This County Was Made for You and Me

My last post made some waves, and prompted some backlash (skip ahead to 1:06:34 for the open session). Over the past week I have heard the same question from several people: why does a Brighton councillor care about what’s going on in Cobourg? Am I just sticking my nose into other people’s business? In this post I’ll talk about why we all have an interest in the business of Northumberland County, even when its services are concentrated in Cobourg; why I have a particular platform with regard to the issue of homelessness, which put me in a position to say something; and how Cobourg’s by-laws have become relevant to everyone in Northumberland. By the end, I hope you’ll consider joining us at the Northumberland County Council meeting on Wednesday, December 17th, at 9:30am.

Northumberland United

I don’t know about our neighbours in other municipalities, but in Brighton folks don’t think about Northumberland all that much. Our town is at the corner of three different counties, and geographically closer to the county seat of Hastings County in Belleville than it is to our own county seat in Cobourg. Culturally and economically, Brightonians tend to identify with the Bay of Quinte region; and when we need something that isn’t carried by a shop in Brighton, we usually head to Trenton, just fifteen minutes away, as compared to 35 for Cobourg or Campbellford. But even so, Northumberland County is our county.

Northumberland County is our upper-tier municipality, and provides services according to provincial mandate, for things such as garbage pickup, county roads and bridges, and social services. We contribute to the county, too: we pay our share of the county levy, and Brighton is also host to the only landfill for all of Northumberland. The major reconstruction of Prince Edward Street is a joint Brighton/Northumberland County project, as the southern portion of the road being reconstructed is a County Road. Similarly, the County is contributing to the new bridge project that will someday be built in Campbellford. Every municipality in Northumberland has a stake in County services and resources, and representation on County Council, where each County Councillor is also a Mayor of their respective town.

Social Services is a suite of county-level government programs that, unless you use those programs, flies under the radar. It includes the disbursement of Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program funds, the operation of subsidized rental properties, and the operation of Northumberland’s only emergency shelter, Transition House. Other homelessness services include street-level outreach, where County staff build relationships with our residents who are precariously housed or unhoused, and help connect them with the services available to either prevent or address homelessness.

This past week, the Brighton Homelessness Task Force welcomed County Social Services staff to a local training session for Brighton residents. It started with a short presentation about the kinds of services that the County provides, and then had an extensive Q&A with residents. 52 people came, including residents of Port Hope, Cobourg, Alnwick/Haldimand, and Campbellford.

Some of the questions addressed the issue of the location of services head-on: are there any of these services in Brighton? The answer is: yes and no.

The county’s street-level outreach services are headquartered in Cobourg, but spread all over the county: outreach workers head out to other communities on demand, and have regular office hours in Brighton and other municipalities, but have no facilities of their own here. And the biggest, most obvious facility is Transition House, which is located at 310 Division Street in Cobourg. No matter where you’re from in Northumberland, that’s your shelter. If at any point you are in need of social services, you’ll need to call someone headquartered in Cobourg and may need to be transported to Cobourg for shelter services. Cobourg’s shelter is our shelter, and we all have an interest in what goes on there, including how it is regulated.

Why Me?

When I was asked by CBC why I was interested in what’s happening at the warming room, I didn’t even think to explain that the warming room operated by the County is a core service for Brighton residents even though it’s in Cobourg. I should have; in hindsight, it’s clear that’s what he was getting at. Instead, I gave a roundup of my own interest in the issue; I’ll get a bit more specific here.

First, I care about what’s happening at the warming room because, through the intention of no-one but as a result of systems problems, the treatment of unhoused people had become a real harm and a human rights abuse. We should all speak out when our neighbours’ rights, and their very bodies, are being abused. Saying so was not about picking a fight or looking for someone to blame, it was about pointing out a problem that could be solved together. And in that respect it worked: Cobourg’s council has reaffirmed its respect for residents’ need for sleep, and I have confirmed with county social services staff that Cobourg’s by-law enforcement officers have not issued any new tickets over the issue of people falling asleep in the warming room. I am sure that anyone else who knew what was going on would have said something; I just happened to be the first, and I have the most platform.

I was in a position to know what was going on because I have a direct connection to the operation of homelessness services. I used to serve on the Board of Directors of Transition House, even a short stint as Chair. And when the Northumberland Inter-Municipal Task Force on Housing and Homelessness was first founded it was through a motion that I wrote and brought to Brighton Council, before it was supported by every other municipality in Northumberland; I chaired it for the first year, and it is now co-chaired by two councillors from Port Hope. I am currently the Chair of the Brighton Homelessness Task Force, a table that includes the County Manager of Homelessness Services along with residents and officials from Brighton, where we explore what role the Municipality of Brighton has in supporting county services, as well as the local grassroots nonprofits who also help out our residents who are experiencing poverty.

