As we come together from municipal council, I encourage all of us here and those listening from home to think about the lands you are on tonight. Here, we have come together on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe peoples, also known as the Three Fires Confederacy of First Nations, comprised of the Ojibwe, theodawa, and the Potawatomi. I also want to acknowledge the Lenny Land Lunapay,
People's known to many of us as the peoples of Delaware First Nations.
Because you're on territory known to many of us as Wapu Island First Nations.
And the many urban and indigenous peoples who also share in the carrying of the land we call Chatham Kent.
Acknowledging the land we reside on honors the relationship between the land and
the people living and thriving here long before settlers arrived.
It offers an opportunity to pay respect to ancestral and traditional territories, to be mindful
of our collective role as stewards of the land, and to build awareness of present-day
Indigenous culture in our community.
Canada has declared September 30th as the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.
This date is meant to acknowledge the history of residential schools, and to honor the victims
and survivors of residential schools, as well as their families and communities.
September 30th is also known across the country as Orn shirt day.
This day of remembering was started by Phyllis Webstad, a residential school survivor from British Columbia.
In 1973, Phyllis' grandmother bought her a brand new Orn shirt for her first day of school.
When six-year-old Phyllis arrived at the residential school wearing her new orange shirt, it was immediately stripped from her.
As Phyllis recounts, when I got to the mission, they stripped me and took away my clothes, including the orange shirt.
I never wore it again. I didn't understand why they wouldn't give it back to me. It was mine.
The color orange has always reminded me of that day and how my feelings didn't matter.
How no one cared and how I felt like I was worth nothing.
All of us little children were crying and no one cared.
Since 2013, Orange Shirt Day has observed annually in Canada.
Inspired by Phyllis's story, Orange Shirts are worn to call awareness to the harmful legacies of residential schools
and to affirm that every child matters.
As we go about our decisions and learnings tonight,
let us be mindful that as municipal council,
municipal staff, and as a community,
we have a collective responsibility to take care of each other
and to take care of this land we all call home.
Thank you.
Mr. Mayor, there is not an additional
supplementary agenda this evening
and rules for the council chambers.
Rules of decorum at the council meetings, the municipality of Chatham Kent supports open
meetings that welcome debate of public policy issues in an atmosphere of inclusiveness,
integrity, civility, fairness, and respect for differing points of view.
Anyone conducting themselves in a way that disturbs, disrupts, or impedes the orderly conduct
of the meeting, interrupts, or make derogatory statements or hate speech, defamatory comments
about councillors, staff, speakers, or fellow members of the public may result in removal
from the premise. The use of posters, signage, and literature is also prohibited. Mr. Mayor,
I have not heard of any precreinary interest. I'll ask council now, are there any conflict
of interest for the agenda this evening?
Seeing none, we'll move on to the next item.
Yes, we'll move on to recognition, and with that I'll call on Councillor Bimograger
to recognize an individual in here that's just starting with us.
Thank you, Mayor Canneff, and it's with great pleasure on behalf of the Board of Health
and Chinatown Council that I welcome our new medical officer of health to counsel today.
Dr. Nessa Thairu, or Shankar as we sometimes call him, has been working now with the public health unit for some time.
We're very excited in his recruitment and the work that he plans to do in the community.
He comes to us with a wealth of education and experience, received his doctor of medicine from McMaster University and his Master of Public Health from the Harvard School of Public Health.
He served as the medical officer of health for Haldeman Norfolk, health unit from 2018 to 2021.
and most recently as the acting medical officer of health for our neighbors in Windsor Essex County.
In addition to training in public health, he's a specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation.
So if Council would join me in welcoming our new medical officer of health and we'll have you come forward to say a few words.
So Board of Health Chair Mr. McGregor, thank you for that introduction.
Mr. Mayor, members of Council, members of the community, my colleagues,
at the municipality. Thank you for the warm welcome, and I know time is precious, so I
only will speak very briefly today.
I think the goal of everybody who works in public
service is to try to improve the life of their fellow community members. And those of us
who work in the realm of public health, our goal is for people to have the best possible
health, the chance to live their life to the fullest, without limitation and without boundaries.
And if I could share my own personal opinion, a health is more than the absence of illness.
It's more than the absence of physician-defined sickness.
I was talking to the epidemiologist for the public health unit today.
She's a wonderful resource.
And we talked about a few things that affect the province and the public health realm and how
that might affect Chatham Camp. In the last year, 2,500 people died of opioid overdose,
2,500 people taken away from their families, too early. To put that in perspective,
there were 600 people who died in car crashes last year. So there are many times more people
dying of opioid overdoses than there are in car crashes. And the epidemiologist shared with me what's
going on in Chatham Kent, and there are 40 people who died in the last year, about 40
people who died of opioid-related deaths.
So it's pretty clear to me, and I think it's pretty clear to all of us that the opioid
crisis, and I used that word cautiously, is a significant challenge to our community.
The crisis affects everybody, every walk of life, men and women, black and white, city
and people in the countryside, the off-line of the poor.
And when I was coming here today, I was thinking,
well, what can we do to actually make a difference?
There are very few times in life that you can actually save a life.
And this is an opportunity today.
I brought these in a lock zone kits for you,
and I hope that you'll open them up.
And the kits have a couple of things.
First of all, they have some instructions.
But if you can drive a car, you can help someone suffering from an opioid overdose.
Pretty straightforward instructions.
And this is an arcane spray device.
And if you think someone is overdosing, all you have to do is give a pop.
It's all it is.
And having a kit and learning how to use the spray can potentially save a life.
If there are a couple of things I would also like to share about this.
One is that half of all people dying of opioid overdoses die at home.
They die with somebody available to intervene.
People aren't all only dying in the park or on the streets.
People are dying at home.
And I know that personally, that people are dying at home.
Secondly, taking a kid home with you today, and I hope that all of you who have been given
a kid will take one home and I have some additional kids from the public health service
for anyone who wants one.
Taking the kid home is not an endorsement of the underlying conduct or activity.
I have one in my house, so my oldest daughter lives with me and I have one in my house and
I hope that one will consider having these kids at their house.
I look forward to working with all of you and the 100 people or so who work for the public
health service to advance the health of the community.
I hope it will continue to have meaningful dialogue as time goes on and I'm happy to answer
any questions privately. So thank you so much.
Thank you for that. With that as well,
there's five esteemed ladies in here tonight that I'd like to recognize as well. So if you would
like to give you the work where you're in the front, then our microphone's not working.
So I'm
going to stay from here and talk with them. We'll come up afterwards. Councilor Anderson will
be joining us as well for this. So, at the bottom of the tier, Amelia DePuille,
Sandra Ramilear, Linda Henderson and Miriam Ivesson. Can you please work your way up here?
We'd love to recognize you.
Just write it on the front here and follow Councillor Anderson.
