Premier Doug Ford's Ontario

[zang]

Leaving them there does not do anything to help them (or the rest of us).The TTC and our parks should not be de facto substitute institutions that lack doctors, nurses, attendants, and security staff.
Maybe instead of giving $200 to everyone, tell the province to use it to set-up and staff more of these institutions. And also tell the municipal authorities they might need to sometimes physically move some of these mentally unsound individuals to these institutions, in spite of being afraid that it might "look like you're being mean to them" or some such misguided child-like attitude used to excuse their fecklessness.

We need more humane treatment of all people in these situations. Giving people a proper, private home is a good start. Whether that's an apartment or a tiny home, you're giving someone a place they can be alone, lock the door and feel safe. Yes, sometimes forced help is required, but it doesn't have to be a black/white-institutionlize/don't institutionalize situation. Once housing has been stabilized, routine check ins, medical treatment and meds go a long way.

I see a lot of comments from people who just want the "eyesore" to disappear, and that's depressing.

I have step-niece who was homeless and living in one of these camps. She suffers from borderline personality disorder and was addicted to meth at the time. Proper help (and fully subsidized housing) has allowed her to clean up, remain sober and rebuild her life. She's now one credit away from finishing school and going on to work as a PSW. Most people on the streets are in similar situations, and too often we who are sitting comfortable aren't aware of how little it takes to get into a situation like that. There are very, very few who want to sleep out in the cold at night, living on the streets. My niece unfortunately has two parents with their own mental health struggles who were absent when she needed them.

For a country that half a decade ago declared housing a human right (on top of being a signatory of the ICESCR treaty in 1966), we are really crappy about actually following through. We've allowed our housing to be run by developers and landlords, we still treat homelessness as a policing matter, shelters are a joke, in a system reliant on charity, and government has done very little to use its power and money to help fix the problem.

I would absolutely love either the province or federal governments to step up and actually take proper, sustained action. It's going to take a lot of money though. Ultimately, we save in the long run, but bureaucrats are too often short-sighted, and both levels of government are too fiscally conservative and bound to corporate interests to ever want to focus on actually making life better for all Canadians.

 

[lenaitch]

We need more humane treatment of all people in these situations. Giving people a proper, private home is a good start. Whether that's an apartment or a tiny home, you're giving someone a place they can be alone, lock the door and feel safe. Yes, sometimes forced help is required, but it doesn't have to be a black/white-institutionlize/don't institutionalize situation. Once housing has been stabilized, routine check ins, medical treatment and meds go a long way.

Agree, but isn't what you describe just institutionalization in another form? It is a space, fully provided and funded by the State, with monitoring, medical intervention and, where required, involuntariness thrown in.

 

[zang]

Agree, but isn't what you describe just institutionalization in another form? It is a space, fully provided and funded by the State, with monitoring, medical intervention and, where required, involuntariness thrown in.

Unless someone is a severe danger to other people, why have them in a dedicated facility that already brings a big stigma with it? In addition, privacy is not implicit in a full-on medical facility. Aside from that, they're there generally for acute treatment. You get well, you'll get turfed, regardless of whether you have a home yet or not. Or alternatively, patients will end up resisting treatment to stay longer than needed precisely because they don't have a home. According to my niece, the lack of stability was her biggest struggle. She wasn't offered/given psychological help (to treat her BPD) in her transition from homelessness. But having the stability of home and food helped her enough that she could focus on it. We can't ask people to both work on their mental health without stability being there when they're ready. It's why I think housing should come first.

 

[lenaitch]

Unless someone is a severe danger to other people, why have them in a dedicated facility that already brings a big stigma with it? In addition, privacy is not implicit in a full-on medical facility. Aside from that, they're there generally for acute treatment. You get well, you'll get turfed, regardless of whether you have a home yet or not. Or alternatively, patients will end up resisting treatment to stay longer than needed precisely because they don't have a home. According to my niece, the lack of stability was her biggest struggle. She wasn't offered/given psychological help (to treat her BPD) in her transition from homelessness. But having the stability of home and food helped her enough that she could focus on it. We can't ask people to both work on their mental health without stability being there when they're ready. It's why I think housing should come first.

Fair enough, and maybe a decent percentage of those currently living in encampments (which started this discussion) would take advantage of and benefit from that. What do we do with the rest? The hard core drug addicts, the ones that don't trust any kind of communal living, the ones that are resistant to MH treatment? Private living in a communal setting; i.e. a lock on your door, has certain advantages, but also certain risks.

I certainly don't have the answer, but highly doubt it is a one-size-fits-all solution.

 

[DSC]

From CP24

Well, no doubt people living in encampments are carrying around $10,000. I do not see many fines being paid!

‘Enough is enough’: Doug Ford says Ontario could hand encampment drug users $10,000 fines, prison

Ontario Premier Doug Ford says his government is introducing a suite of measures to help municipalities “address and dismantle” homeless encampments around the province, including steep fines for people who use drugs.

www.cp24.com

 

[T3G]

What, since when does Ford have a moral problem with drugs?

 

[Northern Light]

From CP24
View attachment 619028
Well, no doubt people living in encampments are carrying around $10,000. I do not see many fines being paid!

‘Enough is enough’: Doug Ford says Ontario could hand encampment drug users $10,000 fines, prison

Ontario Premier Doug Ford says his government is introducing a suite of measures to help municipalities “address and dismantle” homeless encampments around the province, including steep fines for people who use drugs.

www.cp24.com

Cost of housing someone in prison ~120k per year.

Cost of providing a market-rent apartment (subsidized down to $220 per month (30% of Ontario Works) 24k per year

1 person jailed or 5 in 1bdrm apartments.

Hmmmm.

