[pmacpherson68]

It is becoming quite clear that you are not interested in good faith arguments. I strongly suggest putting this to rest.

wow, spoken like a true authoritarian.

 

[nfitz]

It seems its the typical liberal talking point that we should just shower people with free stuff, like that stuff is not free. it costs money. fix the real problem. the homeless peoples' problems are not caused by homelessness... that is a symptom, not the root cause.

So how do we solve the homeless problem for the minority who will never be employable? Institutionalizing them is even more expensive than "free" housing (because of the work force that is needed).

So just leave them on the streets, and parks, and riding back and forth on transit?

 

[pmacpherson68]

So how do we solve the homeless problem for the minority who will never be employable? Institutionalizing them is even more expensive than "free" housing (because of the work force that is needed).

So just leave them on the streets, and parks, and riding back and forth on transit?

The solution is simple if not a bit extreme in today’s culture. For drug addicts who are a danger to others or themselves they need to be in mandatory treatment. Off the streets they go. For severely mentally ill who are a danger to others they definitely need to be institutionalized. Yes I understand that it is more expensive temporarily then providing them “free” housing but it at least addresses the root cause and who knows it may make a positive impact on their lives and allow them to contribute to society. Worse case at least they aren’t on the Ttc assaulting people. And yeah. I’ve been assaulted by them in the past. Two times

 

[McGillicuddy]

I disagree.. .these people we see all over cannot hold down a job... dont want a job... just want to do drugs. what income are you talking about exactly? Social assistance is not income. social assistance is free money for no work! this goes back to my original argument, they get free stuff. Everyone else gets to pay for it.

If someone is functionally unemployable, leaving them to fend for themselves amounts to inhuman cruelty.

Relegating them to a shelter bed full of lice, where they and their belongings are not safe, is not much better.

For severely mentally ill who are a danger to others they definitely need to be institutionalized. Yes I understand that it is more expensive temporarily then providing them “free” housing but it at least addresses the root cause and who knows it may make a positive impact on their lives and allow them to contribute to society.

We tried that. The system grew so cruel (in part because it was systematically under-funded) that we shut it down because the meagre amount we were willing to spend was not achieving satisfactory outcomes.

"We'll just do it properly this time" is not convincing.

 

[Northern Light]

The solution is simple if not a bit extreme in today’s culture. For drug addicts who are a danger to others or themselves they need to be in mandatory treatment. Off the streets they go. For severely mentally ill who are a danger to others they definitely need to be institutionalized. Yes I understand that it is more expensive temporarily then providing them “free” housing but it at least addresses the root cause and who knows it may make a positive impact on their lives and allow them to contribute to society. Worse case at least they aren’t on the Ttc assaulting people. And yeah. I’ve been assaulted by them in the past. Two times

I have argued for compulsory treatment in cases of extreme addiction and/or mental illness. There is a need for caution when violating people's autonomy over their bodies, but certainly leaving them to rot in the street or shelters is not a reasonable alternative.

The problem with your arguments is two-fold.

The first, and the biggest is your penchant for generalization. Your 'these people' type statements where you sweepingly describe every one whose homeless or on social assistance a certain way is simply out of step with reality.

The numbers are significant, we know them, around ~42% of those who are single, and in the shelter system, have some degree of difficulty with addiction or mental health. Those people should be treated, fully and properly, ideally voluntarily, but otherwise if needs be.

But do note that if ~42% of single people in shelters have such issues, it means 58% do not.

Moreover there are more than 3,000 people in families in the shelter system, about 1/2 of those are children.

Rates of addiction/mental health are very low in this segment of shelter user; the majority of whom are refugees and the next largest component are victims of domestic violence.

****

The second problem is that you keep using 'free stuff' as a phrase as if I were talking about spending more money than what is spent today. In point of fact, an apartment is much cheaper than a shelter bed.

So the person advocating for burning money, is you.

Equally, countries that have shown the greatest reduction in homelessness have generally done so with a 'housing first' policy. That's because giving someone dignity, a nice place to sleep, a low risk of violence, and a fixed address maximizes your chance to help them; where a shelter bed they may not be in the next night does not.

If you would just show an interest in the evidence and the facts and a willingness to be more nuanced in your takes, you'd probably find lots of common ground with others.

 

[txlseries4]

The solution is simple if not a bit extreme in today’s culture. For drug addicts who are a danger to others or themselves they need to be in mandatory treatment. Off the streets they go. For severely mentally ill who are a danger to others they definitely need to be institutionalized. Yes I understand that it is more expensive temporarily then providing them “free” housing but it at least addresses the root cause and who knows it may make a positive impact on their lives and allow them to contribute to society. Worse case at least they aren’t on the Ttc assaulting people. And yeah. I’ve been assaulted by them in the past. Two times

Hold on, if you're saying that too much is spent on homeless shelters it makes no sense to be advocating for people to instead be put into a psychiatric hospital which costs far more.

From the Canadian Mental Health Association on the amount of money it costs to house people:

from here: https://ontario.cmha.ca/documents/housing-and-mental-health/

From the Toronto Auditor General's report published February 2025: Audit of Toronto Shelter and Support Services – Warming Centres and Winter Respite Sites: Understanding and Addressing Demand While Improving Financial Accountability to Stretch Dollars Further

Edit: Even incarcerating someone costs a ton, at $357 per day ("Average daily inmate cost") for 2023/2024 in Ontario. From here: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510001301

 

[CMQSD402F9011]

Then why you don’t see Conservatives in Canada not advocating for Norwegian type of prisons then? In Norway they focus on Restorative Justice and they’re given jobs and housing once their sentences is completed. Canada particularly Ontario has barriers for those leaving prison.

