Federal funding helping Greater Sudbury address homelessness, add shelter spaces
Social Sharing
The federal government is helping the City of Greater Sudbury address homelessness through funding to help with the addition of more shelter spaces and warming centres.
Liberal MP for Sudbury, Viviane Lapointe announced that Ottawa is providing $8,457,271 in funding to the city to help the municipality cope with the homelessness crisis. Sudbury has seen the number of unhoused people rise over the past three years.
The investment includes $1,532,256 over two years through the Unsheltered Homelessness and Encampments Initiative, which will help support activities under a Community Engagement Response Plan. The plan includes the additional warming centre services at Energy Court and the Samaritan Centre over the winter months that were added at the start of the season.
The remainder of the funds, $6,925,015 over four years, is coming through the Reaching Home: Designated Communities fund, which will assist the city in continuing to offer more shelter support.
"This funding will directly support community-based efforts to provide warmth, safety, and stability for vulnerable homeless adults and youth," said Lapointe in a statement.
"By expanding the capacity of warming centres, outreach services and shelters, we are working to improve the lives of people in our city."
A portion of the $6 million investment is going to the Elizabeth Fry Society's Safe Harbour House, a low barrier emergency shelter for adult women and gender-diverse people. The organization, which recently opened a new, larger location on Cedar Street in December, has added 16 more shelter beds to its services for a total of 26.
"The need has certainly grown over time," said Cory Roslyn, executive director of the Elizabeth Fry Society.
"It didn't take long when we opened Safe Harbour House at our old location in 2021 for those 10 beds to fill up. But since we've been here for just over a month, we're almost full again at 26 beds. And so that really shows us the need that exists in our community and our organization."
Safe Harbour House is also expanding its services to include homeless female youth between the ages of 16 and 18, which will help to fill a gap in youth services left behind with last year's closure of the Sudbury Action Centre for Youth (SACY).
"It is a real shame that SACY had to close and that gap was created," said Roslyn.
"So really, what we're doing is just responding to that need. And girls 16, 17, 18-years-old really are probably the most vulnerable group that we work with at Elizabeth Fry. And so it was important to us to be able to expand and offer that safety for them."
Roslyn added that despite additional shelter and transitional housing spaces being added in the city, what is really needed is more permanent, affordable housing to solve the housing and homelessness crises.
That's something the city is working on as it continues to try and reach its goal of ending homelessness by 2030, according to Greater Sudbury Mayor Paul Lefebvre. He says the city is in a better position now than it was 18 months ago.
"I think we're in a better spot. That being said, the challenge remains and sometimes it's trying to find apartments for our most vulnerable," said Lefebvre.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Calgary Herald
04-06-2025
- Calgary Herald
Justice minister apologizes for comments that 'potentially eroded' trust with Indigenous peoples
OTTAWA — Justice Minister Sean Fraser apologized Wednesday for recent comments about the federal government's duty to consult First Nations regarding developing projects on their territories, saying his words 'potentially eroded a very precarious trust.' Article content The issue has emerged in light of Prime Minister Mark Carney's plan to introduce legislation that would fast-track approvals for major energy and infrastructure projects by cutting the timeline to two years, down from five. Article content Article content Article content The Assembly of First Nations, a national advocacy organization representing more than 600 First Nations across the country, has expressed concerns that, from what they have seen of the forthcoming bill, it 'suggests a serious threat' to First Nations treaty rights. Article content Article content In a recent letter to Carney, National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak cited the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which outlines the principle of obtaining 'free, prior, and informed consent' regarding laws and decisions that affect Indigenous peoples. Article content When asked about that principle on Tuesday, Fraser outlined his interpretation of it, telling reporters that it demands 'a very deep level of engagement and understanding of the rights that may be impacted.' Article content Article content On Wednesday, Fraser apologized for those comments, saying it gave some the impression of the government wanting to 'work unilaterally, not in partnership,' with Indigenous people. Article content 'Despite innocent intentions, I think my comments actually caused hurt and potentially eroded a very precarious trust that has been built up over many years to respect the rights of Indigenous people in this country,' he said on his way into the Liberal caucus meeting. Article content The minister said that after he made those remarks he received a call from the national chief, 'expressing her frustration.'
Canada Standard
04-06-2025
- Canada Standard
What if Alberta really did vote to separate?
