BarrieToday welcomes letters to the editor at [email protected]. Please include your daytime phone number and address (for verification of authorship, not publication). The following letter from members of Engage Barrie is in response to 'Complex problem': Council takes aim at chronic homelessness,' published May 17, and 'Council paints stark picture around need for homelessness plan,' published May 18.
Engage Barrie Organization was founded on the principles of an equitable community, empowered people and an engaged local democracy, and it is within our mandate to speak up when we see those principles under threat.
We are very concerned with many aspects of council’s May 17 motion addressing homelessness in the city of Barrie.
To have a motion of this importance presented without notice and decided upon in a single council meeting raises concerns about due diligence being carried out.
Earlier in this term, council amended the procedural bylaw in order to ensure proper notice about bringing forward items – avoiding last-minute surprises, and ensuring transparency and good governance. Bypassing the spirit of this amendment calls into question council’s commitment to accountability, transparency and responsible governance.
Direct motions without notice are meant to be used only when there is an urgent timing matter – for example, a grant deadline that might be missed, or an unexpected emergency situation.
Typically, a chair (in this case, the mayor) must hear an argument for the urgency of a motion in order to rule on its admissibility – yet no such justification was given for bypassing standard procedure. This surprise introduction of such a lengthy and complex motion — which Coun. Craig Nixon stated had come forward after “several months of discussions” amongst councillors — took away the public’s right to comment, the chance for experts to weigh in, and council’s ability to have a properly informed discussion or debate.
In December, council released their strategic plan and priorities for the term. The use and content of this direct motion without notice undermines the plan’s “responsible governance” pillar, without addressing its “affordable place to live” pillar.
Despite the motion’s claim that its purpose was to address homelessness, it contains no clause offering relief from or prevention of homelessness; it only addresses what is to be done for or to individuals who are already experiencing homelessness.
Many members of the public, community experts and partners to the city’s existing community safety and well-being plan have already pointed out the public harms inherent in many of this motion’s clauses.
Our response to the direct motion, posted May 26, elaborates on many other concerns we have about its introduction and implementation, including its bypassing of the city’s own procedural and procurement bylaws, directing staff actions outside of municipal jurisdiction, contravening the Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s ruling on the right to self-shelter, as well as violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Ontario Human Rights Code, Accessibility for Ontarians With Disabilities Act, and the city’s own code of conduct
If council had faith in this motion, they should have taken the time to consult with stakeholders and allowed it to undergo the checks and balances available through standard procedure. We are highly concerned about the anti-democratic nature in which this motion was introduced and passed as well as the content of the motion and its ramifications, which was poorly constructed at best and inhumane at worst.
Rob Romanek (chair)
Anita Johnson-Ford
James Kerekes
Victoria Scott
Alyssa Wright