She'll take you where you need to go.
Here. Don't be shy.
We have a lot of amazing people here in Chatham County doing a lot of great things.
There's a lot of passion of people here. And I just want to celebrate some of the passion that these
that ladies have within Chatham Kent.
And so the Ontario Horticultural Association
recognized the following members from Chatham Kent
during the recent OHA convention in Ottawa.
The Automateer from the Wheatley-Corticultural Society
received the award of American recognition
of her work in planning and supervising
the installation of the Wheatley-Arborium and Learning Trail.
Amelia DePri from the Hittobri-Horticultural Society
received the honor role in recognition for dedication
of the Tilbury Horticultural Society, as treasure for many years in contact for the Memorial
Tree Planning Service at Northside Park, as well as other special projects over the years.
Sandra M. Lear from the Tilbury Horticultural Society received the award of merit in recognition
of a long time work in organizing floral design and photography competitions at the local
district and provincial levels, as well as being President and District Director for District
in 2011.
Linda Henderson, from the Tilbury Horticulture Society,
received the Trillium Award in recognition
of long-term, outstanding service in the areas
of grant applications, designing florals and displays
for Tilbury, supervising very special
horticulture projects in town, as well as
the role of society secretary.
Mary Mivason, from the Tilbury Horticulture Society,
received the Silver Medal Award in recognition
of long-term service in areas of beautification
and conservation in the Tilbury area, and especially at North Side Park.
So thank you so much for making Chatham Kent a much more beautiful place.
It's going to take, I'll run over there real fast.
Mr. Mayor, we'll move on to the deputations now. We've received several today, just to let council know in the email that was sent earlier. We have eight individuals, Chandra Clarke, Lana DeLine, Rock DeLuck, Phil L'Anwarz, Ontario Woodland, Woodlot Association, Southwest Woodlot Association, Cherian Wills, and David Walker, also meted emails that were sent to council earlier today. Mr. Mayor, we'll start with the one that is on the Zoom call.
All this evening, and Alan, are you there?
Yes, hello.
Perfect.
Thank you, please.
I'll start with your deputation and you do have five minutes and the timer is on our screen.
Great.
Okay, thank you, Mayor and Council, for allowing me to digitally present this deputation.
It's no secret that they're not making any more land.
Nor that planting trees is a suitable replacement for forests.
We all know that suburban sprawl consumes land, and we all know that Chatham Kent has taught
not agriculture potential, as well as very limited amount of forest cover remaining.
Anyone who looks around can see that industrial agriculture is the primary land use pressure,
but at what point is enough enough?
Three, two, one percent, none forced covered?
Some of us can see the difference
between model culture and cash crops and force.
Some of us can even see the difference
between an apartment dwelling bonsai tree
and a red maple on a roadside boulevard
and a forest, not all trees are equal.
However, what we all can't see or seem to agree on is the legitimate local land use planning.
So consider that when we look at East Kent's Ward 3, which had arguably the most force
of the remaining in Chatton Kent.
So on that end, I would like to thank Councillor Pinsono for pushing for action regarding the
potential protection of what is left in Chatton County.
And although we should recognize that there's a desire
to go back expressed by some to regress
to the clear-cutting that was demonstrated under a weak
strategy, we also must consider that the agriculture community
didn't cry into a halt because they're not
allowed to clear-cut our force.
So the argument that the red tape limbo has really hindered
of agriculture is malarguing in my consideration.
An inability to clear that hasn't stopped
for Chad and Ken from maximizing
his wonderful agricultural land.
So again, thank you Counsel Kentsenow
for highlighting the need for local governments
to regulate the highest pressure on land use,
which is agriculture.
The question before council, the local government structure
is what are your roles and responsibilities
and what are you legally lawfully and willing and able to do?
Are you willing to go back to a broken system with the illusion of self-regulation?
The business as usual strategy that allows many more acres to be clear-cut?
With that strategy, there's going to be even less and less residuals remaining.
Or, are you willing and able to implement legal protections for the meter 3% or so
So, before you again, Chatham Kent Council is an opportunity to demonstrate an appropriate
level of local governments.
So please choose wisely and your legacy awaits us.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chatham.
We'll now move on to those in the room.
I should have also mentioned that all deputations this evening are with regards to items 16G and
and those are both the motions of Councillor Pinto and Councillor Hall.
We will start with Blake Ashton on deck is Ken Bell and I'll remind all speakers that
there is a maximum of five minutes and it will be on the screen and we do have approximately
15 to get through this evening. Welcome, Blake.
Good evening, Mayor Cannes and Councillors. I'm speaking to you today with regards to the
removal of the temporary treatment and the reinstatement of the natural heritage strategy.
My name is Blake Ashton and my wife and I farm in orphaned township.
We operate a corn and soybean farming operation with my family and we are the fifth generation
on this farm.
Today our farm consists of 60% cultivated lands and the balance of the 40% is deciduous
forest that is zone to agriculture.
As stated, forest and lands are a significant part of our farming operation and are vital to
the sustainability of our business from both an economic and environmental standpoint.
The temporary by-law which has been in place for now over two years has and will continue
to have a direct negative impact on the equity and earning potential of our farming operation.
This by-law will further impact the potential for our farm to be able to grow in a highly
competitive environment.
As a farmer, my priority is the sustainability of both my business, of my business, for both my family and future generations.
Protection of our natural resources and the environment are the primary factor impacting the future sustainability of this business, and thus are the primary consideration in all of our management decisions.
The temporary bylaw in its current state suggests, however, that we do not have the capacity
to make these decisions on our farming operation in the best interest of the natural resource
that relies on most, the land.
This could not be further from the truth, however, as my family is the one that has the most
to lose if we do not protect the environment that our business relies on to generate its
income.
As an industry, we have made tremendous progress over the past 20 years to implement environmentally
sustainable farming practices. Much of this has been done without government intervention
and support, because it has been in the best interest of both our businesses and the environment.
Farmers have and will continue to be the primary stewards of our agricultural lands,
including majority of the forested lands in this community. We must continue to trust
that they will make the right management decisions that will support the sustainability
of the environment and in turn their business operations.
The current temporary by-law has put an inequitable weight on our agriculture industry
to combat climate change through the preservation of our forested lands, while other industries
that could pose a much more significant threat to these forested lands have been allowed to
carry on normal business practices.
To this end, I am requesting that our Council support one of the largest and most committed
industries to this community by eliminating the temporary tree cutting by law.
Thank you.
Next speaker is Ken Bell on deck is Don Cipris.
Thank you, Chair Mayor and Councillors.
I sat on the natural heritage implementation strategic committee from its inception to its
completion.
along with some of the people here and members of the KFA at the lower terms conservation authority offices.
That committee was supposed to intervene in instances of deforestation by offering options to property owners.
There were other measures that were included in that strategy that had nothing to do with preserving Carolinian forests.
