Cambridge council votes in support of motion to clear encampments

A majority of Cambridge city councillors on Tuesday ignored pleas by three community advocates and voted to support a motion that would see municipalities clear encampments, and move people experiencing homelessness and addiction into treatment.

Following a discussion that, at times, became heated inside city council chambers on Tuesday night, the councillors voted 6-3 in favour of the motion put forward by the Ontario Big City Mayors (OBCM).

Prior to the vote, three delegates representing separate community groups, as well as three councillors, voiced their opposition to the motion and urged council not to move forward with their support.

One delegate, Sydney MacDonald, said "forcing people into treatment against their will is not compassionate, and it's also not actually effective."

She said jurisdictions like Mexico, Sweden, Massachusetts and Vancouver have all tried involuntary treatment, but found it to increase the risk of overdose and showed no significant impact on substance use patterns. 

"People facing addiction and mental health challenges need supportive, accessible care and not coercion," MacDonald said.

'A political Trojan horse'

Robyn Schwarz, another delegate, said while the motion may look good on paper, it will not solve the problems in housing and health care.

"I would call this motion a political Trojan horse of sorts. It says a lot of things that I know everyone around this table agrees with. It is up to all levels of government to tackle these issues together," Schwarz said.

"I know there are people around this table tonight who have been trying to do this for years and who are frustrated and tired of seeing parts of our community get worse rather than better.

"It's also up to the provincial government to provide the City of Cambridge with the resources necessary to tackle these issues. That is how it is set out in our legal systems in Canada, and this motion is not going to make that happen. Forcing treatment on individuals with addiction and mental health challenges will only cause more harm and get us further away from solving these complex problems together," Schwarz added.

Ward 4 Coun. Ross Earnshaw said while there's much he agrees with, he could not support the overall motion.

"There are elements of the motion before us which seek to undermine [the Charter of Rights and Freedoms] for a segment of society that is vulnerable and living on the margins, and seeks to do so in the face of court rulings that bar the sorts of powers that are requested in the motion," Earnshaw said.

"I consider this to be an erosion of the rule of law and therefore I cannot support it."

Meanwhile, Coun. Scott Hamilton of Ward 7 said while everyone agreed "we're in a crisis and we're all just struggling with how to address it … it's a health crisis, not a political crisis."

According to Hamilton, not being an expert in the field of health or not being an expert in the field of law, "I think it behooves us to listen to those experts in our community that spend their lives studying this, that spend their careers working on the ground every day with people suffering from these very issues."

He said he personally feels he lacks the expertise to make a very complex decision about a health crisis "that could very well end up killing people. That's not a decision that we should be making."

On Monday, Sanguen Health Centre wrote to council members expressing "deep concerns" regarding the motion going forward.

"While we recognize the challenges surrounding homelessness and substance use, we know from the evidence that this approach will not yield effective or humane solutions. Instead, it is likely to exacerbate harm and prevent meaningful or sustained recovery," the open letter reads.

The letter urged council to reconsider the motion and shift focus toward accessible, voluntary services that respect individual choice and support effective recovery.

"Forced treatment is not the answer. A compassionate, evidence-based approach that addresses systemic barriers will lead to better outcomes for individuals and our community as a whole," the letter continued.

People are asking for help, mayor says

Cambridge Mayor Jan Liggett was forceful in her response to those who spoke critically of the motion.

"For over my 10 years on council, I've had to hold people whose children have died while they're crying in my arms, it's extremely hard to handle. They are asking for help. They have been for a number of years," Liggett said.

"Do we wait until years down the road when the studies come forward and let more and more people die? People who don't have the mental capacity to make decisions, whether it's mental health or whether it's addictions, do we just leave them alone and say, 'Oh, we haven't done the proper research so we're not going to help you?' I'm not willing to do that, and neither were 28 mayors that sat around that table and spent six hours putting that together."

Liggett said that in addition to the legal opinion and medical opinion they called on in drafting the motion, she has dealt with those experiencing homelessness and addiction in her personal life.

"I was determined when I became mayor that I was going to make a difference in this community, I was not going to let this continue or grow any further than it has," she said.

"I've had addicts in my family. I have taken homeless into my home, so before anybody says walk a mile in their shoes, I've done that. I have lived that experience, I know what it's like for these people. I know what it's like to care about them and love them and want to make a difference."