The Agenda with Steve Paikin (Audio) - A Controversial Solution to Ontario's Addiction Crisis?

Episode Date: October 23, 2024

A group of Ontario mayors are advocating for a tougher response to homelessness and addiction in large municipalities. The Agenda invites four members of Ontario's Big City Mayors caucus to discuss a recent, unconventional proposal that calls for mandatory treatment and rehabilitation for those suffering from opioid addiction.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A couple of months ago, we had four Ontario mayors on this program sharing their solutions to the homelessness and addiction crisis in their communities. We got some feedback on that episode from other mayors who said, however well-intentioned those solutions were, ultimately, they probably wouldn't get the job done because they weren't radical enough. Let's hear those arguments tonight. And so we welcome, in Kingston, Ontario, Mayor Brian Patterson. In Oshawa, Ontario, Mayor Dan Carter.

And here in our studio, Chan Liggett, she is the Mayor of Cambridge. Kevin Davis is the Mayor of Brantford. And Alex Nuttall is the Mayor of Barrie. And we are delighted to welcome you three here to our table in Midtown Toronto and to our mayors and points beyond thank you for joining us on TVO tonight as well. I just want to bring up a couple of the bullet points here from the resolution that the Ontario Big City Mayor's Caucus passed on this past Friday regarding the

homelessness encampments, addiction issues in this province. Here is some of what was agreed to by the Big City Mayor's caucus. Sheldon, bring this graphic up if you would please. Establish a priority in maintaining public safety to allow stronger deterrence to social disruption and public safety risks. Seek intervener status in court cases that restrict cities from regulating and prohibiting encampments. Introduce legislation to prohibit public intoxication and public use of drugs, a quick build of supportive housing units, and review and update the Mental Health Act and the Health Care Consent Act to expand the scope of mandatory addiction care and treatment. Okay Mayor Davis what is different about

this approach from perhaps the approach taken by the other four mayors who were on this program a little while ago. Steve, it's actually complimentary. It comes out of the meeting we had in August where we passed the solve the crisis resolution which was the subject of your prior show. At that meeting some of us decided that we needed to be a little more specific in terms of what we're asking the provincial and federal governments to do. I was asked to prepare a draft resolution, which is what I did, and that was considered by the same group this past Friday.

So it was really, I call it supplementary, kind of a follow-up to the solve the crisis resolution. It's sure. Mayor Carter, I'm going to bring you in for the supplementary here because you may be the only politician I know who's actually lived in the streets, having suffered from addiction issues many years ago, what do you think about this approach will get you closer to where we need to go? Well, first of all, it's great to be able to be with you and our colleagues that are

there, and a special thanks to, of course, your in-studio guests that played a significant role in regards to bringing this forward. I think the reality being is that all of us are witness in our community that what we're doing at this particular time is not what our intent is. And our intent is to make sure that every child that is out on the streets and there's somebody child, that we are doing everything we possibly can to save their lives and make sure that they are on the right pathways in regards to better health and better outcomes. And I think that's what the intent is.

As a recovering alcoholic and drug addict myself, intervention has played a significant role in regards to my own recovery. And I think that that's where I think we need to really say to everyone, let's find a way of being able to introduce compassionate intervention and let's find a way of being able to help these individuals that are suffering. By the way, the toxicity of the drugs that are out on the streets right now is nothing that we've ever seen in this country before. So I think it's time for bold action and big steps and I think that this motion along with our colleagues is taking this opportunity to be able to move forward with it. So again, as intervention plays a significant role in regards to what we're trying to accomplish.

Let me Mayor Liggett figure out what bolder action means. For example, you say you need stronger deterrence to ensure public safety. What does that actually look like? Well, a stronger deterrence without the police enforcing some of the laws that we already have in place and I think there's some reticence on their behalf. We also need courts to enforce once the police bring that forward. We need the courts to be able to have some sort of verdict come down as to what happens to the people and you know with the lack of

resources for that it really gets very difficult. There are some municipalities where the police actually will walk up and take drugs away from people when they see that happening but we also have a provincial chief of police association who sort of makes up the rules for all of the police departments so until they start all doing that we're not going to get anywhere. Which is what you want you want them all to do that? Yes I would like to see them all do that because then it you know that gives the incentive to the addict to if they if they can't find another drug source quickly then they have to look at what they're going to do to to help themselves out of the situation. So people

