On Tuesday, the majority of Cambridge city councilors ignored calls from three community advocates and voted in favor of a motion that would see municipalities clear out encampments and refer homeless and drug addicted people to treatment.

Following a sometimes heated discussion in Cambridge city council chambers on Tuesday evening, councilors voted six to three in favor of the bill. motion presented by the mayors of Ontario’s big cities (OBCM).

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

One delegate, Sydney MacDonald, said “forcing people into treatment against their will is not compassionate, nor is it really effective.”

She said countries like Mexico, Sweden, Massachusetts and Vancouver have all tried involuntary treatment but found it increased the risk of overdose and showed no significant impact on drug use habits. substances.

“People facing substance abuse and mental health issues need accessible supportive care, not coercion,” MacDonald said.

“A political Trojan horse”

Robin Shultz, another delegate, said that while the motion may look good on paper, it won’t solve housing and health care problems.

“I would call this motion a political Trojan horse of sorts. It says a lot of things that everyone around this table agrees with. It’s up to all levels of government to tackle these issues together.” , Shultz 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 getting worse instead of better.

“It is also up to the provincial government to provide the City of Cambridge with the resources needed to address these issues. This is how it is provided for in our legal systems in Canada, and this motion will not allow that to happen. on people with substance abuse and mental health issues will only cause more harm and move us further away from solving these complex problems together,” Shultz added.

Advice. Ward 4’s Ross Earnshaw said while he agreed on many points, he couldn’t support the motion as a whole.

“Certain elements of the motion before us seek to undermine (the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) for a segment of society that is vulnerable and living on the margins, and seek to do so in the face of court decisions that prohibit the types of the powers requested in the motion,” Earnshaw said.

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

Meanwhile, Coun. Ward 7’s Scott Hamilton said that while everyone agreed “we’re in a crisis and we’re all struggling to figure out how to deal with it… it’s a health crisis , not a political crisis.”

According to Hamilton, being neither an expert in the field of health nor an expert in the field of law, “I think it behooves us to listen to the experts in our community who spend their lives studying this subject, who spend their careers working in the field every day with people suffering from these same problems. »

He said he personally felt he did not have the expertise to make a very complex decision regarding a health crisis “that could very well end up killing people. It’s not a decision we should take”.

On Monday, Sanguen Health Center wrote to council members expressing “deep concerns” about the upcoming motion.

“While we recognize the challenges related to homelessness and substance use, we know from the evidence that this approach will not produce effective or humane solutions. Instead, it is likely to exacerbate the damage and prevent meaningful or lasting recovery,” the open letter reads.

The letter urges the council to reconsider the motion and focus on accessible, voluntary services that respect individual choices and support effective recovery.

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

People are asking for help, says mayor

Cambridge Mayor Jan Liggett responded forcefully to those who criticized the motion.

“In the more than 10 years I’ve been on the council, I’ve had to hold people whose children have died while they’re crying, it’s extremely difficult to deal with. They’re asking for help. They are. have been doing for several years,” Liggett said.

“Do we have to wait years later for studies to be published and let more and more people die? People who don’t have the mental capacity to make decisions, whether it’s mental health or substance abuse, should 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 are the 28 mayors who sat around this table and spent six hours putting this together.”

Liggett said that in addition to the legal advice and medical advice they sought when drafting the motion, she has also dealt with people who are homeless and addicted to drugs in her personal life.

“When I became mayor I was determined to make a difference in this community, I was not going to let this continue or grow any further than before,” she said.

“I’ve had drug addicts in my family. I’ve welcomed homeless people into my home, so before anyone told me to walk a mile in their shoes, I did it. I’ve had that experience, I know what it’s like for these people. I know what it’s like to care about them, to love them and to want to make a difference.”