The Safer Municipalities Act: A misguided approach to public safety
The Safer Municipalities Act, introduced as Bill 242 by Premier Doug Ford on December 12, 2024, consists of two major legislative components that target Ontario’s homeless population and people who use drugs. The first part, the Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act, creates new punishments for individuals consuming or “believed to be consuming” illegal substances in a public place. The second part of the Act amends the Trespass to Property Act, adding aggravating factors to be considered when sentencing for a trespassing offence, which can raise the severity of punishment. This Bill is framed as an effort to enhance public safety, however, its approach—relying on punitive measures instead of increased social supports—raises significant concerns about its potential consequences for vulnerable populations, particularly those experiencing homelessness, substance use disorders and mental health challenges.
This proposed legislation comes on the heels of another act that removed essential social and healthcare services for injection drug users. The Safer Streets, Stronger Communities Act, 2024, which was passed without debate, committee study, or input from experts, attempts to shutter several supervised consumption sites across the province despite overwhelming social science evidence that these sites reduce overdose deaths and public drug consumption, as well as improve access to healthcare services for marginalized individuals. This represents an alarming trend in Ontario of reducing social and health services, ignoring root causes of poverty and addiction, as well as punishing those most affected.
Bill 242 was shelved for the Ontario election although it may be reintroduced in the near future.
Schedule 1: Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act, 2024
The first component of the Act, Schedule 1, grants law enforcement broad powers to intervene in cases where individuals are suspected of using illegal substances in public areas, including streets, parks and public buildings. The Act also extends to individuals using makeshift shelters in public spaces, raising concerns about the disproportionate impact on homeless populations.
The broad definition of “public place” in this Act is particularly problematic for homeless individuals, who often have no choice but to reside in public spaces. Many rely on tents or makeshift shelters for protection, particularly in harsh weather conditions. The Act’s provisions effectively criminalize the public consumption of substances in these spaces, further marginalizing individuals already struggling with mental health and addiction issues.
The enforcement mechanisms granted to law enforcement under this Act create additional barriers. Officers are empowered to order individuals to cease consumption, provide personal information and vacate the area, even if they have nowhere else to go. The ability to seize and destroy substances believed to be illegal may also harm individuals who use substances as a means of coping with trauma or untreated mental health conditions.
Failure to comply with an officer’s directive may result in severe penalties, including fines of up to $10,000, which homeless individuals cannot afford, or imprisonment for up to six months. Incarcerating those who are homeless will temporarily reduce the visibility of unhoused individuals but is an entirely ineffective way of eliminating homelessness and promoting public safety. Short periods of incarceration destabilize people by uprooting them from their social and income supports. Many homeless people do not have the ability to store their belongings when in custody and may lose everything, including essential identification documents. This creates barriers to re-establishing income assistance and accessing other social services upon release. Without adequate support many people have no choice but to return to encampments or sleeping on streets where they will continue to be penalized in an ongoing cycle.
Not only is this proposed Act ineffective at increasing public safety, but it is redundant. The Controlled Drugs and Substance Act already prohibits the possession of illegal substances and authorizes a potential sentence of incarceration. By penalizing substance use in public spaces, the Act disproportionately targets those who are unhoused while doing nothing to improve the homelessness crisis.
Schedule 2: Amendments to the Trespass to Property Act
The second component of the Act, Schedule 2, amends the Trespass to Property Act by introducing two new aggravating factors for trespassing convictions. These amendments may disproportionately impact homeless individuals who have no viable alternative but to occupy public or private spaces without permission.
New aggravating factors:
- Notice to leave: This provision applies when an individual remains on a property after being instructed to leave. This includes situations where the individual left the property but returned at a later date.
- Likelihood of future trespassing: Courts can now consider the likelihood that an individual will trespass again, potentially leading to harsher penalties for those without stable housing. Homeless individuals who are forced to seek shelter in unauthorized places may face repeated convictions, perpetuating a cycle of criminalization and further entrenching poverty.
The sentence for a trespass conviction is a fine of up to $10,000, which is extremely unaffordable for individuals already living in poverty. Because Ontario’s shelter system lacks the capacity to provide temporary housing to every person experiencing homelessness these amendments serve to penalize individuals for the provincial government’s lack of social supports. Should this Bill pass, individuals with no access to housing will be criminalized for returning to public areas where they have felt safe, forcing them to choose between finding unsafe shelter or risking criminalization.
The need for integrated solutions
While the Act claims to promote public safety, it lacks a comprehensive strategy to effectively address homelessness and substance use, which requires increased access to healthcare, social supports and housing, not criminalization.
This Act, if passed, risks exacerbating the struggles of Ontario’s most vulnerable populations by prioritizing punitive measures over essential social supports. By criminalizing substance use and encampments without addressing underlying health and social needs, the Act serves to reinforce cycles of poverty, marginalization and criminalization. Ontario must shift its focus toward integrated solutions that combine housing, mental health and addiction services to address the root causes of homelessness, poverty and addiction.
Sean LaPrairie started her legal career as a criminal defence lawyer working for Legal Aid. In 2020 she began working with Yukon Legal Services Society practicing criminal, family and child protection law. In 2023 she moved to Ontario to work as criminal duty counsel with Legal Aid Ontario. Currently, she is employed as the litigation lawyer at the HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario (HALCO).