talk about how you can't force somebody to go to rehab help themselves of the situation. So people talk about how you can't force somebody to go to rehab. Well yeah we can force somebody to go to rehab. Let me pick up on that. Okay let me pick up on that with Mayor Patterson because again one of the provisions of the agreement that was passed last Friday is expand the scope of mandatory addiction care and treatment. So Mayor Patterson what does that actually look like? Well, I mean, I think the starting point is to recognize that we already have a system of mandatory treatment

that's in place. I think that the issue, and really this is really at the heart of the discussion that we had as a group on Friday is do we need to have a look at that system? Does that system need to be updated? Does it need to be modernized? I think recognizing as Mayor Carter has said, that the conditions and the challenges that we're seeing with the drug toxicity crisis, the sort of behaviors that we're seeing, the sort of challenges to our communities to say,

okay, do we need to change the approaches and how this is working on the ground? And I would suggest that I think we can all agree that the system that's in place is not working. The status quo is not okay. And so this is one of many different tools that I think we could look at to, again, take an empathetic and compassionate approach to those that are suffering with addictions

and mental health and also final solutions that work best for the community as a whole. So on the one hand, we're pushing for more resources and more treatment and more supportive housing, but we're also saying that maybe looking at the Mental Health Act that hasn't been updated in 30 years, that's something we should be doing as well. Mayor Nuttall, let me try to characterize what I think some people have, objective observers, have said, this is the approach you're looking at, and you tell me if I'm right or off base. This approach appears to be less concerned about niceties around civil rights and more

concerned about actually getting a job done, more concerned about getting people who are a harm to themselves and others off that situation. Is that fair to say to characterize it that way? Yes Steve I think that that's taking one side of the equation into consideration. I think we have to remember that these parks where folks are overdosing, where they're leaving needles, where in some cases becoming violent, having psychotic episodes, those are places where others have civil rights to be as well, where children have the opportunity to go and play with their families and friends, where they have the right to be safe,

where they have the right to be part of their community. And so I think the balance here is a helping the individual who's going through these types of episodes and this type of addiction and these behaviors, and at the same time, looking at those in our community who are trying to use these parks, which oftentimes are beside schools, for what they were designed to be used for, which is a safe place for kids and for families to play. So I think the resolution as a whole

is trying to walk that balance between how do we help those who are hurting, and at the same time, how do we ensure that we have safety and security inside of our communities? And follow up with you. Would you like to see the use of the notwithstanding clause used by either federal or provincial parliaments in order to give you folks more power to do

what you think needs doing here. Steve, I think it's something that's already happening across the country and I think it's something that has to be considered. And I'll give you an example, something that people know a lot about and that's bail reform. And a lot of people criticize the federal liberal government, the Trudeau government for the bail reform package they brought in two to three years ago. All they really did was they simply codified decisions and principles that were decided by the Supreme Court of Canada.

And so if you're going to deal, if you're a government, you're going to deal with bail reform in a meaningful way, you're probably going to have to use Section 33. But if I put it in the context of what we're talking about with the homelessness and whatnot, I liken it this way. So as an elected official, when I make decisions, a lot of what I'm trying to consider is the future.

What's the impact of whatever we're doing on our community, on the people in our community? Is it generally good for our communities? I try to be future forward looking. And the difficulty with courts is courts don't think that way. They tend to be looking in the past and looking at what was done in the past and did that comply with the charter.

The difficulty is once a court determines that, like a court determines that there was, say, infraction of bylaw was in violation of a charter right, they then determine whether there's reasonable justification and if they determine there wasn't, they then look at what could be done. So now they're getting into making a decision on public policy. That's forward-looking.