Those other measures provided some extra funding for the conservation authority who had,
I have to say an economic incentive to promote tree planting and cultural change, both good
things, but as an alternative to actually protecting our forests.
Fence rows, conifer plantations are not forests.
Temporary flower fields are nice, but they're not forest either.
In conservation areas, parking or provincial parks and first nations reserves are not within
this council's jurisdiction.
So we can't allow ourselves to lose focus on broadleaf Carolinian forests that are actually
within Chatham Kent's planning jurisdiction.
So I can say unequivocally that the strategy was totally ineffective to prevent deforestation
in Chatham Kent.
Several instances of that deforestation continued during the period of strategy, and nothing
was done to effectively circumvent or even slow down its continuation.
In fact, early in 2016, a provincially significant forest wetland was destroyed along the
Column drain across from Rondo Bay estates.
That forest wetland was within the regulated jurisdiction of the lower-terms conservation
authority and should have had the highest level of protection.
The committee and authority were made aware and were totally unable to do anything after
to the fact. In fact, we were told by then director Don Pearson that the conservation
authority didn't have the resources to pursue a court case. So lack of enforcement creates
a climate of impunity. This information was presented and discussed during a series
of natural heritage strategy meetings. All of this can be corroborated by other members
of the NHIS committee. The reason I and other sat on this committee, aside from a good faith
and a hope that we may actually be able to do something to save some woodlands, was
to ensure that the same kind of backroom deals that led to the formation of the NHIS did
not continue to misrepresent the public interest. It was a sad state of affairs and clearly
demonstrated that the only protections the remaining forests have are legal protections
just like in other municipalities. The remaining 3.5% forest cover has been granted
a temporary reprieve thanks to a temporary by-law. The majority of voters in Chatham Kent
want forest protected through an open and transparent and publicly inclusive process. We need forests
and fields with no backroom deals.
Thank you for your consideration.
Next is Don Sipres, on deck is Karen Dizzars.
Mr. Mayor and members of Chatham Kent Council, my name is Don Siperas.
I farm near the Chatham Kent, Elgin Border, farm in Rodney.
I am the past president of the National Farmers Union of Ontario
and a member of the Ontario Woodlaught Association.
I value the benefits provided by Woodlaughts on my farms
and encourage all others to discover that very same beauty.
I'm here speaking to request that Chanem Kent Council
implement the tree by law that prohibits the clear cutting of woodlaughts,
woodlands and parts of woodlots, woodlands within the municipality.
The county's natural heritage implementation strategy has not stopped woodlot woodland
destruction and further steps are needed.
Chatham Ken council has made it known that environmental sustainability is a key component
of its vision statement.
At the September 20th, 23 meeting of the Great Lakes Eco-Region Network, a lady Jane
Elder from New York State spoke on climate change inhabitant and biodiversity loss, being
two of the three ecological threats to the Great Lakes.
She mentioned that average temperatures are up 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit in the basin, in the
Great Lakes basin.
This affects ecological health and vitality, the reason why many of us are here tonight.
She goes on to state that landscape integrity is a problem, including connectivity and corridors
for wildlife, migration, genetic, diversity, food sources, and etc.
She mentioned further at this meeting last week that the Biden administration in the
U.S. has passed a 30 by 30 regulation for land use that mandates 30% natural areas protected
by 2030.
As Canadians, as residents of Chatham, we need to be at the forefront of environmental
protection by addressing ecological threats in the basin that eventually present themselves
in the lakes.
I would ask that Council review before their deliberations.
The NFUO, the Ontario Wood Law Association, the Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario Submission of August 17th, 2021, that pertains to the temporary clear-cutting by-law 7-2-2021. Nothing has changed in that situation, everything still remains the same. The natural heritage strategy will not address the issues emanating from the law.
Land use practices in Chatham can that will affect the Great Lakes Basin and eventually the Great Lakes.
Future Chatham can't residents deserve a future.
The tree cutting bylaw needs to be designated as a vital component of the natural heritage implementation strategy.
Thank you.
Next speaker is Karen Disarras, followed by Earl Johnson.
Good
evening.
It's my intention to address the idea that there haven't been enough consultation studies,
open houses, workshops, or public input.
First, one cannot adequately describe all the input and study that has gone into this by law in a five minute deputation.
Second, I feel this whole exercise has got an up to the minute redundancy.
1851. Forrests accounted for 80% of the Kent landscape. 1850s, 10% of Kent County was
land was forest. Note, today's C.K.S. forest covers around 3%. In a 2002 Chatham Dilleyne's
article, Councillor Brian King remains opposed to a tree cutting bylaw. Ralph Pagliis quote,
in the old days when you brought that up, as soon as the words were out of your mouth, you
No bulldozers have replaced chainsaws.
June 2003, a Chatham Dillon news article, Chatham Chatham wants to increase forest cover and
presents a forest management plan.
And then they held forest management public meetings.
2010, the possible demise of PACS since Bush was hot news.
2013, a petition was submitted to council entitled a petition to pass a wood law preservation
violation by law, and it contained 5,000 signatures, including 518 farm woodlot owners.
In 2013, over 40 deputations were presented.
In 2013, CK contracted the services of Brian Boyle and Associates.
Mr. Boyle and IAF certified professional, facilitated seven highly interactive workshops designed to receive and
discuss input and develop an action plan related to sustainable forest cover.
2013, a background research document was generated by Dr. Wayne Codwell, P-H-D, R-P-P-M-C-I-P,
Director and Professor, School of Environmental Design University of Guelph.
2013, there were three public open houses held in Dwallisburg, Chattam, Richtown, which
generated 160 written comments, sheets and additional 50 received by email.
Now, also 2013 report generated entitled Shadow Count Trees, Forests, and Woodlots, or
a view of the literature, 2013 report February, a by-law was written, but council opted
for a strategy instead.
And then in 2013, they developed the Sustainability Review Committee, Ken talked about.
2013, the St. Clair region gave the municipality a report card, and
notes that reforestation efforts are needed to increase the extent and size of woodlands
and that repairing and buffers are needed on all waterways, especially municipal drains.
2014, the document entitled Chetel Cantonatural Heritage Strategy came out.
And on the opening pages, just one quote and it reads, a thing is right when it tends to
preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of a biotic community is as wrong when it
10s otherwise, that's Eldo Leopold.
2021, news for the Miss Pellet held a mass mail-out of 6,000 stakeholders and in 2021, you approved the temporary by-law.
2021, there were other reports such as the mapping project of forest cover and natural heritage prepared by the lower towns.
In 2022, the Kent Federation of Agriculture presented a petition asking for further consultation.
Okay, I'm going to go because I'm going to run out of time.
So I'm going to go to today, September 2023, Chatham Kent has the lowest forest cover in
the province.
And finally, I'd like to share an excerpt from a report entitled Sustainable Forest Cover
in Chatham Kent, written in 2013.
