|
|
|
The Mike Farwell Show : Monday October 28th 2024 National Conference on Ending Homelessness opens today in Ottawa (35:54) |
Promoting Human rights-based Municipal Encampment Responses
(CAEH Session title w. link to Desciption)
|
Facilitator:
Michele Bliss, National Right to Housing Network Municipal Encampment Responses Through A Human Rights Lens
Promoting human rights-based community response plans to address encampments
Related publications By the Office of the Federal Housing Advocate
|
|
Municipal Encampment Responses
Through A Human Rights Lens
Acknowledgements
In Canada discussions of housing, homelessness and eviction are deeply intertwined with the forced displacement of indigenous peoples from these lands. In Waterloo Region, this includes the failure to honour the Haldimand Treaty of 1784. Working on housing and homelessness as settlers requires us to work towards more just relations with Haudenosaunee and other Indigenous peoples where we live and work.
We appreciate many of the informal conversations with community members who have experienced homelessness and housing precarity. These conversations helped shape our views on these issues and reminded us that policy documents always only tell a part of the story.
We also appreciate the hard work of research assistants, Valentina Orlenas and Sebastian McPherson. We received funding for this project from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and appreciate this support.
In Canada discussions of housing, homelessness and eviction are deeply intertwined with the forced displacement of indigenous peoples from these lands. In Waterloo Region, this includes the failure to honour the Haldimand Treaty of 1784. Working on housing and homelessness as settlers requires us to work towards more just relations with Haudenosaunee and other Indigenous peoples where we live and work.
We appreciate many of the informal conversations with community members who have experienced homelessness and housing precarity. These conversations helped shape our views on these issues and reminded us that policy documents always only tell a part of the story.
We also appreciate the hard work of research assistants, Valentina Orlenas and Sebastian McPherson. We received funding for this project from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and appreciate this support.
|
|
|
|
Municipal Policy Themes
We explored municipal policy themes with both members of the project advisory committee and our local community. We would like to take a moment to recognize the work of these contributors in thinking through what a human rights lens looks like for those working with people experiencing homelessness.
Together we expanded on five themes identified in the literature. These were:
Together we expanded on five themes identified in the literature. These were:
- Decenter policing and law enforcement
- Address the conditions in encampment and meet basic needs
- Equitable and accessible provision of services
- Ensure the meaningful participation of encampment residents
- Recognize the distinct rights of Indigenous Peoples
findings
We searched all municipalities in Ontario over 80,000 in population for publicly available encampment protocols and neo-vagrancy bylaws.
This left us with 41 municipalities. We conducted this scan twice, once in October to December of 2023 and again in June to August of 2024. We excluded counties because they don't have their own bylaws, which then left us with 37 municipalities.
We assessed policies and protocols according to the themes identified in the theoretical framework. We used a qualitative assessment to capture the complexity of different dimensions, including a review of publicly available supplementary materials such as public communications regarding encampments and information in staff reports.
This left us with 41 municipalities. We conducted this scan twice, once in October to December of 2023 and again in June to August of 2024. We excluded counties because they don't have their own bylaws, which then left us with 37 municipalities.
We assessed policies and protocols according to the themes identified in the theoretical framework. We used a qualitative assessment to capture the complexity of different dimensions, including a review of publicly available supplementary materials such as public communications regarding encampments and information in staff reports.
Theme 1: Decenter Policing and Encforcement
Theme Questions:
- Are encampments on public property rendered illegal through bylaws or other policy tools?
- Does the policy provide guidance to minimize the involvement of police and/or bylaw?
To be emphasized is that all the municipalities we looked at had some form of neo-vagrancy bylaw, which is highly relevant to the first theme “Decenter Policing and Enforcement”. By having neo vagrancy bylaws in place, encampments are made a bylaw issue, and an enforcement issue rather than a service provision or a human rights issue.
- 32 of the municipalities scanned included an explicit prohibition on sleeping or sheltering in public spaces.
- Most municipalities have responded with either selective enforcement of anti-sheltering/sleeping bylaws or delayed enforcement.
- Protocols outline three levels of bylaw/police engagement:
- Bylaw/police led response
- Bylaw/police alongside service provision
- Service provider led response
Theme 1: Promising Practice - City of Thunder Bay
There are few promising practices sprinkled in, though with the caveat that we don't know what these look like on the ground. However, we find these practices promising in terms of their setting up a policy framework that enables a more human rights based response.
The City of Thunder Bay is one of the few municipalities that does not have a bylaw prohibiting sheltering or sleeping in parks. They actually considered creating on and decided not to because of concerns around how that would impact people experiencing unsheltered homelessness. The response there is led, according to the protocol, by a community partner not necessarily bylaw and police.
The City of Thunder Bay is one of the few municipalities that does not have a bylaw prohibiting sheltering or sleeping in parks. They actually considered creating on and decided not to because of concerns around how that would impact people experiencing unsheltered homelessness. The response there is led, according to the protocol, by a community partner not necessarily bylaw and police.