And the whole court mechanism, in terms of the kind of evidence they have, the input they have, it just is not the same as what an elected official does. We have so much input. We make a decision like this, plus we're making a decision that's a group decision. A judge is acting by themselves. And I have found, in my experience, that the best decisions decision that's a group decision. A judge is acting by themselves. And I have found, in my experience,

that the best decisions are made in a group. So I think what's happening is the difficulty is the courts are not, I don't think, set up. Because once they get into deciding public policy, then it gets really messy. For example, there are a number of court decisions in BC and in Alberta and also in Ontario on encampments. It's really difficult to pull from those court decisions

a coherent set of principles that apply in every community. That's the challenge. And so that becomes a situation where you really don't know what the law is. Let me try going to Mayor Carter on this. Because when people start hearing that governments potentially want to use the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to set aside constitutionally

protected rights because the legislators, the elected legislators, think they've got a better idea, obviously some people get skittish. So what's your view on the advisability of using that part of our Constitution to set aside civil rights because you think what's going on right now is so urgent it's required. So understand this is my opinion and my opinion is we are in a crisis across this nation matter of fact across North America. I think it's about time that we take bold steps to be able to address the worst health care crisis this country has ever ever seen. We've got to take whatever steps are necessary

to be able to save the lives of those that are suffering in addiction and mental health. We're not doing enough. We need different tools. We're bringing ideas and solutions forward. I urge the provincial and federal government to get uncomfortable, to take on this challenge, and say the reason why we're doing this is

because of the reason that we want to save your child's life. Do you know 46,000 people have died with drug poisoning since 2016 across this country? We continue to see people die on our streets. We can't sit by and continue to do what we've been doing and say, well, we'll get there someday. Someday is today. It has to change today. It's worth the fight. And I think it's worth the challenge itself. I think it'll bring it as a national conversation

that absolutely needs to happen. So do I encourage the provincial and federal government to take the appropriate steps? Absolutely. And I want to see it done immediately. Mayor Leggan. Thank you. We must remember that when the Charter of Rights was brought in,

we didn't have this crisis. It didn't exist. That was 40 years ago. Exactly. And so now we're looking at mental health problems, where people have psychotic episodes and hurt people badly on the street. We have an entire generation of people who are addicted

and may never come out of that addiction. We may have to look after them for the rest of their lives, but that number keeps growing over and over and over again. And I'm sure if the writers of the Charter of Rights could have foreseen this, they would have put some caveat in there in order to protect us today. But it's not there. So that means we have to pick up the next stage of that and so we are we there's some of us here today maybe all of us here today who would like to see the notwithstanding clause

used and I'm one of them it didn't pass through the big city mayors we had a conversation about it not everybody was on board and we didn't want to push that but that doesn't mean we haven't opened the door for it. It doesn't mean that we're not going to continue to press for that and maybe another way but I personally I strongly believe and and I'm rep being a leader of my community and representing the people of my community I want to see it used and I'll bet you the majority of mayors in this province would as well. Let me get Mayor Nuttall on this.

Do you think we need to get, as Mayor Carter says, uncomfortable with the notion of taking away the civil rights of people who are struggling with homelessness and addiction for what they would consider to be a greater good? Well, Steve, if you think back to 30 years ago before the closure of mental health institutions in this province it wasn't unconstitutional there were beds there were opportunities was it done perfectly no were the problem with problems with it yes but the reality is that today we're now living those problems out in parks and

in public spaces that were previously lived out inside of institutions. So the request to the provincial and federal government, let me be very clear. I have requested publicly Premier Ford and Prime Minister Trudeau to use a notwithstanding clause to create legislation to allow municipalities to gain back control of public spaces. I think that you'll find that there's certainly on this panel some widespread support for

that. Kevin has done a ton in terms of putting that into a motion and we didn't adopt all pieces. That piece wasn't inside of it but outside of big city mayors. The answer is yes. We cannot get control back without the use of the notwithstanding clause that's the reality we know that we need the provincial and federal governments to step up with competent legislation that restore safety security and helps those individuals who are suffering from addictions and mental health issues. In which case I'll ask Mayor Patterson do you think the big city mayor's caucus chickened out by not going forward with this notwithstanding

clause aspect? No I wouldn't characterize it that way at all. I mean, I think we had a very robust conversation about, you know, how do we address the real challenges that we're seeing. And, you know, perhaps I'm, you know, more of a moderate in the group. I too, you know, tend to kind of stop short about saying, you know, do we need the notwithstanding clause if we already have a system of mandatory treatment that's already in place. So this is not new. As a community, as a country, as a province for years, we have a system right now that if someone is a danger to themselves and a danger to others,

that they can be detained and get the help that they need. So it's not clear to me that we necessarily need to bring in that hammer. I think what we do need to do is review and say, maybe we need to take the existing system that's already there and expand it. So as my colleagues around the table who, quite frankly, I agree with the goal here that we want to get people the help that they need. So let's find that way. So I think that there was, there's a really important nuance here that I think that came out in that discussion, the group is to say, let's review the Mental Health Act, let's

