Editor’s Note: For more information regarding the provincial government’s potential use of the notwithstanding clause, go to https://www.brantbeacon.ca/notwithstanding-clause-causing-tension-amongst-ontario-municipalities/
County of Brant Council passed a resolution officially opposing the Government of Ontario’s potential use of the notwithstanding clause to tackle the chronic homelessness, mental health, safety and addictions crisis during its regular Council meeting on Tuesday, December 3, 2024.
The motion, which will be distributed to the Ontario government, specifically the Premier of Ontario, the Attorney General, the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services, the Finance Minister the Minister of Health, MPP Will Bouma, MPP Ernie Hardeman, and MPP Brian Riddell reads as follows:
“Whereas mayors from several Ontario municipalities have recently petitioned the Premier of Ontario to invoke the notwithstanding clause in relation to proposed measures addressing mental health, addiction, and homelessness;
And whereas the notwithstanding clause is designed to suspend the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
And whereas the Charter is intended to protect the fundamental rights of all Canadian citizens, without exception;
And whereas Section 7 of the Charter guarantees everyone the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice;
And whereas the application of Section 7 of the Charter to issues concerning encampments and individuals living in temporary shelters was affirmed in the decision of Justice Valente in The Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. Persons Unknown and to be Ascertained, 2023 ONSC 670;
And whereas individuals experiencing homelessness, mental health challenges, and substance use disorders are among the most vulnerable members of our society, deserving of protection and support rather than further marginalization;
Therefore be it resolved that:
1. The County of Brant strongly opposes the use of the notwithstanding clause by the Government of Ontario in connection with any legislation that would facilitate the eviction or displacement of encampment residents.
2. The County of Brant affirms that all individuals, regardless of their housing status or personal circumstances, are entitled to the full protection of their Charter rights.
3. The County of Brant recognizes that addressing homelessness, mental health issues, and addiction requires compassionate, evidence-based solutions that respect the dignity and rights of all individuals.
4. The County of Brant calls upon the provincial government to work collaboratively with municipalities, health experts, and community organizations to develop comprehensive strategies that address the root causes of homelessness, mental health challenges, and addiction, while upholding the Charter rights of all citizens.
5. The County of Brant commits to advocating for increased funding and support for affordable housing, mental health services, and addiction treatment programs as more effective and humane alternatives to encampment evictions.”
Oakley then spoke to his motion, noting that using the notwithstanding clause would not only put Ontario in a very dangerous place, but that it would set a very dangerous precedent.
“To me, I think the conversation really starts and finishes with whether or not we believe that the notwithstanding clause, by suspending the right to life, liberty and security of specific individuals, and whether or not we are comfortable in moving those from being rights as protected under Charter, to privileges experienced by those who are fortunate enough to have their own housing, not be experiencing a mental health crisis or having addiction issues,” said Oakley. “I think in moving those from being rights, to privileges, it puts us not only in a very dangerous place, but it sets a very dangerous precedent. I think it is also antithetical to the values we all share as Canadians.”
Councillor Christine Garneau then explained why she would not be supporting the resolution, referencing her and her husband’s own experiences with dealing with the homeless crisis through their property maintenance work.
“I think that this is a much larger issue and I think that we, as a Council and a municipality, have to balance everyone’s needs in this. The potential for encampments in public spaces means that others lose access to those spaces and I think the discussion about who has a greater claim to be there, and under what circumstances, is something to be explored,” said Garneau. “…There’s a lot more that we need to learn and explore as a municipality, and I’m concerned about taking on an activist approach. …I think that this is a decision that individual councilors should make for themselves, rather than we, as a municipality, should be adopting. If it does pass, then all of us have to champion that statement, and I would be very personally challenged to do that.”
Mayor David Bailey then agreed that perhaps they shouldn’t be voting as Council as a whole, and suggested a recorded vote, saying that he would personally be voting on the side of compassion and in favour of the resolution.