"Thunder Bay, Kenora decide against bringing in loitering bylaw", McDougall, July 21, 2020
https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/thunder-bay-kenora-decide-against-bringing-in-loitering-bylaw/
https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/thunder-bay-kenora-decide-against-bringing-in-loitering-bylaw/
Theme 1: Yikes Practices
We also have a few examples of what we are gonna call “Yikes Practices”.
We haven’t identified the cities here but if you’re kinda nerdy like us and you’re reading these protocol documents, you might know who and which ones they are.
We haven’t identified the cities here but if you’re kinda nerdy like us and you’re reading these protocol documents, you might know who and which ones they are.
City 1:
Law enforcement makes first contact to determine if any bylaws are being violated, which there are, because bylaws are in place prohibiting sheltering and sleeping. They then seek voluntary compliance to dismantle structures.
This is concerning because what this actually is saying, in “nicer” words, is “we are going to force displacement, we are going to force eviction”, which is not consistent with a human rights approach.
Law enforcement makes first contact to determine if any bylaws are being violated, which there are, because bylaws are in place prohibiting sheltering and sleeping. They then seek voluntary compliance to dismantle structures.
This is concerning because what this actually is saying, in “nicer” words, is “we are going to force displacement, we are going to force eviction”, which is not consistent with a human rights approach.
City 2:
Street outreach and bylaw are first responders upon identifying an encampment. Bylaw will issue a six hour notice of trespass. When bylaw cannot respond, if they are unavailable for any reason, the police services respond. So again what we are seeing is not consistent with a human rights approach. We're treating encampments like a bylaw issue, not a housing issue. A six hour notice of trespass… There’s been lots of research on the harms done when people are forced to displace and relocate, especially with tight timelines and without adequate work to identify alternative locations.
Street outreach and bylaw are first responders upon identifying an encampment. Bylaw will issue a six hour notice of trespass. When bylaw cannot respond, if they are unavailable for any reason, the police services respond. So again what we are seeing is not consistent with a human rights approach. We're treating encampments like a bylaw issue, not a housing issue. A six hour notice of trespass… There’s been lots of research on the harms done when people are forced to displace and relocate, especially with tight timelines and without adequate work to identify alternative locations.
Theme 2: Addressing conditions and Basic needs
Theme Questions:
- Does the policy discuss provision of basic services for day-to-day needs?
- Does the policy provide guidance to address environmental concerns without forcible removal/displacement?
We found that there were few protocols that outlined a plan for addressing conditions in encampments and providing basic services. We looked for things that people needed just to get by on a basic level, for example sanitation, potable water, garbage removal, fire safety tools... These are not frivolities, they are the most basic needs.
Where these basics are addressed there remains a lack of clarity concerning what standards apply and how supports are to be accessed.
With some exceptions, the plan for addressing environmental and safety concerns is through forced closure. When these concerns are encountered, instead of actually addressing the issues, individuals are forced to relocate, which really doesn't help at all.
|
The photo here is of a method that was being used to collect water at COVID onset to have available to wash hands and drink when everything suddenly shut down. While the effort displayed is innovative, it should be unecessary, and does not depict human rights approach at play.
|
|
Theme 2: Promising Practice - CIty of London, ON
There are few promising practices sprinkled in, though with the caveat that we don't know what these look like on the ground. However, we find these practices promising in terms of their setting up a policy framework that enables a more human rights based response.
The promising practice we decided to highlight here is from London, ON. Their approach includes operating service depots at some encampment sites daily helping to provide:
- Access to safe and clean drinking water
- Access to hygiene and sanitation facilities
- Resources for fire safety
- Waste management systems
- Social supports and services
- Resources to support harm reduction
- Resources for food and food safety
These are basic and critical items and their provision aligns well with a human rights approach.
Theme 3: Equitable and Accessible Services
Theme Questions:
- Does the policy include strategies for equitable access to services, for example health care, housing support, harm reduction, culturally specific services?
- Does the policy include a statement regarding the ability to refuse services?
Note: All 12 municipal with encampment protocols that we found did discuss service provision to some extent, typically in terms of connection to housing, health or harm reduction services.
Two ways we did see protocols address equity and accessibility:
- Equitable provision: Some protocols discuss trauma-informed, culturally appropriate service provision. This provision is about understanding what kinds of service provisions are necessary to actually be equitably providing services to folks in encampment
- Accessible provision: Some protocols discuss bringing services directly to people on site, so rather than assuming that people at encampments will go somewhere to access housing services, actually bringing the housing workers to the encampment site.
Theme 3: Promising Practice - REgion of Waterloo, ON
There are few promising practices sprinkled in, though with the caveat that we don't know what these look like on the ground. However, we find these practices promising in terms of their setting up a policy framework that enables a more human rights based response.
This promising practice is from the Region of Waterloo.
The Region of Waterloo chose to add an anti-hate and harassment provision in their code of use bylaw. This prohibits discrimination while on their properties. They opted to include within the list of protected grounds “Socio-economic status and housing status”. It’s a big leap forward policy wise, and stands included in their codified contents.