review the system that's already in place and say, how do we, you know, expand it or strengthen it to make sure that we're addressing the problems that we're seeing on the street. And I absolutely agree with my colleagues around the table on this, that something has to be done. The status quo isn't working. And so let's work together on finding that way forward. Mayor Carter, do you think this group put too much water

in its wine taking, if I can mix my metaphors here, too much of the teeth out of the idea that you guys are putting forward here? You know what, I mean, I have a very strong opinion in regards to taking on this fight, and I think it's worth a fight, but I also respect my colleagues in the caucus itself in regards to the decisions it made.

I think it's giving everyone a fair opportunity to be able to answer the call. We're challenging the Premier and the Ministers, and of course the federal government, to do the right thing because of our belief that this is an inhumane way of being able to deal with things. So in my own personal opinion I wish that we were a lot more forceful in regards to it and I wish that there was more talk about compassion and intervention.

But I think the spirit of this organization and the caucus itself has the intent of not only challenging those that are charged with the duty of governing our municipalities and our province and our country, but also the opportunity to be able to say to all of us, what we're doing right now isn't working, so let's take some bold steps, let's take on the fights and let's move forward. So personally, I really feel that we're at that moment. We can't be cutting around the edges. We've got to get right to the center of this and take it head on.

Mayor Davis, you don't have the power to do this. You need Premier Ford to say, yes, I'm prepared to use the notwithstanding clause to set aside these civil rights because the situation is so urgent and therefore will give you the power to do what you feel you need to do. That's the argument you're making to Doug Ford. Have you heard back from him on whether he's prepared to entertain that idea?

Well, Steve, that's not the argument we're making. If you look at what the OBCM has done and the essence of what we're done, we're asking the province to in particular look at, for example, a drug diversion court and implementing that province-wide and providing the necessary supports for that. You're not making that argument- No, we're making that argument. And when it comes to the mental health- No, no, you're not making the argument about the notwithstanding clause because you put

water in your wine and decided to pull back to get a TNR resolution. But you seem to be suggesting that you have to use a Section 33 notwithstanding clause. You want to improve the mental health. That's not necessarily the case. I'm not saying you have to do anything. I'm just saying, obviously, Mayor Liggett's one, Mayor Nuttall's another one, Mayor Carter's another one who says that you may have to do this. Have you asked the Premier if he'd do it and if so, what did he say? Well, the OBCM has asked the province to do an in-depth review of the Mental Health Act and also the Drug Diversion Court System.

Also the Trespass the Property Act and that's what we're looking forward to the province doing. Taking an in-depth look at that and depending on what they decide they do to respond to this, it may by necessity require use of the Section 33 notwithstanding clause. But that's not the thrust of what we're asking the province to do. Do you think you should be asking the province to use the notwithstanding clause? It depends on what it is you're trying to do and whether or not you think you need to use a Section 33 notwithstanding clause to achieve it, right? I gave you the example of bail reform. If you're going to do bail reform, you have to consider it.

It depends on what you do with the Mental Health Act. For example, committee treatment orders. They're a great method for encouraging people to continue receiving the treatment they receive. And that's where they're released from a facility, and they have to follow a treatment program. And community nurses check on them. The problem I'm hearing from those who are involved in that system is it's not long enough. They're only in place for six months. So for example, one of the things the province can do

is extend the period for community treatment orders. Would that require Section 33 of not withstanding use of that clause? I'm not sure. So your equation, which is if you do anything, you have to use Section 33, is not correct. But I agree with Mayor Carter. This is a crisis.

It's an urgent crisis. We need to take decisive action. And that may require Section 33. If it does require Section 33, then we're asking the province and the federal government to consider that, given the ultimate goal of what you're trying to do. You're trying to make sure people recover and they have they have a pathway to a healthy lifestyle. What's wrong with that?

Mayor Liggett. Well, I would say that if we're asking the Premier to take this huge massive step, then we have to have this steel in our backbone to say, yes, this is necessary, we've got your back, please have our backs. And do you? Do you as a group of mayors have that steel in your back? Well, I would say a large part of us did. We work by consensus in that caucus though. So we tried to come out with the best motion that we could put together based on all the different viewpoints around the room.