So I know what’s happening with the shelter and the warming room, sometimes on a day by day basis. I also know how the system works, who is responsible for what, and where there are weaknesses or conflicts within the system; I’ve been actively engaged in identifying those weaknesses and finding ways to address them for the past several years. Even so, it was not immediately apparent to me, much less County Council, that the policy mix that governs the warming room was resulting in people being deprived of sleep. It took Chance Brown’s delegation to county council (skip ahead to the 32 minute mark) to make it clear to me just how far things had gone in unintended directions, and as soon as that truly sunk in, I wrote the letter and subsequent blog post I mentioned above.

The trouble with systems problems is that systems are abstract: we think about the web of relationships between people and things and concepts, causes and effects, in conceptual terms. Sometimes it takes someone like Chance speaking up to put the human face back onto a system: the concepts that govern our lives, like by-laws and policies, have real impacts on real people, and we don’t always see those people. When they do speak up, we have a moral obligation to hear them. I was in the right place, at the right time, and with the right background, connections, and position, to not only hear Chance and understand his situation, but also to speak directly to those who most needed to hear it. That started with a letter to County Council, but I also thought it was important for residents to understand this situation. Like any of my other blog posts, these posts are about keeping you all in the loop about how the system works.

How a Cobourg By-Law Became Our Business

Cobourg’s Emergency Care Establishment By-Law was established in response to concerns from residents who felt unsafe living or shopping in Cobourg’s downtown due to the prevalence of visible homelessness and public drug use. That was and is a serious concern, and it’s sad and frustrating that some people have felt that their concerns have been dismissed. But some residents associated those things with the presence of Transition House downtown, and were seeking to eliminate the shelter altogether; others just wanted it moved somewhere else. But the reality of the situation is that most of the users of the shelter are Cobourg residents, either because that’s where they’re from or because that’s where they access the hospital, County Social Services, the Help and Legal Centre, the courthouse, addictions support services, and other services; they’re all centered in Cobourg, which experiences both the costs and benefits of being the county seat. Moving the shelter elsewhere would not move the people who rely on the shelter; too much of their community and other resources are also located in Cobourg.

So the town developed a by-law to regulate the way that the shelter operates, including requirements that go above and beyond provincial law such as setting standards for a 500m security perimeter around the shelter, a perimeter for garbage cleanup, and other things that Transition House was happy to comply with. But the by-law also included some problematic elements, such as holding board members personally liable for the actions of shelter users within that perimeter; the Mayor publicly insists that this is standard practice, but I’ve never heard of such a requirement elsewhere. While it’s likely unenforceable, it certainly serves as a deterrent for anyone who might otherwise want to serve on the Board of Directors but doesn’t want to be held liable for the actions of someone else. Some of the provisions were concerning enough to prompt the Ontario Human Rights Commission to issue a letter to Cobourg, to make them aware of the importance of being guided by policies and best practices that centre human rights. Perhaps most importantly, the by-law requires that the shelter obtain a license from the town; licenses can be revoked, so the county-run shelter can only operate at all with the town’s ongoing permission. If the town determines that the county is not meeting their standards, they can cause the shelter to be closed entirely.

Another challenging part of the by-law is that it isn’t always easy to know how to comply with it. It explicitly enforces other codes and statutes, which have their own enforcement mechanisms. Of course the county and Transition House comply with provincial laws and codes, but the ECE by-law (in the words of Cobourg’s CAO) “is merely a vehicle to ensure that it is enforced.” Back in April, when the warming room was still located at Transition House, Cobourg by-law enforcement issued a ticket under the ECE by-law, but citing a fire code violation that specifically addressed people sleeping in a room not designated as a sleeping room. The County questioned this: is it a by-law violation or a fire code violation? Unsure of the validity of the ticket, they appealed it to the town, and had their appeal denied. Still unsure, they asked the fire marshal about the fire code violation, but the fire marshal would not comment on a ticket that they themselves had not issued. Still unsure of how to comply with a ticket, the County sought a Judicial Review–i.e., taking it to a judge. But rather than having the County take the Town to court, with the same taxpayers paying for both sides of a legal dispute, County Council backed down, paid the fine, and tried their best to move on and comply. Transition House, unsure of what else to do, tried to make the warming room less comfortable so that fewer people would fall asleep, in case another inspection found people sleeping and cost them their operating license.

In their statements at the emergency meeting held last week, Cobourg continues to insist that people sleeping in a warming room would violate the fire code, building code, and zoning, despite their new insistence that they are pro-sleeping in the warming room. To date, nobody has addressed the concern I raised when I pointed out that no other warming room that I can find has required special facilities: most warming rooms are temporary facilities, sometimes arenas or community centres, sometimes converted commercial spaces, none of them designed or zoned for residence. Cobourg’s dedication to enforcing the law is laudable, but their interpretation of the law appears to be novel, and the ambiguities and extraordinarily high standards have made it very difficult to comply with.