It reads, the current study compiled by Chatham Kent
to support a tree by law illustrates the harmful health
impacts of deforestation contained in the lower 10
conservation authorities founding study.
It detailed how Chatham Kent had the highest rates
of hospitalization due to cardiovascular disease,
stroke, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
in the province, and it has the highest death rate for preventable cardiovascular disease.
Chatham Kent was found to have the lowest rate of leisure activity and the highest rate
of overweight and obesity in southwestern Ontario. The lack of shade causes recreational
trails to be unused. Chatham has been found to be 10 degrees Celsius, hotter than Windsor,
and rural areas have been found to be warmer than well-forced in parts of southwestern
Ontario. The hottest school yards in southwestern Ontario have been found in Kent County because
of the lack of forest cover. I'm sorry that's time now. Council has received your
deputation though. Trees are good. Thank you. Next speaker is Earl Johnson on deck is Sally Joyce.
Mayor and fellow Councillors, on behalf of the student to be announced for a stewardship
pilot program for Chatham Kent, I would ask you to keep the tree cutting moratorium
in place until this program, which will involve the entire community of Chatham Kent as an
opportunity to bring forward viable and acceptable alternatives to a strictly regulatory solution to this long-standing issue.
Our initial group of involved citizens is now upwards of 50 community leaders, resource professionals, and private land owners.
And I can assure you, this number will grow, especially as the CK Climate Action Plan is
developed and brought forward.
I might add that our apparent group realm, which some of you might have heard of before,
which is called the Regenerative Agricultural Land Use Management Farm Group of Chatham Kent,
is using this program as a preview to a larger environmental stewardship thrust for all of Chatham Kent.
As a former member of the Natural Heritage Implementation Committee, I can also tell you the same as some others have said tonight,
NISA did nothing to protect forest cover and CK. In fact, this strategy never included a
mandate to this effect. And a suggestion to the contrary and gentlemen and ladies and
gentlemen, you are being misled.
Let's be frank, the best resolution to this issue is not
a consequence of simply accepting this motion and letting a few land owners to once again
begin forest clearing and destruction.
And sadly, behind the scenes it has been said by many, this is not an issue of property
rights, this is an issue strictly of greed.
If we are really honest, the resolution is yet to be found, but somehow, we must and
we'll do it.
I welcome any questions and what I've said if you want to contact me later.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Next is Sally Joyce on deck is Rob Kerr.
Mayor and council, thank you for this opportunity.
I'm going to take it a little bit to the personal.
I am a concerned citizen, and I am an environmental scientist.
I must breathe clean air to survive.
I must drink clean water to survive.
I must eat nutritious food to survive.
I enjoy experiencing good mental and emotional health.
I enjoy experiencing good physical health.
and I enjoy experiencing good spiritual health.
All of these ways of living are becoming harder
and harder to do as the local numbers of mature trees
continue to drop and shout them can't.
We have lost trees to the Emerald Ash Borer
and it's men, atement, enter roads,
and bases of wind turbines.
We have lost trees to cash crop priorities.
We have lost trees to development.
the Antiquated Ontario Drainage Act, to Storms, to Greed, to Convenience, and more.
This year alone in Canada, we have lost 11.5 million hectares of forested land due
to wildfires. In 2022, thousands more hectares of forest were lost in eastern Canada due
to the intensity of hurricane Fiona. In Chatham Kent, we are the lucky ones, who, for
the most part have not had to experience the trauma and direct after effects of these
large-scale tree destroying events. We are also the lucky ones who can make a difference
to protect what remains here, for ourselves and generations to follow. In nature, everything
is connected to everything else. If we continue to give priority to cash crops over woodlobs,
The tipping point will soon come when soils completely die and crops fail because our local
biodiversity and ecosystems have imploded because of our destructive actions.
A local tree protection by-law is well overdue, even though I dream of the day when the concept
of protection and protective legislation is unneeded, because everyone understands the inherent
holistic and interconnected value of all trees.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, next speaker is Rob Kerr, on deck is Bill Parks.
Thank you for the opportunity.
I'm a long time Chatham Kent farmer, but I'm speaking for the regenerative agriculture land use management group, which Earl Johnson just referred to.
It's a voluntary association of farmers and rural residents.
We absolutely support wood lot preservation.
amendment council for tackling this exciting and polarizing issue in the spirit of providing
good government in the long term. We do respect the property rights of land owners, a foundation
of the rule of law in Canada. But please do not casually surrender your visionary long
term position.
First, install a positive incentive strategy, endeavor to grow the commitment
of the whole community to maintaining an increasing tree cover in Chattamkent.
The strategy should have three elements. Number one, a substantial forest stewardship support
program for woodlaught owners that was just mentioned by Earl Johnson.
Second, positive recognition for the owners of woodlaughts by all taxpayers in the form of a budget manageable annual per acre municipal tax credit.
and
thirdly, employ moral suasion, don't be shy, commit to a press release which would publicly identify and make accountable to the whole community the owner of any wood lot destroyed.
Only then, if you seek or are seeking middle ground, should you consider withdrawing the moratorium?
Mr.
Mayor and council, my name is Bill Parks, I'm here to talk to you about food.
It's kind of important to all of us.
I want you to look at this little sheet of paper.
It says, grow Ontario, a provincial agra food strategy. From our Minister of Agriculture, Lisa Thompson, this 16-page document was released November 28, 2022.
It says some very significant things.
Minister Thompson's goals for 2023 at 10 years from when she made the announcement is to increase food production and she says it in these ways.
The consumption of food grown and prepared in Ontario should be increased by 30% by 2032.
She then asked this to increase the production of food grown and prepared in Ontario by 30%.
Again, for 2032,
the third point she put out to increase Ontario's food and beverage manufacturing GDP by 10%.
And the 4th point, to increase Ontario's agr-food exports by 8% annually.
It is my view to achieve Mr. Thompson's goal to increase Ontario's food consumption and production by 30% by 2032,
the province of Ontario,
which is currently losing more than 319 acres of land every day to urban and urban development.
We'll need innovative ideas and, and I want to step on this word very hard, more farmland,
not less. Chattamcans, tree cutting by law, is counterproductive to increasing farmland
necessary to meet the minister's goals. To achieve the minister's goals, Ontario
needs more farmland available for production, which in many cases will include clearing and
draining the farmland. As students of the land, Ontario's agriculturalists agree that
all cleaning and drainage work needs to continue. Along with the conservation measures to
create more woodland areas, more prairie grass areas, and more wetland areas,
in the logical
and appropriate places.
As many of Ontario as pardon me, as many of our Chatham Kent farmers have done since 2014.
With the help of the Laura Thames Valley Conservation Authority and the St.
Claire Conservation Authority,
I'm sorry.
