Council debates use of Notwithstanding Clause

Ultimately votes in favour of sending a letter to the province opposing use of the clause to evict or displace encampment residents

By Casandra Turnbull

After a lot of meaningful debate, the County of Brant will become one of the first municipal governments across Ontario to take an official stance against the use of the Notwithstanding Clause to protect the fundamental rights of some of the province’s most vulnerable citizens

The conversation was held during a Council meeting on December 3rd , where councillors participated in a recorded vote to support a motion that would oppose the use of the Notwithstanding clause with any legislation that would facilitate the eviction or displacement of encampment residents

This discussion comes after the Ontario Big City Mayors (OBCM) caucus issued a letter to petition Premier Doug Ford to invoke the Notwithstanding clause to address mental health, addiction and homelessness; more specifically to clear homeless individuals out of encampments across Ontario towns/cities. However, many councillors who work alongside those Mayors were not consulted before they petitioned the Premier and before the letter was made public, essentially stripping the councillors of the opportunity to voice their concerns about the use of the clause or any input and democratic debate at the municipal level

As a result, a Coalition of 72 Municipal Councillors (and growing) united to dispute the stance of the mayors who proposed the use of the clause. One of the 15 mayors in favour of using the clause is City of Brantford Mayor Kevin Davis. Working with the Coalition, Ward 2 Paris Councillor Lukas Oakley spearheaded the local discussion and worked with municipal colleagues across the province to craft the motion to oppose the use of the clause and advocate for the protection of basic human rights. The motion was first presented to council on November 26th but there was some backlash from councillors who felt they did not receive adequate notice or background information on the resolution and required more time to review the stance before supporting it and sending a letter of support to the province.

During the December 3rd meeting, Councillor Robert Chambers expressed he was disturbed with how the issue was originally presented on November 26th. Continued on page 6