CambridgeToday received the following open letter to City Council regarding encampments.
Good afternoon, Councillors.
I write to thank you, and all the other councillors who have taken the bold step to oppose the use of the "notwithstanding clause" to legitimize discrimination, further stigma, and criminalization of those living unhoused in our community, Ontario and potentially, Canada. To use the notwithstanding clause in this way is "un-Canadian," mean spirited and removes any compassion or dignity that should be afforded this population, not to mention, in the absence of any available shelter, exposes them to serious risks to their health and, quite possibly, their lives.
Clearly, the system is broken and not performing in the way intended. The appropriate approach would be to significantly increase the numbers of deeply affordable and supportive housing units that would result in permanent solutions to homelessness. Of course, this would require the collaboration and cooperation of all levels of government. Continuing to increase temporary solutions like "garden sheds" at the former landfill site or those used by A Better Tent City, while providing a very basic roof and protection from the elements, are temporary only, and do nothing to reduce the numbers of homeless within our community. At least two innovative proposals have been submitted to Regional Council and the Mayor of Cambridge that would move our communities in the right direction with little or no response. One of these approaches is a modification to the "garden shed" concept that would result in permanent housing and could potentially lead to home ownership by the tenants after involving appropriate support services.
Further, and more worrisome, the use of the notwithstanding clause is a slippery slope toward the possibility of human rights hard won by equity deserving groups being dismantled resulting in the very purpose of the Charter (to protect the minority from the unreasonable imposition of the majority) being rendered moot. This is certainly not something I want to see within our Canadian democracy, and, more importantly, not a direction that should be led by municipal governments. This level of policy and legislative direction far exceeds the purview of municipal governance, in my opinion.
Thank you again for taking a stand. I support your position and hope that it brings others aboard to stop this misuse of the Charter.
Douglas E. Bartholomew-Saunders
Cambridge