When we went into it, I would say yes, we probably did have the majority for that. But working by consensus, that's how we got the water and the wine, as you would put it. I agree with you 100%. But you know, like, you tell me what leader of a province is going to go into something as drastic as this without knowing that he has the leaders of this, other leaders of this province supporting him when he does that, especially with an election potentially coming up next summer. We better have his back if this is what we're going to ask him to do.

Premier Ford has shown in the past that he's prepared to use the notwithstanding clause on other things and he doesn't care if people support him or not. I think he does in this one. In this case he does. I think he does and we've opened the door with this motion for him to be able to use it but you're right in asking that question. You know, maybe he needs to hear it publicly, maybe more mayors need to come on board and say that they have problems in their community. And I say as well, Steve, I mean, City Hall in Bradford is in the middle of the city.

It's downtown. Every day I drive into work, you know, I see what's happening on the streets. And you know what I find most heartbreaking are those that probably have some kind of serious mental health issue. And you see them there day after day. And you can tell that they're living a tormented existence. I couldn't even imagine they're internal demons. And we're saying in defense of Section 33,

they should remain there without the necessary compassionate care and treatment that they need to recover. How's that compassionate? Mayor Carter wants in. Yeah, I was going to say, all across this compassionate? How's that humane? Mayor Carter wants in. Yeah, I was going to say, you know, all across this nation, this conversation is happening. British Columbia has taken talk about what they need to do differently.

Alberta is taking bold steps. And New Brunswick is having bold steps in regards to what they're looking at. This is a national conversation. I think that what's happening is it is finally in a place where I think those that are provincial leaders and federal leaders can see that there is an absolute appetite in regards to a different pathway forward because we want to see the death stop, we want to see a solution brought

forward and we also understand that this may mean that all of us are going to get really uncomfortable with some spirited conversations but it's worth the conversation because it will save lives. Mayor Nettle. I think that there's some things that are being brought together that don't necessarily exactly fit, but they influence each other. When you're talking about addictions and mental health treatment and some mandatory care related to that, We're also talking about encampments and the situations around encampments, the violent situations we see inside of encampments. Oftentimes we have guns that are found, certainly knives that are

found. You know the section 33 piece is not up to a group of mayors to determine. It is up to the provincial government to determine how they bring legislation forth to meet the requests and demands of the mayors. And that is what we're asking the provincial government to do. Determine where and when to use it on the encampments. It certainly, from everything that I've seen everything that we've discussed, it appears that a section 33 will be needed. When it comes to the mandatory treatment, if the beds are there, the hospitals are there, the funding is there to support and help these individuals, there may be a way to move through it without a Section 33. Well that's the question

though isn't it? Are those wraparound services there? Is that, you know, are those support services there? Are those homes there? They're not, but they but they will be I believe if we see the increase in funding and if the government takes it as seriously in the next two or three years as they have in the last two or three months. The heart hub funding is a significant step forward in the province of Ontario. It's only ten centres right away, 19 overall. I would guess that we need centres in every geographic region and we're not going to do it with just that announcement. There's got to be a lot more.

Mayor Paterson, let me get, I haven't heard Mayor Paterson in a bit, so let me get him in here. You know, there was a, well, I don't know what else to call it. There was a shocking and violent attack in one of your encampments in Kingston not that long ago. There were fatalities involved. I mean, people in Kingston are asking the question, people all over Ontario are asking the question, what do you need to do to make sure that that kind of thing is brought

to an end? Well, I think that this really goes to the heart of our call that, quite frankly, we've been talking about this for over a year, about the importance of having the tools, having the legislative tools or the resources to be able to effectively deal with the very serious side effects that we've been seeing within candidates. I think that the biggest challenge for me was that that tragic event that happened back in September,

it didn't need to happen. We had seen all sorts of warning signs, there were all sorts of dangers. And again, I'm not talking just even to the surrounding neighborhood, I'm talking about the health and security of those in the encampment themselves, those that are just trying to make ends meet, to try to get through the challenges that they're facing. And not being able to, being handcuffed and not being able to help address their safety, as well as the safety

