A tent In George Hislop Park in Toronto.
A tent In George Hislop Park in Toronto. Credit: Lorraine Lam.

In light of the predictable deepening of homelessness this summer, amplified by climate emergencies and government inaction, I thought I would offer a cook’s tour on the language, both old and new, that is being used to describe this humanitarian disaster.

After all, how you label a problem can determine the solution.

Professor David Hulchanski has written and spoken extensively on the history of the words homeless and homelessness. Both words only entered common usage in Canada in the 1980s. He points out that homelessness became “a catch-all term for a host of serious social and economic policy failures.”

Homeless or unhoused?

A national media outlet, currently reviewing their usage of these terms recently asked me my preference. I use both terms equally, noting that ‘homeless’ is unfortunately associated with the stigmas of addiction, mental illness and the propaganda ‘they choose to be there.’ ‘Unhoused’ more pointedly names what is missing. The term ‘dehoused’ even more so, prompting consideration of the systems that cause loss of a home – inadequate social support and incomes, financialization of housing, gentrification, job insecurity, etc. I was happy to share rabble’s updated Style Guide (which I had input into):

“When referring to homeless populations, please avoid the phrases “the homeless” and “street people.” When possible, try to use “unhoused people” and active language such as “people experiencing homelessness” or “people who have been dehoused.” Note that “homeless” is accepted.”

We’ve come a long way. Street person, vagrant, drifter, bag lady, bum, addict, transient (although Stats Canada used that one this year), have all been descriptors of people without a home used by the media and politicians during my career. Perhaps the darkest descriptor was a 2005 article on homelessness in Maclean’s by John Ralston Saul that was titled “Canada’s gangrene.”

In the early 2000s former federal minister of homelessness Claudette Bradshaw, while on a Toronto tour of homelessness with me, pointed to the men and women in the then Fort York Armoury shelter and called them “the chronics.”

This is where how you define a problem influences solutions. At the time Canada had a minister of housing, but Minister Bradshaw was intentionally not mandated to ensure housing as a solution. Instead, the government launched a new federal program that funded the (chronic) homeless services such as shelters but ultimately left people without housing.

This summer, the Ontario Big City Mayors (OBCM) launched a campaign called Solve the Crisis. A chief demand of the campaign is for the province to appoint a minister to tackle homelessness, addictions and mental health and to launch a task force. We’ve been down that road numerous times. While the campaign quite rightfully highlights municipalities’ need for assistance, it misses the mark and seems disconnected from grassroots activism. Fortunately, wise social commentators Alan Broadbent and Elisabeth MacIsaac in a Maytree opinion piece made a strong case that both a task force and another minister in the cabinet are not needed. The expertise exists, it is action that is needed and quickly.

Here are a few other terms to ponder.

The right to housing and right to shelter

Decades of work by advocates and legal experts resulted in the Government of Canada passing the National Housing Strategy Act, in 2019. This is legislation that recognizes housing as a human right. While a worthy fight and win, the reality is there are insufficient efforts to achieve this goal, nor are there accountability measures to ensure all levels of government achieve housing for all. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “A right delayed is a right denied.” It’s possible that this legislative campaign inadvertently thwarted activism for a fully funded national housing program.

The right to shelter is more straightforward. It doesn’t exist and as a society we have let politicians off the hook and that equates to suffering and early deaths.

Warming Buses

I’m hoping you don’t know this term.

I often say don’t look to Toronto for best practices when it comes to homelessness and elaborated in my previous column: “Toronto, you should be ashamed of yourself.” While Calgary may have used buses for shelter first, it was Toronto that used them for an entire winter, case in point – there is no right to shelter. In the 2023-2024 winter Toronto’s shelter division partnered with Toronto Transit Commission to utilize city buses to transport unhoused people from mostly subways to shelters or warming centres (that we knew were at 99-100 per cent capacity). This was a program with no accountability to the public on where people would be taken or sheltered, what the standards on the buses would be or usage data. Where and how would they sleep, go to the bathroom, shower, eat?

In response to my inquiry city staff wrote:

“The Toronto Shelter Standards are not applied to the TTC buses, as they are not classified as shelters. We understand the media may have referenced them as shelter buses, but they are operationally referred to and used as “Warming Buses.” TTC is using regular buses, with additional interior heaters, as a response to last year’s winter season (2022/23) which saw an increase in the number of individuals experiencing homelessness that were using the transit system to shelter at night.

For this winter season (2023/24), TTC has been piloting the use of buses (up to 5), that a) provide transportation services to individuals experiencing homelessness to warming centres when they active at minus 5 degrees Celsius and/or shelters from Spadina and Union Station. If there are no spaces available to transport individual to/from, then the buses are stationed. These buses operate daily, regardless of weather, from 8pm to 5am for the winter season (November 15th to April 15th).

Because these buses are offering warming space, and not designated shelter space, the overnight data is not being posted with other shelter system flow data.” (Feb 2, 2024, email from Shelter & Support Services Staff)

Toronto’s doublespeak here says it all. The city had and still has no intent to ensure safe shelter. Will it take a death on a bus to spark outrage?

Heat Relief Network

I’m hoping this is also an unfamiliar term. Canada is stumbling in its response to the impact of climate change despite research and reports such as The Canadian Institute for Climate Choices 2021 report The Health Costs of Climate Change

In 2019 Toronto cancelled its limited but staffed cooling centres replacing them with a Heat Relief Network, which on paper or a digital map/app gives the appearance they are providing resources for anyone in need. It allowed the city to save money and hand over a public health responsibility to mostly the private and community sector that includes shopping malls, the YMCA, libraries, swimming pools and splash pads. The concept of a Heat Relief Network does nothing to tackle the overall impact of the climate crisis that includes extreme heat, urban smog, wildfires smoke, floods and infectious diseases. Furthermore, municipalities are resisting pivoting life-saving measures.  In Ontario’s recent episodes of severe flooding, I’m not aware of any emergency response that offered refuge for those living outdoors.

Weaponized environmentalism

This is a term I like. While I co-edited Displacement City. Fighting for Health and Homes in a Pandemic with Greg Cook, I had not heard this new term until I read Sam Rosati Martin’s column in The Local titled “When Environmentalism is Weaponized Against the Unhoused.” I was shocked at the complicity between officials, local politicians and even some communities who use environmental reasons to remove people from their outdoor living space. Perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised. The original reason for eviction of the 1999 Tent City encampment on Toronto’s waterfront was that the soil was polluted.

Martin chronicles the use of pollinator gardens, grass and park remediation, tree trimmings at multiple Toronto locations to remove people. One of the most visible was that of the 2021 sod and irrigation improvements and fencing of George Hislop park beside Sanctuary, a drop-in centre. The space where over 60 people lived was fenced for three years before work started and as Greg Cook notes the “fences just never came down.” As of September 2024, fencing still surrounds the George Hislop park. As a human right activist, I suspect the former city politician would not be pleased.

Cathy Crowe

Cathy Crowe

Cathy Crowe is a street nurse (non-practising), author and filmmaker who works nationally and locally on health and social justice issues. Her work has included taking the pulse of health issues affecting...