Theme 3: Yikes Pratices
City 1: If people in encampments do not complete the VI-SPIDAT, they may not be connected to needed with housing resources and support
This is concerning because it implies that if people are not willing to complete this assessment tool which asks for really invasive information (there's been research showing that it's discriminatory in application as well) that they won't be able to access housing resources and support. They might even be labelled as “difficult” or not be considered for particular programs. This is concerning in terms of equitable and accessible service provision.
City 2: Repeatedly refusing services may lead municipal authorities to forcefully displace residents from their encampment site
This means that if people at an encampment site refuse services, they may be evicted. This does not respect people's autonomy. Refusal of service should not be within the grounds used to judge whether there needs to be a forced closure.
Both of these examples disrespect the personal agency of the individual.
Theme 4: MEaningful Participation
Theme Questions:
- Was the policy made with lived expertise engagement?
- Does the policy recognize the autonomy of encampment residents in making decisions concerning their immediate options for shelter?
- Does the policy provide a mechanism for encampment residents to participate in local decision-making concerning encampments?
In this theme we noted two common trends, the first:
- No meaningful engagement described
For the most part, we found little evidence of meaningful engagement of encampment residents, and we searched staff reports, websites, media for this! We tried really hard to find evidence and often we could not. Obviously that’s concerning from a human rights perspective
The second trend:
- Some engagement/consultation of encampment residents, but no accountability in reporting how it influenced final documents
So it often says “we spoke to people”, but it doesn't say how it influenced the final protocol or documents, nor offers much in report of what people said, or what the feedback was.
Decision-making concerning the future of encampments is typically vested in high-level municipal staff, sometimes in collaboration with multi-agency planning tables, but not often with the people who are actually staying in the encampments having decision making power around their own futures. Practices were really limited in terms of meaningful participation, a key component of a human rights approach.
Theme 5 Recognition of indigenous rights
Theme Questions:
- Is there recognition of the unique rights of Indigenous peoples?
- Is there recognition of the need to consult with Indigenous stakeholders and/or Indigenous service providers in the local encampment strategy?
We only reviewed one protocol that included recognition of Indigenous rights and rights obligation that all levels of government have to indigenous peoples in Canada.
Several protocols did include discussion of culturally specific services, and partnering with Indigenous service providers, however, it was not clear how this engagement affected encampment responses.
This is one of those areas where policy can only take us so far and we really need to be talking to people on the ground to understand this better.
Most commonly, there was no reference to Indigenous rights, and or Indigenous-led models of engagement in the protocols that we reviewed.
Theme 5: Promising PRactices - City of Brantford & City of Sudbury
There are few promising practices sprinkled in, though with the caveat that we don't know what these look like on the ground. However, we find these practices promising in terms of their setting up a policy framework that enables a more human rights based response.
For this theme we do have two promising practices.
We’ll note here that in the City of Brantford, where they explicitly state that Brantford Native Housing is the first point of contact for people who are indigenous and residing in encampments. So positive in as much as trying to integrate that appropriate service provisions right from that first interaction.
And then, there is the City of Sudbury’s protocol that talks about the 12 dimensions of indigenous housing, Jesse Thistle's works, and how these should be considered to help frame the response to acknowledge that there are aspects of homelessness for indigenous people that differ from non indigenous people.
Related:
Thistle, J. (2017.) Indigenous Defnition of Homelessness in Canada. Toronto: Canadian Observatory on Homelessness Press.
Overall Notes
Even when they make general statements about human rights in the preamble, most municipal encampment policies in Ontario are not adequately taking a human rights approach, especially in terms of:
There have been so many court cases that have found that forced eviction is not human rights compliant. It's more complicated than that but one of the key things is that this approach of just telling people to get out and move along is no longer one that municipalities can use. There’s a need to adapt to the changing context in our growing recognition that that kind of approach is not rights compliant.
The emphasis on eliminating or prohibiting encampments is there. There's not a lot in there showing what we could be doing to create and to support better safety for the residents in these locations. Many approaches are punitive, yet quite often seeking to be framed as compassionate.
- Failure to recognize a human rights approach requires immediate steps to meet basic needs including using public infrastructure to support people in encampments.
- Failure to understand encampments as a rights issue, not a bylaw issue - pressing given the legal context
- Failure to meaningfully integrate the perspectives of encampment residents into the process
- Failure to address Indigenous rights
There have been so many court cases that have found that forced eviction is not human rights compliant. It's more complicated than that but one of the key things is that this approach of just telling people to get out and move along is no longer one that municipalities can use. There’s a need to adapt to the changing context in our growing recognition that that kind of approach is not rights compliant.
The emphasis on eliminating or prohibiting encampments is there. There's not a lot in there showing what we could be doing to create and to support better safety for the residents in these locations. Many approaches are punitive, yet quite often seeking to be framed as compassionate.
REturning to our key takeaway
In returning to our key takeaway, leaving today
please remember:
At the centre of this, we must rely on a human rights approach.
While we can always do better than these minimum standards, we should never do worse than these basic requirements.
please remember:
At the centre of this, we must rely on a human rights approach.
While we can always do better than these minimum standards, we should never do worse than these basic requirements.
|
|
|