By Pam Wright
Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
Walter Van de Kleut wishes Chatham-Kent’s mayor would walk back his endorsement of using the notwithstanding clause in relation to homeless encampments.
That’s what the Chatham-Kent Legal Clinic executive director had to say regarding the controversy surrounding the potential use of Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that would strip the homeless, the mentally ill and the addicted of their basic constitutional rights.
There’s widespread speculation the notwithstanding clause will be used to temporarily override portions of the Charter, that could result in municipalities razing tent encampments, leaving those who live there with nowhere to go. Premier Doug Ford has also announced tough, new legislation with regard to clearing encampments.
“This is a blunt instrument to use against the most vulnerable people in our society,” Van de Kleut told The Voice. “He made a mistake.”
Van de Kleut is among 450 members of Ontario’s legal community who signed a letter speaking out against Ford’s proposal to use the Charter’s notwithstanding clause to deal with homeless encampments. Twelve mayors – including Canniff – wrote a letter to Ford outlining strong support for the measure.
However, a wave of opposition to the measure is building, including the legal community letter, which calls using the notwithstanding clause an “extreme measure.”
A letter signed by a number of Ontario municipal councillors, including C-K’s Alysson Storey, Michael Bondy and Rhonda Jubenville, is also opposed to the province utilizing the clause.
The notwithstanding clause is needed because of a decision in January 2023 by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Justice M.J. Valente ruled that the Region of Waterloo could not use a municipal bylaw to evict people living in an encampment in Kitchener because that bylaw was deemed to be in violation of Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Van de Kleut said he understands the frustration of mayors who signed the letter.
“We are all frustrated by encampments, but to incarcerate the most vulnerable people living there is a crime against humanity,” he said. “We’re not talking about animals like raccoons or deer; we’re talking about human beings here.”
Van de Kleut points out that not all homeless are mentally ill or using drugs, as seniors and the elderly are increasingly becoming homeless and upper tier governments are not helping find solutions.
“The federal and provincial governments have failed us,” he said, adding that neither are building affordable and social housing, and the cost of social housing continues to be downloaded on municipalities who can’t afford it.
“Therein lies the desperation of mayors,” Van de Kleut said, stressing that rent controls are badly needed as well.
If homeless encampments are taken down, Van de Kleut wonders where the homeless are supposed to go.
“Are they supposed to walk the streets? Die under a bridge? What are they going to do?” he asked.
However, those in favour of using the notwithstanding clause, like Canniff, argue the rights of ordinary citizens are being trampled by a host of problems – such as crime – associated with encampments.
Canniff told The Voice that using the notwithstanding clause is simply having another “tool in the toolkit.
“I don’t want to take away people’s rights; I would just like the ability to move the encampment to a more appropriate place. Where it (the Chatham encampment in Rotary Park) is, it’s infringing on people’s rights. That’s it, that’s all.”
He also stressed that encampment dwellers would not be criminalized.