Going forward, Chatham Kent needs a renewed commitment to the natural heritage implementation
strategy of 2014 from our Chatham Kent Council without radical views from any source.
The Natural Heritage Implementation Strategy of 2014 has an important initiative that the
municipality of Chatham Kent must fully support from today on.
Charlem can't can make progress for farming and for conservation without the woodlock by-laws.
Please defeat the use by-laws.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Park.
Nick, Nick speaker is John Sarah Nipkis and I understand you have a PowerPoint presentation.
Meredith will start that for you and I will let you know when we get to the five minutes
if you get there.
On deck is Denise Shepard.
Cool, thank you.
Thank you for having me for a few minutes.
I'd like to adjust the facts for a moment.
We went from 4.5, 5.5, 4.5, down to 3.5, some people including print media suggesting
it could be below 3%.
3% of what?
Let's look at a bit of the history and a little bit of the facts that need
to be adjusted. In current print media, Chatham Kent was one of only two municipalities
in Ontario without a tree cutting by law, and it bears the distinction of having the lowest
natural forest cover in the province at only 3.5%.
Well, the latest child can swoop data, pegs it at 104 square kilometers out of 2,045
square kilometers.
That's not even counting the smaller lots, fence rows, plantings, valley lands that are
certain size or whatever, it's still sitting at 4.25 percent.
Where are the other facts are coming from, whatever, it needs to be adjusted.
and it will be adjusted further later on the following slides.
Southern Ontario counties with no by-law, 14 of them,
roughly half, of the Southern
Ontario land area, so let's correct that as well.
In the last 10 years, neighboring Lampton, which has a by-law for a while now, lost 243
factors, according to their swoop analysis, an elegant with a by-law, it's about to lose
hundreds of acres most likely because of developments.
Chatham can't without a by-law, lost 229 hectares.
While SX, next door, who doesn't have a by-law, gained almost 2% in forest cover, according
to the CBC report, September 24, 2023.
All my data is documented and anybody who wants to get further sources, I can provide them.
The province does not mandate tree regulations or by-laws.
It does list numerous options for addressing environmental issues.
Previous Chattam Ken County Council has passed an education and incentive promotion, so we
it by law.
Go to the next slide.
I'm going to run out of time.
Just quickly, can county pre-settlement, these are the facts.
It never was poorly forested, not even close.
Land survey, Patrick McNeil, this is sort of a minister of national resources documents
and archives.
On each side of the distance of six miles upstream near Chatham, I'm just going to go fast
to the safe time.
We're extensive metals in March just as without any wood, except for a few scattered trees.
to the oversight that marshals and men has extended north east as far as I could see eight miles up on the south side in general up and
In the other forks the woodland does not extend back from the Thames more than 30 acres
Plot I presume and many places not so far then commence to plane
Robert Stevens that out that off so and so the land on his bank is about to richest. I've ever seen in any country
If not farmland as a premium priority in chat him can't
where we need more food for Canada. 67 feet deep of earth that would do for a
garden and extensive grass plains stretching for miles into the country.
Without a tree, save here and there a small club like an island in the plain. The
grass, particularly that, called Blue to Joy, it's good for pastures and so forth.
Bogs flooded in the spring. In tree settlement times is estimated, this is from your
Your own official plan for Chatham Kent, 4 section 7, page 4 to 16, section 4, estimated
that over 60% of Chatham Kent's landscape was wetland, 16% forest, and approximately
12% tall grass prairie.
That forest was predominantly, I can find, I give you sources if you want, plumps of wildlife
groves and red oak, burrow, especially.
This is what you can't be, especially the western side looked like.
More than we know now, parts that are still left natural,
because agriculture has improved
the land and that's still an official statement.
We are able now to grow trees in certain areas, where we wouldn't be able to before.
By
the way, those windbanks are counted in a swoop.
Those small areas of force at the back are not counted either.
We got to go to 4.5% plus.
Sorry, that's time.
Oh my gosh.
Yes, they received your PowerPoint also.
Next speaker is Denise Shepherd.
On deck is Confederation Association.
Sorry, Confederation of Agriculture Association.
Good evening.
I am speaking to address the motion presented this evening by Councillor Aaron Hall.
read the natural heritage strategy. I ask this current council to support the declared
goal of ensuring environmental sustainability for Chatham Ken. Years of review, reams of
paper and hours and boardrooms have been directed to establish a natural heritage policy intended
to protect the natural features of our area for long term. These issues are more important
now than ever before, and you're being asked to proceed efficiently with the existing data
and public input collected and previously provided by administration to the members of the
Natural Heritage Committee of the Hall. It is also of utmost importance the by-law 72-2021
one remain in place and in enforcement.
The existing wood lots are a unique ecological feature
that once gone will be gone forever.
Picture how differently our area would have been
if adequate protection would have been provided
as was sought in 2013.
Our area has suffered eight long devastating years
of loss to wildlife, habitat, biodiversity, and connectivity of natural areas until the
temporary clear cutting bylaw was presented in April 2021.
Those that understand the
full value of what is trying to be protected can be proud of their comprehension of future
impact and their stand to save it for the well-being of all. Those that can drive down any
rural road and east Kent look across concessions of agricultural land without a tree line in
sight and realize this is not sustainable can be brave enough to have the moral strength
to stand up for what is required to protect the less than 4% remaining forest cover.
Councilor Hall's motion allows for further development and implementation of a combined solution
that can safeguard preservation of forced cover in Chatham Kent.
Please be aware the time has come to move from more information gathering and splitting it
out from several existing programs developed under the umbrella of maintaining natural cover
in Chatham Kent.
This is September 2023. The time is now to focus on a way forward regarding woodlock conservation.
You, as council members, have a cheer fingertips as you vote to accept this motion.
The opportunity to tackle biodiversity loss and help nature's ability to support a healthy
environment for the world ahead.
Thank you.
Next speaker is the Confederation of Agriculture on deck is the Christian Farmers Federation.
Mayor Canough and council members.
As agricultural leaders in Chatham, the Confederation of Agriculture joins with all related agricultural
groups who support the elimination of existing temporary tree cutting by law.
With the Ontario Minister of Agriculture, recently calling on farmers increased production by 30 percent.
Chatham Kent farmers are ready to step up.
We have some of the most fertile productive and naturally irrigated soil in Canada, little alone Ontario.
In order for our farms to remain competitive, profitable and profitable, farmers
We need to be in control of their land. That's the message the Confederation of Agriculture is hearing from our more than 1850 members. Two years ago, council decided to put in a temporary by-law, which halted the natural heritage implementation strategy with no end date. This was more than an oversight to say the least. Real landowners have been waiting for resolution to this matter and deserve it tonight. The natural heritage implementation strategy was very successful in the past,
and generated very positive results despite being abandoned by one of its key
partners the municipality of Chatham Kent. Many natural areas and wetlands were
created using native tree species to entail grasses throughout our
municipality. The Kent Federation is calling on council tonight to implement a
new updated natural heritage strategy. We would be pleased to champion the update
and work with council and staff members for the success of it.