I say all of this not to villainize Cobourg or stick my nose into their business, but rather to indicate that the way that they have tried to regulate shelter and warming room operations have crossed a line from being regulations that improve shelter services and thereby local community safety and wellbeing (e.g., the provisions for cleanup and security presence), and toward regulations that make shelter services less effective and more precarious. The well-intentioned ECE by-law inadvertently undermines county and shelter staff as they attempt to provide services to unhoused residents, and it implies that county staff were not compliant with provincial codes and statutes in the first place–again, something no fire marshal has ever commented on. It is also the only by-law that I’m aware of to regulate the activities of a higher level of government: normally both upper- and lower-tier municipal governments operate by provincial and federal law as a matter of course, and don’t require other levels of government to enact extra laws to ensure they comply.

I have no interest at all in telling Cobourg how to operate in general. But when the services that Brighton residents depend on, services that are designed to support all Northumberland residents, are shaped and determined by the by-laws of one town, it becomes my business. And yours.

What’s Next

The normal mechanism by which Cobourg has a voice in County programs is through County Council. At the next County Council meeting, December 17th at 9:30am, Council will hear a motion from Councillor Cleveland that he first brought to their last meeting. I find it to be deeply troubling, and it prompted my delegation to the County Social Services Committee (starting 5 minutes in). I blogged about how one County Councillor called it “an arrogant approach.” It is as follows:

“Whereas at the November 19, 2025 County Council meeting, Council deferred consideration of Item 7.b ‘310 Division Street, Cobourg (Social Services System Review)’, to the December 17, 2025 County Council meeting; and

Whereas Northumberland County acts as the Service System Manager for income support, housing and homelessness, childcare, and social services across all lower-tier municipalities; and

Whereas pressures related to addiction, housing insecurity, system fragmentation, and increased reliance on emergency response services continue to strain municipal budgets, neighbourhoods, local businesses, and frontline workers; and

Whereas the Federal Government has recently reduced national safe supply program funding, and leading organizations such as the CCSA and CAMH have signaled a shift toward treatment-based, recovery-oriented, and integrated service models; and the Government of Ontario

Whereas jurisdictions including Alberta and Portugal have demonstrated improved outcomes when services are realigned around treatment, accountability, reintegration, and stability rather than crisis response alone;

Whereas solutions and recovery options for those in our community who are suffering from issues of mental health, homelessness and/or addiction will require a variety of partners to work together in policy alignment including the police, the courts, the medical community, tax funded nonprofits, our hospitals, and our for profit partners to ensure a lack of duplication and reduction of the silo approach

Therefore Be It Resolved That Northumberland County Council direct staff to bring forward a list of qualified third-party contractors capable of conducting a comprehensive and laborious review of the County’s social services system – including all programs and organizations currently receiving County funding and our community partners within the system,

Be It Further Resolved That the minimum scope of the review shall include:

1. Corporate Structure Review – County Internal

• Assessment of the current corporate structure of the Social Services Department;
• Recommendations to enhance accountability, support frontline staff, and prioritize funding toward programs showing measurable results;
• Review of administrative structures that may impede innovation, efficiency, or evidence-based service delivery.

2. Internal & External Policies and Procedures

• Full review of County policies and procedures related to social service operations and funding;
• Parallel review of the policies and procedures of all external organizations receiving County tax dollars.
• Recommendations on a standard County-aligned policy framework to guide eligibility, accountability, renewal criteria, and performance expectations for all funded partners to ensure alignment within the system.

3. RFP / Procurement Practices & Contractor Accountability

• Review of all current RFP and contracting procedures;
• Assessment of evaluation criteria, renewal mechanisms, and performance management measures;
• Options for the next term of council regarding contracting oversight, reporting structures, and funding conditions linked to results.

4. Provincial-Level Advocacy Opportunities

The contractor shall present recommendations for County-led advocacy at the provincial level, including:

• The role of local Justices of the Peace (JPs) in enforcement, diversion, and alternative pathways inclusive of those being practiced in other provinces and communities and local changes needed.
• The role of local medical practitioners (MDs)  and the local health care community in treatment, coordinated care, early intervention, mandated treatment, and integrated planning and local changes needed
• Opportunities and strategies to influence provincial legislation, service mandates, or professional practice directions to help ensure vast funding opportunities are available so that the costs of these changes and innovative approaches are not born only by the residents of Northumberland County as we seek to be leaders among the  

5. Service and Funding Model Alignment

• Assessment of recovery-based and integrated models promoted by CCSA, CAMH, and other expert bodies; that often are at odds with decade old policies that have been proven to be ineffective
• Review of Alberta and Portugal service approaches as well as those communities across the Country who are showing an increase in recovery results for potential application in Northumberland;
• Fiscal, operational, and governance options for internal and external realignment, including phased implementation pathways and options for a redirection of funding to organizations that align with the updated policies and goals of Northumberland County.

