Charities’ critics are short-sighted

Re: Avoiding a repeat of the Salvation Army fight will take a whole new deal for social services, Nov. 22.

It could be argued the city of Ottawa, the province of Ontario and the government of Canada do not have a co-ordinated homelessness delivery strategy. Federal-provincial dollars are targeted, often vaguely, often short-term — then pulled, unilaterally. Many basic needs go unmet. It’s perhaps easier to let private charitable agencies with broad shoulders deal with the gaping holes in policy intent, political will and implementation capacity.

Key co-delivery partners supported the Salvation Army’s planned move to Vanier. This is significant. So did Mayor Jim Watson and many councillors.

Having been a long-term board veteran of a small cityfunded homelessness day program some years ago, I personally lament that while city workers have full medical and dental benefits, and definedbenefit pensions, Centre 507 drop-in staff do not (tiny charity, small annual budget; not the city’s problem).

I would love to see full funding to meet all of Canada’s basic homelessness needs, and co-ordinated strategic leadership of implementation by all three levels of government. It would, however, cost a lot more, and much would end up in overhead.

In this context, finding fault with capable, generous and caring charitable agencies for covering shortfalls in meeting societal expectations seems to me short-sighted and perhaps wrong-headed.

I am disappointed in Mathieu Fleury, my city councillor, for his apparently NIMBY-based campaign against the Salvation Army’s impressive Vanier plans. Roy Maddocks, Centre 507 board chair for six years, Ottawa