New housing developments in Chatham-Cant are removing prime agricultural farm land from production at an alarming rate.
The farmers of Chatham-Cant need council's help to allow landowners to make the best decisions for their property.
Thank you.
Next speaker is Christian Farmers Federation on deck is Sarah Vindolin.
Mr. Mayor and Council, my name is Gus Ternoy and I'm speaking on behalf of the Chatham
Kent Essex Christian Farmers Association as their president.
I want to reinforce the important and unique status of Chatham Kent, a large agricultural
producer and Ontario. The Chattankant Property Rights Association report quite rightly highlights
many of these issues facing the sustainability of agriculture in the province and real requirements
of farmers in Chattankant. The Ontario Government's growing Ontario agri-food strategy highlights how
important agriculture is to our province and nation and sets out ambitious goals to protect our agriculture
and resulting food security.
Policies and regulations that stand in the way of this strategy are detrimental to the
well-being of Ontario and Canada as a whole.
The farms in this county are often being managed by 3rd and 4th generation farmers,
and Ivan personally met those who are the 7th generation on their land.
Our farmers understand their land,
and have evolved the relationship with the natural environment around them creating a sustainable system.
And these farmers are the experts who did to determine what is best and most beneficial use of their land.
Much of the land in Chathamkent due to its rich soil, long growing season and agreeable topography is optimal for high production agriculture.
A very small percentage of our nation's land can be farmed, and it is our responsibility
to use the blessings of our region to the optimal benefit of our world.
Local tree cover is a complex situation.
The temporary by-law is nearly two and a half years old.
Clearly, if this were a simple problem or the approach to resolving it was understood,
it would have been addressed long ago.
It is obvious to me, no simple regulatory approach is going to address complex situations
and very real demands we need to address.
If it is council's desire to do anything effective, this will require open dialogue to first
establish all competing goals and then put forth plans to prioritize these goals and only
then can effective programs be created to move us towards those goals.
Without a full comprehension of the competing land usages, detailed by each unique land type within the county, can any action be made without creating regulatory burdens and ultimately more negative effects rather than truly protecting or promoting our mutual goals?
There's every reason for Chatham Kent to be a benchmark for agriculture in Ontario.
By-law 72, 2021 in no way creates that environment.
Thank you.
Next speaker is Sarah Van Lillen on deck is Chatham Kent Property Rights Association.
This by-law has been implemented on April 26, 2021.
It is now September 25, 2023.
It has been placed for two years and six months.
When I looked up the definition of the word temporary in the dictionary, the adjective was
lasting for a limited period of time and not permanent.
Good evening, Honorable Mayor Darren Kenneth, Counselors and fellow Chatham Kent citizens.
My name is Sarah Valaywan and I'm in favor of Counselor Stephen Pistonnell's motion to remove
Bylaw 72-2021.
The temporary, clear, cutting Bylaw.
I farm together with my husband and three children.
We are a young family that resides in Chatham Kent and Howard County.
My husband and I both graduated from the University of Guelph, Richtown campus, where we were
taught to have great stewardship of the land.
Today we work with many people to make sure that we can fulfill that fact.
More people than we might even have for our health.
In September of 2018, I took part in celebrating Chatham Kent's and volunteering in the IPM in Pantor.
During the all chairs meeting, I attended Mayor.
You stood at the front of the group of the committee chairs and was very passionately expressing your pride in Chatham Kent, promoting everything that Chatham Kent has to offer.
Our mascot was named Toby Coby. His feet represent tomato, sorry his head was tomato,
beefy chest and shoulders, leg of corn and beans for feet. He had a colorful air culture
symbol which represents Chatham Kent. These are a few of the crops that we grow in Chatham
Kent. We have some of the most productive land in Ontario. We are able to grow field crops
and vegetables, which most areas might not be able to because of their lack of heat units
and fertility. While traveling up north we notice large amounts of logging trees, and yes,
up north has abundance of trees, but then I notice signs protesting mining a line.
Everyone uses the products that our land has to offer. They just don't want it in their own backyard.
And Tatum Kent pushes are able to come down for housing or to develop the area.
This by-law is just in place for farmers.
We lose over 300 acres a day to development.
We bought and paid for our land and continue to pay high taxes over it.
We love what we do and we are good at it.
We take our time in sharing the actions that we take are the right ones.
Councillors, I urge you to please vote right, vote to eliminate the tree-cutting by-law and
eliminate red tape.
Thank you for your time this evening and allowing me to express my favor, the motion to remove the tree cutting by law.
If you ate today, thank you, farmer.
Next speaker is the Chatham Kent Property Rights Association on deck is all of Natbic.
Thank you, mayor and councillors.
I represent the Chatham Kent Property Rights Association.
My name's Jim Brockett, I'm also a director on the Kent Federation of Agriculture.
The Chattamcant Property Rights Association joins with a majority of the rural population
of Chattamcant in requesting the elimination of the existing temporary tree cutting by
law.
Ontario has less than 5% of its land use for primary agriculture.
Chattamcant is optimum for agricultural practices by benefiting from the soil types, our terrain,
our water resources, and a very long growing season.
Our unique topography and climate combine to create the perfect agricultural land base.
to minimize the impact on food production,
resulting from converting marginal ground to crop land
to meet global food requirements.
It is important to maximize land use benefits.
Farmland has been lost globally and
provincially to the high rate of residential and industrial development.
Much of this development is situated on previously highly productive farms.
Our natural heritage plan and conservation undertakings have proven
to be effective in converting marginal farm land to provide tree cover and other natural
spaces. In other words, places where we can't grow food. As a society we need to contemplate
land use consequences and ensure the direction taken maximizes the benefits when measured
on a provincial, national, and even international basis.
Much discussion has been had over the amount of tree cover in various sectors of the province,
including in Chatham Kent, but if we consider the need for farmland preservation as a means to much needed food production,
we see that the primary agricultural land is currently at risk.
Statistics from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has recently as 2023 showed total.
April, acreage of farmland and tarot decreased from 12,348,000 acres in 2016 to 11,766,
averaging out to a decrease of approximately 319 acres, as previously mentioned in many
deputations, farmland loss per day to development.
The loss has almost doubled the 175 acres of 2016 and has surely gone to 400 or more now.
A question that arise from the shocking acknowledgement of farmland at risk is essentially the same one our ancestors faced when they settled.
How do we feed ourselves in the population? At that time, they were faced with a promise that was covered in trees and still is.
They had to make a hard decision to knock down trees to brought enough food to eat.
This is evident from the statistics that we've shown.
At today's rate of farmland loss to development, nearly 1% of the per year it could be easily
said we are in crisis mode and need to examine ways to offset this.
