In a speech in early October, Sudbury Mayor Paul Lefebvre said even some of the city’s vulnerable population don’t want to live in the encampment at Energy Court, saying of the municipal-land encampment off Lorne Street: “We created this place, anarchy lives on there, that needs to stop.”
At the Oct. 2 luncheon in which he foreshadowed the plan presented to city council on Oct. 7, Lefebvre announced that the city was set to make Energy Court a social service hub, essentially making the area a sanctioned encampment.
Located behind Chris’ Your Independent grocery store downtown, Energy Court began as the location for a supervised consumption site, the operations of which ceased last year due to a lack of provincial funding.
In late 2024, the Go-Give Project received municipal funding to renovate the modular unit into a warming/cooling centre, and now, it’s become a 24/7 hub at the encampment.
Since Oct. 10, the number of tents and structures located there has jumped by more than 25 and in conversation with the community members who say they’re being asked to move there, it appears that number will only increase.
After two weeks of asking the city's vulnerable populations and frontline outreach workers what will happen in the encampment if there are more people and more tents — and if they’ve received any clear details to the city’s plan— it seems the word “anarchy” may still apply.
Another word, used by an outreach worker to describe what might occur at the encampment without a detailed plan and infrastructure: “Mayhem.”
Sudbury.com spoke with city CAO Shari Lichterman Oct. 9, in advance of the ramp-up of services. She referred to the city’s response as “crisis mode” and a “stop-gap measure to deal with the crisis”.
“We’re now into more of a crisis mode where we need to pivot and at least come up with an interim solution that helps address some of the most immediate problems we’re seeing,” Lichterman said at the time.
But as one outreach worker said to Sudbury.com Oct. 31: “That’s true, but why did we have to wait until winter to pivot?”
In addition to a perceived lack of clarity on the details and timeline of the plan, one of the major questions Sudbury.com encountered centred on the length of time it will take to offer the organized support that city officials speak of, as well as the infrastructure for the hygienic needs of a population of encampment-dwellers across the city that now tops 200.
They asked, without answers: How many people will be there and how will everyone be kept safe from the violence that already occurs there?
Those are the questions from the three Sudbury frontline outreach workers who spoke with Sudbury.com on the condition of anonymity for fear they could lose their jobs.
We also spoke with eight people who are currently homeless, five of whom use drugs. Of the eight, six are known to Sudbury.com.
Energy Court: is it a good idea to bring everyone together?
The outreach workers we spoke with say one reason there are currently 256 homeless people in 50 different encampments stretched across Greater Sudbury is that “not everyone gets along.” That’s not just verbal altercations, theft, beatings and stabbings; intimidation built on any number of criminal or pure survival tactics, they said.
One worker who visits the site frequently said policymakers often “group together” people who are homeless, making their situations homogenized rather than the complex issues they actually face. Some are addicted to drugs, others are selling drugs — for money or to feed an addiction, one worker said — others have significant mental health challenges and some are just down on their luck, losing housing and ending up on the street.
These are not groups that congregate well together, said another outreach worker. “It’s why people didn’t like going to the shelter,” they said.
In November of 2021, Sudbury.com asked about shelter use and why, it appeared, that some people who were homeless preferred a tent to the beds available, even on the coldest of winter nights. The same reason was given, not everyone is suited to congregate living.
The third outreach worker we spoke with expressed the same fears about bringing everyone together, adding another: What they see as a lack of clear planning before the decision was announced as well as building the centre “with no infrastructure whatsoever and the idea to bring police and security in?”
The same outreach worker also said they expect to see an increase in the spread of communicable diseases at the encampment.
Respiratory infections, including drug-resistant bacteria are prominent in the encampment already, as is COVID-19. But present in encampments across Canada is also tuberculosis, hepatitis and the shigella bacteria — responsible for gastrointestinal illness that can become severe without treatment — as well as Trench fever, which is caused by a bacteria and initially named when First World War soldiers began contracting it.
It’s the uncertainty that’s getting to them, said one outreach worker.
“We don’t have any idea what’s about to happen, and how folks are going to live through it. That’s not a good thing.”
That’s the same message Sudbury.com heard from neighbouring business owners and residents who shared their concern about the lack of information in an Oct. 29 story.
Rather than concerns about increased petty crime, residents Sudbury.com spoke with wanted Energy Court residents “cared for rather than controlled.” They saw it as “shifting the city’s homeless community to one encampment overseen by law enforcement.”
Energy Court: Who wants to live there?
Roger (who did not wish to use his last name) has been living at the corner of Elgin and Brady streets for a few weeks and said police and bylaw services speak to him frequently, encouraging him to go to Energy Court. “Absolutely not,” he told Sudbury.com. “I lived there before and there was a stabbing, so I got out. It’s not safe.”
He said he was given a form letter stating that the city “Does not permit the erecting of any tent, shelter or structure of any kind in this location.”
