It’s the holiday season, the most wonderful time of the year, so let’s keep it breezy this week and talk about something light, like homeless encampments and the ramifications of using legislation to override the fundamental Charter rights of some Canadian citizens.
Before we tread too deep into those waters, first let me explain why I will be using the term “homeless” throughout this column, and not “unhoused people” or “persons experiencing homelessness.” The reason I’m sticking with the old term is that people are familiar with the word homeless, they know exactly what type of person we are talking about when we use that word, and it immediately invokes a strong sense of compassion and empathy.
Whereas terms like “unhoused” or “persons experiencing homelessness” seem to introduce a level of abstraction from the actual homeless person, it feels to me like a convenient way for people to emotionally detach themselves from facing the uncomfortable reality that there are homeless people living on our streets.
I’m not here to begrudge people who wanna use those newer terms, I’m not the word police, but I just felt like I should explain why I’m not switching terminology. Not for nothing, but I also think this kind of lexicological bleaching doesn’t really help the issue at hand. How many extra homeless people have been helped by using the word “unhoused?” Was this an issue that was top of mind for any homeless person? Were homeless people clamouring for a rebrand? I think not.
But I digress.
The issue of homelessness is grabbing headlines because not only is the homeless population growing at a troubling rate, but because serious consideration is being given to using Section 33 (commonly known as the notwithstanding clause) in order to circumvent a recent court ruling which enshrined homeless encampments with certain rights that make it nearly impossible to clear them out, even when they become sprawling, dangerous, and municipally burdensome.
For a preposterously detailed breakdown of this Section 33 situation, check out this article here, but if you want the short version: the province wants to know if big cities across Ontario will support the use of Section 33 to clear homeless camps, and some did, some didn’t.
Locally, the mayors of all three of Niagara’s big cities (St. Catharines, Welland, and Niagara Falls; the ones that actually have homeless camps) told the province that, yes, they would support using Section 33 to clear out the camps.
Opponents of the Section 33 proposal (of which there are lots, both locally and at large across Ontario) have argued that this would amount to “criminalizing” the act of being homeless, which isn’t quite accurate, but they do have a point in that using the notwithstanding clause to combat the homeless crisis does seem to represent a clumsy approach. Section 33 is certainly not an elegant tool; more sledgehammer than scalpel.
Unfortunately, I think the sledgehammer is the only option left in the toolbox, after the Waterloo Region homeless court case ruling ostensibly outlawed many of the other tools.
It’s not a perfect solution to the issue at hand, there is of course no perfect solution, but it might be the best of several bad options.
It’s a bit like when you’re in a tight spot on the golf course. There was a time when, faced with a tough lie in a bad position, I would go for the infamous “hero shot” and try to thread the needle through the trees, past the bunker, carry over the water, and stick the green.
I’ve since learned – thanks to my golf mentors, the Cassidy brothers – that I should just “take my medicine” and punch the ball sideways back onto the fairway. It never feels good; I’m not making progress toward the green, which is my goal. It does, however, eventually get me to where I’m going with the least amount of friction.
Opponents of the Section 33 path are basically advocating for the “hero shot” approach. According to St. Catharines Councillor Haley Bateman, homeless encampments are “an expression of need for services” such as housing or food, and we should not be using legislation to bulldoze those camps. Sure, in a perfect world, I agree. But simply saying that we should solve the homeless encampment problem with houses and food amounts to not much more than demanding we go for the hero shot.
We’re not going to solve the homeless crisis with Section 33, it’s a lateral move at best, but faced with the position we’re in, it’s unfortunately time to take our medicine and get back on the fairway so we can start heading for the goal.
James Culic wields clumsy golf metaphors the same way he swings his driver: poorly. Find out how to yell at him at the bottom of this page, or craft your own homeless allegory with a letter to the editor.