Be It Further Resolved That staff may reference any previously circulated example of a minimum scope only as illustrative of Council’s expectations and shall return with draft terms of reference for Council’s review prior to contract award. 

Be It Further Resolved That The Contractor Selection Committee responsible for vetting vendor submissions and recommending a shortlist shall be composed of FIVE (5) members, as follows:

Member	Source
CAO of Northumberland County (mandatory)	County
Two (2) County staff members, appointed by the CAO	County
Two (2) CAOs (or appointees) from lower-tier municipalities	Lower-tier municipalities

Northumberland County Council shall retain full and final authority to select the contractor from the shortlist recommended by this committee.

Be It Further Resolved That this motion be circulated to all lower-tier municipalities for alignment and consideration requesting of the lower tiers a recorded vote so that members of Northumberland County Community can understand the position of all elected representatives sitting on their councils.”

.

There’s a lot to unpack in this motion, but I’ll summarize briefly:

• There are some questionable assumptions and statements embedded here, including that CCSA and CAMH have “signalled a shift toward treatment-based, recovery-oriented” models, without defining those or how they might be different from the way that these organizations have always advocated for treatment and recovery. It refers to “recovery-based approaches” in other jurisdictions where, increasingly, people are being forced into drug treatment, following the same logic that has led some other places to adopt a policy of conservatorship. It’s important to note that these places are sometimes changing the name of “compulsory care” to “compassionate care” to whitewash the approach of violating people’s freedom and agency for the sake of enforcing drug treatment. A September release from CAMH notes that “Involuntary treatment for substance use disorders in the corrections system has been presented as one option for addressing Ontario’s drug toxicity crisis. In CAMH’s expert opinion, this is not the answer. Our evidence-based voluntary substance use treatment system is inadequately accessible and under-resourced in both the community and the corrections system. We believe that building up this system is where government efforts are most needed.” CMHA’s website notes that compulsory care (or as the motion reads, “mandated treatment”) is one option for treatment, it also notes that “There is no evidence that involuntary treatment is effective or more effective than voluntary treatment in producing positive social and health outcomes; rather, evidence indicates that it can create further harm, including increasing the risk of potentially fatal overdose.” So it’s another example of a well-intentioned policy that can lead to causing further harm instead.
• While the motion does note reductions in funding for critical programs like safe supply, by calling for a third party to completely redesign our social services system it implies that the structure of the department (a supposed and unexplained “silo approach”) is the reason for their ineffectiveness, insofar as they have not been able to eliminate homelessness at a time when:
  • homelessness is exploding across North America;
  • funding from higher levels of government is about 5% of what is required to actually eliminate homelessness using the programs at our disposal; and
  • regulation from below (i.e., the ECE by-law) continues to complicate and frustrate social services staff as they do their best with the limited resources available to them.
    
    This approach disregards the expertise of our staff, at a time when they’re already feeling particularly unsupported as they face mounting challenges with inadequate resources. And frankly, they’re being publicly targeted in the community because of their association with homelessness. We need to do everything we can to support them, and whatever its intention, this motion is disrespectful towards them.
• The final clause is very telling: “Be It Further Resolved That this motion be circulated to all lower-tier municipalities for alignment and consideration requesting of the lower tiers a recorded vote so that members of Northumberland County Community can understand the position of all elected representatives sitting on their councils.” I have added emphasis on the part that concerns me. Whatever its intention, this clause would effectively turn next year’s election into a referendum on this motion, asking residents to weigh in on matters of expertise while ignoring the actual expertise of our staff. That’s not how we decide things, and would set up the election to be nasty in tone. Nasty elections prevent many thoughtful and intelligent people from stepping up to serve their community.

As I said when I delegated to County Council’s Social Services Committee, I think that any new approach to homelessness should be guided by the expertise of our staff, who have both the skill and desire to achieve more if they had the freedom and resources to do so. And further, I think that there are much better approaches to reform, not least by improving our Community Safety and Well-Being Plan to better engage the grassroots and nonprofits in our communities, and help all of us understand and work together with social services staff to look out for our neighbours. IF we are going to go down the road to conservatorship, in which we tell our neighbours that they aren’t capable of making good decisions for themselves and so we’re going to take away their agency for their own sake, we should do so with our eyes wide open to the implications of that, not walk backwards into the situation through a motion that fails to consider those implications. For those reasons and more, I strongly oppose this motion.

I don’t often ask my readers for anything other than feedback, but I’d like to encourage you to attend the County Council meeting on Wednesday, December 17, 2025, at 9:30 am, at 555 Courthouse Road in Cobourg. Consider the matter for yourself, and watch your representatives consider it. It’s all of our business.