It contains a photo of a circle with a tent inside it, with a line slashed through it.
“Any property left on site, following a 24-hour-notice period is subject to removal and immediate disposal. This includes tent structures.”
When we spoke with Roger Oct. 29, he was living under a patio umbrella covered with a tarp, his belongings covered by another tarp. He said a bylaw officer told him the day before the tarp covering is what made the umbrella “a structure” and therefore unsafe according to them. That’s why he was issued the letter.
“Once removed, this structure and its contents will be discarded,” it reads. “They will not be stored for any period of time.”
The notice also states that the city wants to help “find a safe alternative,” and refers to the BEAR Team (Belonging, Equity, Access and Respect) team, social services client navigators and municipal bylaw. The phone numbers for all four are included, as is the note that they will be “in the park regularly,” though it is unclear which park they mean.
Roger said he had been told to go to Energy Court to set up. He said he believed if he left his spot on Elgin, the city would throw away his belongings, per their letter.
He also said he was told he can’t “ask for money,” also called panhandling. He has a small sign that he said he occasionally puts out which reads: “Homeless. Average $20 per day Food/Shelter/To live. Any help would be appreciated, thank you and God bless.”
He was told he would be fined if he put the sign out again as it was considered panhandling on a public street.
In his Oct. 2 speech, Lefebvre stated that by giving money to people on the street, “you're actually feeding addictions,” before stating there would be an increase in “proactive enforcement” and co-ordination with Greater Sudbury Police and bylaw services to address panhandling.
Roger’s experience of being threatened with a fine for continuing to panhandle seems to run counter to what Sudbury.com has previously been told by officials about how panhandling will be dealt with. Police told Sudbury.com that rather than enforcement and fines of those asking for money, they prefer to educate community members against the need to give to individuals and instead donate it to a community group. GSPS has long said that enforcement doesn’t cut to the root cause of panhandling, and they’ve long taken an approach of moving along panhandlers rather than charging them, despite the provincial Safe Streets Act prohibiting certain acts of panhandling, including at intersections. It remains unclear what the policy will be going forward.
When we checked in with Roger on Nov. 2, his tent was no longer there and Sudbury.com could not locate him.
Another man, (who did not wish to use his name but has been known to Sudbury.com for the last year) has also been asked to move to Energy Court. He is 63, doesn’t use drugs and lives on a disability pension. He can’t afford to rent an apartment and eat, he said, so he chooses to live on the street. Sudbury.com spoke with him Nov. 3, and he, too, says he will not move to the encampment.
“Oh no, oh hell no, that place is nuts,” he told Sudbury.com, but he said he’s been told twice now by municipal law enforcement (bylaw) that he should move there.
Homeless does not mean homogenous
Who lives on Sudbury streets or, perhaps soon, in Energy Court?
In May, the city released the data from the 2024 Point in Time (PiT) count, a federally mandated count of people experiencing homelessness. Completed Oct. 8, with a followup survey running from Oct. 8-15, 2024. The count found 505 people experiencing homelessness in Greater Sudbury. Of these 505, 229 opted to take the survey.
The survey showed that the majority of Sudbury’s homeless are local and that 41 per cent of them were homeless for the first time before they were 24.
There were nine respondents who said they were veterans, had a military background or served in the RCMP, said the report.
Of those who took the survey, 38 per cent identified as Indigenous and 24 individuals identified as a “racial minority,” said the report; 19 people said they came to Canada as a refugee, immigrant, asylum claimant or through another similar process.
The data also points to what appears to be a connection to homelessness from the child welfare system, with 35 per cent of respondents stating they had been in foster care or a youth group home with 24 per cent becoming homeless within 30 days of leaving foster care/group home.
Self-reports on gender identity showed 33 per cent of survey respondents as women, 63 per cent men and four per cent as two-spirit, trans-women, non-binary (genderqueer), or not-listed. As far as sexual orientation, 90 per cent of respondents identified as heterosexual while 10 per cent identified as bisexual, gay, lesbian, pansexual, two-spirit, or not-listed
Respondents stated they lost their housing due to lack of income (43 per cent) and 44 per cent of respondents reported their housing loss was due to an eviction.
Concerning “health challenges” as the report describes them, 73 per cent of survey respondents reported a substance use issue and 71 per cent reported a mental health issue; 50 per cent of respondents reported an illness or medical condition and 46 per cent reported physical mobility concerns .
As well, 36 per cent reported a learning, intellectual/developmental or cognitive function concern, 27 per cent reported an acquired brain injury and 27 per cent of reported “concerns with their senses, such as seeing or hearing.”
And a majority, 84 per cent of survey-takers received some form of social assistance,( e.g. Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program benefits etc.); 59 per cent of those were receiving Ontario Works, specifically.
Jenny Lamothe covers vulnerable and marginalized populations, as well as housing issues and the justice system for Sudbury.com.