****

To be clear, I don't have a problem with jail for those running organized crime out of encampments (and there are a few); but as a general way of addressing them its foolish and cost prohibitive.

 

[PL1]

What, since when does Ford have a moral problem with drugs?

I think it's "drugs + homelessness" he has a problem with. "Drugs + silver spoon" is ok.

 

[zang]

What, since when does Ford have a moral problem with drugs?

He doesn’t. Doug Ford has a moral problem with people being poor.

 

[Dan416]

Since this policy comes from the Ford government, I'm putting it here for lack of a better place.

Peel Regional roads within the City of Mississauga will be transferred from Peel to Mississauga on July 1, 2026. At first I thought the release said 2025, but no, 2026. So they have a year and a half to figure it out. Although considering the city already has most of the roads within the city anyway, not sure why this takes so long to do. Waste collection I understand taking a bit longer, and I'm actually surprised they decided to transfer that.

City of Mississauga ready to assume key Region of Peel services

Government of Ontario announces changes about streamlining of regional services

www.mississauga.ca

Roads​

The City of Mississauga currently maintains 5,700 kilometres of roads. With the transition of Regional roads, the City will now maintain all roads within its boundaries. This change will create clarity for residents and streamline the maintenance of these roadways, saving taxpayers money.

The government release actually notes that the regional roads in all of Peel Region are being downloaded to the municipalities, but only waste collection is being downloaded to Mississauga for now. Interesting, if not consistent.

Ontario Newsroom

news.ontario.ca

• Regional roads and associated stormwater infrastructure, including ownership and maintenance responsibilities, from the Region of Peel to Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon.
• Waste collection services and two community recycling centres located in Mississauga from the Region of Peel to the City of Mississauga

 

[Coolibop]

Suprised this didn't get posted yet... But did you know we might be able to fire a sitting councillor soon?

The municipal affairs minister (Calandra) introduced a bill this past Thursday, allowing the removal of a sitting councillor from office if they violate the city's code of conduct.

Essentially the process would require at least 3 steps to pass: the integrity commissioner of the city would have to recommend it (in itself could have gone through several iterations of punishment) passed to the Ontario integrity commissioner for review, and then back to council requiring a unanimous vote.

This would not only would remove the councillor from office, but potentially bar then from running again.

This has been a key issue at Pickering's city council meetings where one councillor has been a thorn... causing a bit of chaos at council meetings this term (I won't give the nonsense light of day, you can look it up if you wish)... This person has already received 3 seperate suspensions of pay and is set to probably receive another 90 days for asking for the city's CAO to be fired amongst other things...

The mayor tweeted the bill should be named in her honour (Via X).

It is not clear what the process to replace a councillor would be...I assume a by-election of sorts.

 

[zang]

Suprised this didn't get posted yet... But did you know we might be able to fire a sitting councillor soon?

The municipal affairs minister (Calandra) introduced a bill this past Thursday, allowing the removal of a sitting councillor from office if they violate the city's code of conduct.

Essentially the process would require at least 3 steps to pass: the integrity commissioner of the city would have to recommend it (in itself could have gone through several iterations of punishment) passed to the Ontario integrity commissioner for review, and then back to council requiring a unanimous vote.

This would not only would remove the councillor from office, but potentially bar then from running again.

This has been a key issue at Pickering's city council meetings where one councillor has been a thorn... causing a bit of chaos at council meetings this term (I won't give the nonsense light of day, you can look it up if you wish)... This person has already received 3 seperate suspensions of pay and is set to probably receive another 90 days for asking for the city's CAO to be fired amongst other things...

The mayor tweeted the bill should be named in her honour (Via X).
View attachment 619624

It is not clear what the process to replace a councillor would be...I assume a by-election of sorts.

Rob and Doug both violated the city's code of conduct when they were councillors. I'm sure Doug would have a much different opinion were this about ten years ago and Kathleen Wynne were the one pulling the provincial levers. Not that I think Ms. Robinson doesn't deserve to be turfed, just that it's another over-reach on the part of a provincial government hellbent on messing with municipal politics.

Now, if only we could do something about pesky Premiers.

 

[picard102]

just that it's another over-reach on the part of a provincial government hellbent on messing with municipal politics.

The municipality is the one pulling the trigger to remove someone, not the province.

 

[Coolibop]

^agreed the municipality is the one sending it off... And that's most likely after several iterations of breaches.

I will add many municipal politicians are the ones calling for the province to do something... And they are in agreement (including NDP and Liberal leaning members of councils).

 

[lenaitch]

Since this policy comes from the Ford government, I'm putting it here for lack of a better place.

Peel Regional roads within the City of Mississauga will be transferred from Peel to Mississauga on July 1, 2026. At first I thought the release said 2025, but no, 2026. So they have a year and a half to figure it out. Although considering the city already has most of the roads within the city anyway, not sure why this takes so long to do. Waste collection I understand taking a bit longer, and I'm actually surprised they decided to transfer that.

City of Mississauga ready to assume key Region of Peel services

Government of Ontario announces changes about streamlining of regional services

www.mississauga.ca

The government release actually notes that the regional roads in all of Peel Region are being downloaded to the municipalities, but only waste collection is being downloaded to Mississauga for now. Interesting, if not consistent.

Ontario Newsroom

news.ontario.ca

There's is no doubt a fair bit of background legal issues to be worked through including, but not limited to, contracts and collective bargaining issues (regional road employees, etc.). As well, taxation rates have to be re-calculated since roads will no longer be on the regional bill.

The differences in waste management might be related to the issues of collective bargaining units or contractors as well. If, for example, Brampton is one year into a multi-year contract, it's probably cheaper just to ride it out.

There is precedent for this. Frontenac County has no roads under its jurisdiction - they are all lower tier responsibilities.