 

[DKsan]

The solution is simple if not a bit extreme in today’s culture. For drug addicts who are a danger to others or themselves they need to be in mandatory treatment. Off the streets they go. For severely mentally ill who are a danger to others they definitely need to be institutionalized.

I work for an international research institution that is considered one of the best for mental health research in the world. What you're talking about has been shown repeatedly not to be effective.

 

[txlseries4]

Then why you don’t see Conservatives in Canada not advocating for Norwegian type of prisons then? In Norway they focus on Restorative Justice and they’re given jobs and housing once their sentences is completed. Canada particularly Ontario has barriers for those leaving prison.

I'm assuming that "not" is there by mistake and you're saying "why don't you see conservatives advocate for the model used in Norway"

Purely anecdotally, the ones I've talked to have what I'd describe as a perverse sense of "justice" that seeks punishment and vengeance as the goal, and rehabilitation or even humane treatment isn't considered a reasonable option. Seeing someone be sentenced to x years appears far more important than recidivism rates. The cost of incarceration or societal impact once a person leaves the prison system is totally irrelevant and frankly seems uninteresting to many. They just want to see someone rot in jail.

 

[picard102]

Then why you don’t see Conservatives in Canada not advocating for Norwegian type of prisons then? In Norway they focus on Restorative Justice and they’re given jobs and housing once their sentences is completed. Canada particularly Ontario has barriers for those leaving prison.

Because conservatives have a weird kink for doing the worst thing possible to keep society from progressing away from centralizing power in the hands of a few privileged people.

 

[junctionist]

I work for an international research institution that is considered one of the best for mental health research in the world. What you're talking about has been shown repeatedly not to be effective.

More institutionalization strikes me as effective at reducing the number of homeless people on the streets and on transit vehicles. I think it's cringeworthy to see CAMH's new $1 billion+ campus replacing a campus of buildings that was just 40 years old and quite functional. That $1 billion could have got so many people off the streets who are too addicted or sick to live functional lives.

 

[nfitz]

More institutionalization strikes me as effective at reducing the number of homeless people on the streets and on transit vehicles.

Effective perhaps. But insanely uneconomical - far cheaper to give them free housing.

Some countries do that. Some countries just execute drug users - which is even cheaper; but I hope no one here would would advocate for such despicable evil.

And as far as on TTC goes, adding security in each station and at major transfer points for physical removal would also be far cheaper.

 

[pmacpherson68]

I have argued for compulsory treatment in cases of extreme addiction and/or mental illness. There is a need for caution when violating people's autonomy over their bodies, but certainly leaving them to rot in the street or shelters is not a reasonable alternative.

The problem with your arguments is two-fold.

The first, and the biggest is your penchant for generalization. Your 'these people' type statements where you sweepingly describe every one whose homeless or on social assistance a certain way is simply out of step with reality.

The numbers are significant, we know them, around ~42% of those who are single, and in the shelter system, have some degree of difficulty with addiction or mental health. Those people should be treated, fully and properly, ideally voluntarily, but otherwise if needs be.

But do note that if ~42% of single people in shelters have such issues, it means 58% do not.

Moreover there are more than 3,000 people in families in the shelter system, about 1/2 of those are children.

Rates of addiction/mental health are very low in this segment of shelter user; the majority of whom are refugees and the next largest component are victims of domestic violence.

****

The second problem is that you keep using 'free stuff' as a phrase as if I were talking about spending more money than what is spent today. In point of fact, an apartment is much cheaper than a shelter bed.

So the person advocating for burning money, is you.

Equally, countries that have shown the greatest reduction in homelessness have generally done so with a 'housing first' policy. That's because giving someone dignity, a nice place to sleep, a low risk of violence, and a fixed address maximizes your chance to help them; where a shelter bed they may not be in the next night does not.

If you would just show an interest in the evidence and the facts and a willingness to be more nuanced in your takes, you'd probably find lots of common ground with others.

you are forgetting one important fact. A free apartment, free food, free drugs WONT fix the problem.. Will just create a bunch of new ones and a lot of resentment among the community that has to pay for all of it.

 

[pmacpherson68]

Hold on, if you're saying that too much is spent on homeless shelters it makes no sense to be advocating for people to instead be put into a psychiatric hospital which costs far more.

From the Canadian Mental Health Association on the amount of money it costs to house people:
View attachment 725197
from here: https://ontario.cmha.ca/documents/housing-and-mental-health/

From the Toronto Auditor General's report published February 2025: Audit of Toronto Shelter and Support Services – Warming Centres and Winter Respite Sites: Understanding and Addressing Demand While Improving Financial Accountability to Stretch Dollars Further

View attachment 725196

Edit: Even incarcerating someone costs a ton, at $357 per day ("Average daily inmate cost") for 2023/2024 in Ontario. From here: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510001301

I never said doing the hard thing was cheaper, but its the right thing to do. What is the alternative? Just give them free shit? wont solve the problem either and will just create a reverse incentive to getting better.

 

[pmacpherson68]

If someone is functionally unemployable, leaving them to fend for themselves amounts to inhuman cruelty.

Relegating them to a shelter bed full of lice, where they and their belongings are not safe, is not much better.We tried that. The system grew so cruel (in part because it was systematically under-funded) that we shut it down because the meagre amount we were willing to spend was not achieving satisfactory outcomes.

"We'll just do it properly this time" is not convincing.

yes, we've all heard these tired old arguments before... and look where its got us.