Councillor Robert Chambers then said that while he knows it was unintentional, he was unimpressed with how the resolution was brought forward, noting that a topic of such importance, length and meaningfulness, should not have been brought forward so hastily.
“If you want me to vote on something of this importance, you’re going to have to give me a little bit of time to at least think about it, rather than throw it out and expect people to vote on it,” said Chambers.
Speaking to the resolution itself, he said it was ultimately a reaction to a reaction, to a reaction.
“Once you look at what the resolution is, it’s a reaction to a letter which was a reaction to a comment by the Premier, which was a reaction to a motion passed by the Ontario Big City Mayors caucus,” said Chambers. “…When you distribute things to the Ontario government, you should have some background information to support what you’re distributing. Are we just going to send an email with this [resolution] to the province? That’s not the way a County should present something like this to the province of Ontario. I see no background information, …and I see no supporting information to support the whereas clauses, which, a good parliamentarian would tell you are supposed to be factual, and once you get into the resolution part, that’s where the opinion comes in.”
Chambers then went on to say that one of the tragedies of being a councillor is that, “if you vote against this, you appear to be a heartless guy that wants to evict homeless people out of their encampments, which is totally unfair and untrue.”
He later suggested that he thought the resolution should be tabled.
“We should not pass this resolution [because] I don’t like [the idea of] defeating it because, again, it looks like we don’t care. I’m suggesting the motion should be just tabled,” said Chambers. “…To distribute this to the Ontario government is just not the way to look at the very serious issue of homelessness in not only Brant County, but in every city in Canada.”
Bailey then said that while he agreed with many of Chambers’ points, he didn’t agree that it should be tabled.
“I don’t agree with tabling it at all, and I don’t see it the way you see it,” said Bailey. “I think everything you said is true, but I think that we gave you the time to read it, we gave you a lot of time to read it like we gave everyone else a chance to read it. I believe that reacting to a reaction, to a reaction, is the way you get things done.”
He then went on to say he himself needed to vote in favour of the resolution for several reasons.
“I need to vote in favour of this because, as I said, it’s affected my life and it’s affected my relationship with with our neighbours [the City of Brantford], and it’s going to dissolve things because of the actions that the mayor of Brantford has taken without me or without asking me how I felt or whether I wanted to join him,” said Bailey. “I don’t feel the way he did, so I wouldn’t have joined him anyway, but I now get to join a list that opposes how he feels, and I think that’s my right as the other half of something that has obviously failed; the relationship in homelessness and addictions between the City and the County. I would hope that we wouldn’t table this.”
He also noted that while he understood Chambers’ concerns about looking uncompassionate, he didn’t see it that way as sometimes they have to vote for hard things and stand by the outcome as a whole despite their own views all the time.
Referencing a report about homelessness that recently came to Council, Councillor John MacAlpine then said that he thought it was important to make sure that people’s rights were upheld.
“We had a report that talked about homelessness and how we would react to it and it itemized how the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that people cannot be forced from the parks unless you took away the notwithstanding clause,” said MacAlpine. “I think it’s extremely important that we follow the Charter, that we support it, and that people’s rights are upheld, except for in extreme cases. I think this is one where we need to stand up and say that the province, and perhaps the federal governments, are not doing their job properly because they’ve been downloading all these costs onto the municipalities and not following up with their responsibilities. I’m in favour of this statement [in the resolution], we need to hold them accountable.”
The resolution was then carried on a recorded vote of 6 to 4. Councillors Jennifer Kyle, John MacAlpine, Lukas Oakley, Steve Howes and John Bell, as well as Mayor David Bailey, all voted in favour of the resolution while Councillors John Peirce, Robert Chambers, Brian Coleman and Christine Garneau were not in favour. Councillor David Miller was not present for the Council meeting.
Kimberly De Jong’s reporting is funded by the Canadian government through its Local Journalism Initiative.The funding allows her to report rural and agricultural stories from Blandford-Blenheim and Brant County. Reach her at kimberly.dejong@brantbeacon.ca.