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is using sovereignty sentiments in Alberta as a kind of implied threat to get a better deal for the province. In a letter to Mark Carney in the run-up to the recent first ministers conference in Saskatoon, Smith told the prime minister that failure to build additional pipelines for Alberta oil would "send an unwelcome signal to Albertans concerned about Ottawa's commitment to national unity." Accordingly, it's worth asking: what would happen if Alberta did vote to leave? Two historical touch points are the 1995 sovereignty referendum in Quebec and the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom in 2016. In different ways, both examples drive home one inevitable point: in the event of a vote to pursue sovereignty, the future of Alberta would have to be negotiated one painful and uncertain step at a time. Sovereignty is an assertion of independent governmental authority, notably including a monopoly over the legitimate use of force over a defined people and territory. Unlike provinces in a country like Canada, sovereign countries co-operate with each other if - and only if - it's in their interests to do so. Some proponents of separatism have argued that an independent Alberta could rely on international law to secure continued access to tidewater through Canada. The idea seems to form the basis of Smith's assertions that one nation cannot "landlock" another under international law. But that's not the case. What's more, international law - even if it does apply in theory - doesn't always hold in practice. That's because between countries, formal anarchy prevails: no one has the responsibility to enforce international law on their own. If one country breaks international law, it's up to other countries to respond. If that doesn't happen, then it just doesn't happen. Simply put, if Alberta were to leave Canada, it would lose all enforceable rights and protections offered by the Canadian Constitution and enforced by the institutions and courts. In their place, Alberta would get exactly - and only - what it can bargain for. The Quebec independence saga has in many ways clarified and refined the path to potential secession for provinces in Canada, and hints at what can happen in the aftermath of a sovereignty referendum. In the wake of the near miss that was the 1995 referendum - when those wanting to remain in Canada defeated those who voted to separate with the narrowest of margins - Jean Chretien's Liberal government took rapid steps to respond. Plan A focused on actions aimed at addressing Quebec's grievances, not unlike Carney's quest for a national consensus to build an additional pipeline. Another course of action, known as Plan B, defined the path to secession. The federal government asked the Supreme Court of Canada for a clarification on the legality of sovereignty. It then passed the Clarity Act, which enshrined into law Ottawa's understanding of the court's answer. The reference and act both made clear that any secession attempt could be triggered only by a "clear majority" on a "clear question." The act also illuminated the stakes of secession. The preamble of the legislation, for instance, spells out that provincial sovereignty would mean the end of guaranteed Canadian citizenship for departing provincial residents. The act also lays out some of the points to be negotiated in the event of secession, "including the division of assets and liabilities, any changes to the borders of the province, the rights, interests and territorial claims of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the protection of minority rights." Simply put, everything would be on the table if Albertans opted to separate. Brexit provides an example of just how painful that process can be. After voting to leave the European Union, the U.K. found itself bogged down in a difficult negotiation process that continues to this day. Political, economic and trade rights - even including the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland - have all been painfully reconstituted through complex negotiations. Despite the promises made by those who advocated in favour of Brexit, the U.K. will continue to pay in perpetuity for access to the limited EU services it still retains. The U.K. is dealing with these challenges even though it was already a sovereign state. Alberta is not. Everything between a sovereign Alberta and its neighbours would be subject to difficult negotiations, both in the initial days of an independent Albertan state and any subsequent discussions. Once independent, Alberta would be a landlocked, oil-exporting nation. It would be negotiating with Canada - and the United States, its neighbour to the south - over every aspect of its new relationship. Its borders with other provinces and territories would need be negotiated, as would the status of marginalized populations and Indigenous Peoples within Alberta. The status of lands subject to treaty - in other words, most of the province - would have to be negotiated. Indigenous Peoples themselves have already made clear they have no interest in secession and would mount a vigorous defence of Indigenous rights as they exist within Canada. After all, if Canada is divisible, so is Alberta. A new republic has no automatic claims to territory with respect to Indigenous Peoples and treaty lands. Once borders were settled, Alberta would have little leverage and would need a lot of help as a country of about 4.5 million negotiating with neighbours of 35 million in Canada and 350 million in the U.S. Who would be its allies? Nothing would be guaranteed, not Alberta's admission to the United Nations, the establishment of an Albertan currency and exchange rates, national and continental defence, the management of shared borders and citizenship rules or the terms of cross-border trade and investment. Access to Canadian ports would be at Canada's discretion, negotiated on terms Canada considered in its interests. Alberta could no more force a pipeline through Canada than through the United States. Of course, a republic of Alberta would be free to pursue deeper relations with the American republic to its south. The U.S president, however, has already made clear what would be the likely terms for free trade: accession. Here, too, there would be no guarantees. Alberta could just as easily become an American territory, with limited representation, as it could a 51st state. "Puerto Rico North" is as possible as "Alaska South." Gone too would be any claims to share collective goods. Alberta's neighbours would have no incentive, for instance, to help with the inevitable post-oil clean-up, estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Simply put, if Alberta were to vote to leave Canada, it would truly be on its own.
Winnipeg Free Press
03-06-2025
- Winnipeg Free Press
Indigenous services minister says First Nations support for developments ‘critical'
OTTAWA – The federal minister of Indigenous services says she and the other Indigenous members of cabinet support their party's plan to fast-track infrastructure development — despite significant pushback from First Nations leaders. Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty says Prime Minister Mark Carney has 'reaffirmed' First Nations will be included in discussions about projects the federal government could fast-track under pending legislation, and that their input is 'critical' to allowing those projects to move forward. Assembly of First Nations National Chief Woodhouse Nepinak sent a letter to Carney on Friday about legislation the federal government is developing to speed up work on certain projects with a streamlined regulatory approval process. In it, she said she fears the proposed legislation could violate the rights of First Nations people and undermine the treaties they signed with the Crown. Gull-Masty says she's 'supportive' of Woodhouse Nepinak and that she's 'pushing that conversation forward in a critical way.' Liberal MP Jaime Battiste, a member of his party's Indigenous caucus, says his understanding is that all projects being examined now already have 'buy-in' from Indigenous communities and will be the ones that are prioritized. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 3, 2025.