of the surrounding community, it's been incredibly challenging and frustrating, I think for myself and for everyone at the city. And so that is, as you've heard, this is where we're asking the provincial and federal governments to step into the fray here and give us the tools, give us the guidance, because we're all struggling with it. And I think, you know, it's been said by a couple of my colleagues, the courts are making these one-off decisions based on specific circumstances on the ground. And then suddenly, you know, we don't know, communities don't understand, okay, what can we do? What can we not do? How do we best address the safety of everyone involved? So, I mean, I think that this is a big challenge. Yes, at the same time, do we need more resources and more treatment? Absolutely. I mean, I tell

the story in Kingston about how there is one publicly funded treatment centre in Kingston. It is a six-month waiting list and it's only open to men. I mean, we need more resources for treatment and for recovery and so places where supportive housing for people to be able to go in encampments. And we're trying to do all those pieces. But we also need the tools from the province to be able to deal with the real dangers that we're seeing in encampments.

Mayor Giles. Yeah, and that was a major, I thought, a major improvement at what happened at the Friday meeting of the OBCM. And that was really bolstering the sections of the revolution. The Ontario Big City Mayor's Caucus. Ontario Big City Mayor's Caucus.

We hate acrobat chairs. OK, the Ontario Big City Mayor's Caucus. We hate acrobatics. The sections that make the request to the province to expand and bolster the treatment system, that was actually strengthened. And that's an excellent point because the treatment hubs are a good initial step. Much more is needed both for involuntary treatment and also for voluntary treatment. Plus, there's a section there that I really like, and that's diversion courts. When you talk to people who've recovered

from a lifetime of addiction, like Marshall Smith, who is chief of staff for the Primavera of Alberta, he will tell you that it was getting involved in the criminal court system and being given the option of treatment and rehab. That is often a great pathway without involuntary treatment to recovery. And the problem with our diversion court system

here in Ontario is it's not widespread enough. And you don't have the resources to back it up. So that if there is a rehab referral and someone chooses to take it to avoid going to jail, it isn't there in many cases. And so that's a big part of this resolution, insisting the provincial government do more to bolster and expand the system that's there for treatment. Okay, go ahead, Mayor Liggett.

So, as you may know, I did a poll, I commissioned a poll that went province-wide that came out in August, right, and it was delivered at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to not do an acronym. And in that four to five people said they wanted to see a dedicated fund created to solve these issues. But when I look at what the province had was delivering and I think it's 384 million if I'm correct to go to solve this problem. For heart hubs. That's absolutely

nothing because there's no bricks and mortars, there's no staff to provide for this whether it's mental health or whether it's addiction, there's none for detox for rehab and then recovery beds are a big thing you know that's the biggest part of rehab is the recovery beds. So I just estimate if we had that billion dollars a year that was lost as revenue from the license plate stickers, if we could have a billion dollars a year dedicated to this, within five years I think we'd be at a point where we could see some daylight at the end of the tunnel. It may get worse. I understand next week we're going to hear that we're about to get 3.2 billion dollars worth of $200 checks in our pocket. Yeah well, I you know like I...

Would you rather have that money to spend? I would rather and part of the poll was I wanted to know if people were willing to spend more money in taxes to offset the cost of this. Surprisingly a lot of people didn't even know what the services were in their own communities. I got about a minute and a half to go. Alex, for you. Well, I think one of the questions you asked earlier was with regards to the Premier and other levels of government.

And I think the Premier actually has answered questions on this. He has said in response to the motion that Kevin drafted with everybody who's here, that he did want the mayors to ask him to do something, that he did want the mayors to ask him to do something that he did support the mayor's coming together and taking on this motion and providing some advice to to the provincial government and so I think that that's a good step forward because it's a recognition this problem is so bad that we need the multiple levels of government working together we hope to get there with the federal government as well because it's going to

require funding from the feds, it's going to require the services from the province, and it's going to require the bylaws from the municipalities. Thank you everybody. I want to thank our five-year worships for coming into TVO tonight, both actually and virtually, to help us out with this very complicated discussion. Ryan Patterson, the Mayor of Kingston, Dan Carter, the Mayor of Oshawa, and here in our studio, Jen Liggett, the mayor of Cambridge, Alex Nuttall, the mayor of Barrie, Kevin Davis, the mayor of Brantford, who's also a Tycat fan, I think. I knew there was something about you. And a Brantford Bulldog fan, too.

And the Bulldogs, too, which also used to be in Hamilton. Thanks, everybody. Appreciate your time tonight here on TVO.