Chatham Ken is unique in his location and comparative and composition relative to the rest of Ontario.
The issue of clear-cutting of trees and woodlands last to rose in 13.
At that time, many concerned parties on both sides of the discussion presented their
position to the municipality of Chatham Ken who was contemplating a bylaw.
The thoughtful result was the natural heritage strategy which was working.
We have increased over that time period, our acreage planted to trees versus knocked down by 3.73%.
So without any need for a bylaw, the property owners have managed to increase the amount of woodlaught
tree cover that was removed versus what was planted.
We have not had good support from the other players, whether it be the activists or even the municipality.
So we're looking for support with the natural heritage strategy from the municipality and the other players.
We want to maintain a balanced natural ecosystem with this municipality.
We believe that all interested parties including agriculturalists, urbanites, business people,
thoughtful conservationists, LT, VCA, and SCRCA, our conservation groups, and radical
conservationists would support a review and improvement of the natural heritage strategy.
In conclusion, the preservation of our environment is everyone's concern, but not everyone's
responsibility.
The responsibility of managing such a limited resource, which is currently at risk lies with the farmers
who operate on these productive lands.
This is their most valuable and natural resource.
All we are asking for is everyone's support to carry on their life's task in a business environment that supports their endeavors.
To that end, we again reiterate our requests that municipality of Chathamkent vote against any by-law that would restrict the farmland owner from clearing woodlots and recover to recover valuable farmland that will then go into food production.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Next speaker is all of Natbick on deck is Ben Kushtas.
Mr. Mayor, members of council, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight.
This issue is dear to my heart and I've brought basically a letter that I wrote two years
ago when council was considering a moratorium because basically the same forces are play.
Today the issue still remains the same and essentially it's very applicable.
So who am I?
Well, my name is Olaf Nathic, I'm 57 years old and I've lived in South Orford since
a young kid.
I've been fortunate to grow up in a farming family that has, and I've learned to appreciate
the beauty of nature and see its intrinsic value and benefit to the community by maintaining
my original woodlots. I own 125 acres of land of which 58 acres is forested. My
woodlots are part of the last remaining woodlots sections in South
Orford and sadly I have come to the conclusion that they need legal protection
otherwise they will also go the way of the dodo. Where do I stand? I support a
a tree cutting bylaw for various reasons.
The key reason is that current land sales to large farming operations more times than
not lead to land clearing.
Since the last time the tree cutting bylaw was voted down, two neighboring firms came
up for sale and with land values now at $15 to $25,000 an acre, the buyers are large farming
outfits.
Don't kid yourself.
They're not small operators.
They're large farming outfits. You need money.
One naming firm had every last tree removed, probably 30, 40 acres worth, and the other piece I had to do a landswap, i.e., sell 40 acres of clear land so that I could buy the neighboring 50 acre piece with 25 acres of remaining woodlot. The reality was, if I didn't do the landswap, the next large farming operator would have cleared and tiled the woodlot. This is the on the ground trend
that continues since I was a boy, it's sad.
And the reality is, the lands that remain forested only do so
because the land owners see the intrinsic value
beyond simply a dollar and cents proposition
and the majority want to keep a way to keep it as such.
It's the woodlock owners who buy and large want the tree cutting bylaw
While it's the farming interests who want to buy what remains who are against the tree cutting by law.
To farming interests, it's simply a dollars and cents proposition to have the future opportunity
to clear what remains when it comes up for sale, that's doubly sad.
I'm not a political person.
I just know there are a lot of silent landowners who happened to own a small piece of bush
That's given them great joy and it kills them to know when their next buyer comes in. It's likely to be clear I
Can tell you many people would roll in their graves if they knew what happened to their woodlot after their passing
I don't want to be that person so I hope council will find a way to save that last little bit whether it's two three four four point five percent
Let's face it. We're down to scraps
So, we can all enjoy a true legacy and find the same joy that kept me here in the first
place.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
In the last week of this evening has been pushed off.
It's been here.
Okay.
So, council has received his via email also.
So, Mr. Mayor, that is the end of the deputations this evening.
We'll move on to consent agenda.
In the consent agenda, I have four items that have been pulled.
16A, adjustments to the community improvement plan.
We have a presentation by staff and Councillor Saccacci and Councillor Doyle have pulled the item.
16B, municipal housing pledges and targets, strong mayor powers and building faster fund.
Councillor Carman McGregor, Councillor Doyle and Councillor Juvenville have pulled that item.
The other two are what we're here for this evening.
16G, motion of Councillor Pincino, the natural heritage strategy, and 16H, the motion
of Councillor Hall, the natural heritage strategy. Therefore, the remaining items on the consent
agenda this evening are items 14A, 15A, B, 16C, D, E, F, item 17A, 18A, 19A, 20A, 21A,
A, B, C, and D. Councillor McGrill and Councillor Thompson, each
can move the consent agenda, please. I will move that.
And I will second it. Any questions? Seeing none, we'll put it to vote.
Councillor Carmine McGregor.
Councillor Bondy.
All votes are in.
Sorry. Councillor Hall is not there. Sorry. All votes are in. Motion passes 16 to 0.
Item 16, development services.
16A, adjustments to the community improvement plan, and we have a presentation from Gabriel
Clark, the manager of growth and sustainability.
So thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Counselors over the next few minutes, I will provide an overview of Chatham Kent's community
improvement plan, or also known as its CIP.
I'll talk also quickly about the CIP review project that we've been working on over the
last 10 months and then I will touch upon the recommendations that we have developed
for the various CIP programs going forward.
So for those who are unfamiliar with the
community improvement plan or CIP in simple terms, it is a program that offers a series
of financial incentives to encourage various forms of high priority development such as commercial
residential and employment related. It was approved by Council on March 2nd, 2020, so
days before the COVID pandemic and it includes five core funding streams including a commercial
facade rejuvenation grant program, a property tax program, a building and planning fee program,
a development charges grant program, and a program that offers grants for various forms of housing.
So in December of last year, a planning service has initiated what we call the CIP review project,
and this project was initiated to evaluate the impact that the CIP has had on the community
since it was introduced in 2020, and then to ensure that the CIP continues to reflect
Council's evolving priorities related to growth and development.
CIP review project includes the three main steps which are illustrated on the screen.
So step one led to the creation of the CIP uptake and community impact report that was presented
to Council on July 10th at the meeting.
Step 2 and 3 were undertaken concurrently and led to the creation of the report that
is attached to this evening's council agenda and this presentation.
So this slide actually illustrates just one key excerpt from the CIP uptaken Community
Impact Report and shows that between March of 2020 and December of 2022, the total construction
of the investments that participated in the CIP was estimated just under 170 million dollars.
Those developments received grants totaling just over 18 million dollars,
which represents an investment value private sector versus public sector of 9.3 to 1.
