mission, a community organization founded in 1892 that is focused on helping people achieve residential stability. He is the author of Good Work–Done Better. He is also an appointed member of the National Housing Council of Canada and serves on a number of boards, including the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness and L’Arche Canada. He lives in Beaconsfield, within walking distance of the Pointe-Claire Village.