Full details of this analysis and everything else that we've included on the CIP
the uptake in impact analysis is included on the report that was attached to the July 10,
2023 Council agenda. So with that as back on information, I will now turn
to the adjustments that have been developed for Chatham Kent Community Improvement Plan
going forward that are before you for consideration.
So the adjustments that are recommended for
the CIP programs are all underpinned by one or more of the following guiding principles
that are listed on this slide.
The guiding principles on the left column flow directly from the various growth-related
priorities that are included in Council's newly approved strategic plan.
The guiding principles on the right hand of the column were developed throughout the course
of the CIP review project, and various sources include best management practices review, business
community surveys, and stakeholder engagement.
So
turning to the actual recommended adjustments, starting with the commercial facade improvement program at the top of the screen there.
Recommendations include simplifying the grant structure, increasing the maximum grant value, and ensuring that projects that involve replacing windows are always paired with other facade improvements.
The recommendations for the second program on the list here called the development charges partial rebate program is to sunset this program.
This recommendation is partly driven by builds 23, which now mandates a 100% exemption for affordable housing developments from our development charges.
Third on the list is recommendations for the building and planning fee rebate program, which include introducing a funding stream for additional dwelling units, also known as secondary units.
and focusing the eligibility for the commercial and mixed use streams to downtown business areas.
For the residential conversion and affordable housing program recommendations include increasing the amounts of the grants,
eliminating the unit caps and focusing the mixed use grants to downtown areas.
Turning to the recommendations for the property tax program, which is also known
affectionately as the property tax increment equivalent grant program.
Recommendations for the commercial stream include establishing a two-tier system,
basically more aggressive incentives for downtowns and hotels,
and then a second less aggressive stream for commercial developments outside of downtown areas.
Recommendations for the mixed use commercial residential stream include focusing eligibility to downtown areas,
and providing a more aggressive incentive for affordable housing units in mixed-use buildings located in downtown areas.
Recommendations for the employment stream is to raise the minimum eligible project cost to a million dollars up from 250,000, where it is at currently.
Recommendations for the major employment stream include raising the eligible minimum project cost up to 10 million from 5 million where it currently is at.
and providing council with the option to negotiate incentive levels for employment developments that come in at a value of $50 million or more.
The recommendations for the major rental residential stream is to provide the developer with 70% of the tax grant and then to place the remaining 30% into a municipal affordable housing reserved to build up funding for future municipal affordable housing projects.
And then finally, the last recommended recommendation under the property tax grant program is to establish a grant for existing homeowners who decide to build additional dwelling units on their properties.
And just quickly touching on the second recommendation that is included on the report.
So as we were undertaking the stakeholder engagement process, a number of participants brought ideas forward for ideas.
where the concept of incentives could potentially be applied, including some that touched on various priorities identified by Council.
Examples include supporting rural economic development and diversification, innovative housing solutions such as modular housing, cooperative, non-for-profit housing, life leases, land trusts, small homes, and other affordable housing models.
talent attraction, so things like childcare facilities, early childhood educators, doctors,
and medical practitioner recruitment, public art, and universal accessibility improvements.
These discussion led us to the second recommendation, where we are proposing to launch a new project
that would explore the use of incentives to support the priorities included in Council's newly
approved 23-27 strategic plan.
From a timing perspective, planning services would consider this project if it's approved
by Council as part of the development of the 2024 business plan and would then bring
a project framework report to Council for consideration in the new year.
So with that, I'll end the presentation and I'm happy to take any questions that Council
may have.
Thank you.
Councilor Sikachi and Councilor Doyle, can I get you to put some of the floor please?
Please.
Happy to put on the floor, Mayor Canneff.
Second that.
Councillor Scotch.
She floors yours then followed by Councillor Doyle.
Thank you, Mayor Canneff.
And three-year-your-worship.
Gabriel, we've had a chance to conversation a little bit today.
I thank Mr. Dubin for his time as well.
I guess I just wanted to be insured with number two with the continuing investigation for
the use of the CIP incentives.
If really it's still going to give us enough kind of direction to ensure that we're continuing
to work on our affordable housing aspects. Obviously, when you're doing planning, we're always looking at the long-term goal.
I just wanted to see if you thought that the, you know, the continuing investigation was enough to continue to focus on some short-term resolutions in the need that we're seeing currently in the community.
Certainly, thank you, Councillor Scotch, for the question. So the second recommendation included in the report, as I mentioned, includes looking at the
investigating the use of potential incentives to achieve a variety of council's goals as identified in its strategic plan.
One of those areas could very well be and will be focused on affordable housing.
I would suggest that the CIP provides an opportunity for the municipality to encourage private sector investments for affordable housing
and with the recommendation to dedicate 30% of the tax grant for a major market rental.
It also provides an opportunity for the municipality to build up a fund that is not directly related
to the budget to fund future affordable housing projects.
So if I look at various ways that affordable housing could be developed, there's the private
sector side of things, there's direct municipal investments, and then there's also non-for-profits.
And what I would suggest as part of the second recommendation is we would look at how incentive-
The incentives could be applied to encourage non-for-profit and potentially further encourage private sector investments in affordable housing. The question remains, though, is that sufficient. And I would suggest that there are potentially additional avenues that could be pursued to investigate ways that we could encourage affordable housing. Beyond that, which is included,
within the scope of that second recommendation on the report but that said that is, you know,
going to be a focus of that second recommendation. So hopefully that answers your question.
Just a quick follow up. So with number two, I would guess that there would be continuous dialogue with Mr. Harper's
team as well in regards to potential projects in the future to see if there's other ways we can kind of be
collectively creative, I guess, in some of these resources that he might come across?
100%.
Yes.
And I just wanted to-
Oh, sorry.
I just wanted to acknowledge, I think that adding the extra dwelling unit really gives residents
who maybe have a house or two houses in the community an opportunity to incentivize helping
create a solution a little bit.
So I just think that's a very good new component to this and I definitely greatly appreciate
that in the report.
Thank you.
Okay. Councilor Doyle, followed by Councillor Finn.
Thank you, Mayor. Just a couple of questions. In 2020, we switched it from just downtown
to more areas. To encompass quite a few more buildings and people to be able to use this
the CIP program. What was the main reason for getting away from just going back to just
downtown?
If you're sorry, Mr. Councillor, you're
referring to the commercial incentives?
And yes, like the tax or the tax.
One of the ways to visualize an incentive is an encouragement, right?
So it's an encouragement to achieve a particular goal or objective.
So when I think about it, what we did in 2020,
if we're using the analogy of an amplifier,
is we turned the volume up on the commercial incentives
to full blast for all of Chatham Ken.
And what we did, what we realized, or what we've achieved over the last several years,
is significant increase in private sector investment in all forms of commercial development.
Then what we did was one we looked at Council's newly approved strategic plan.
We identified, I believe it is, resilient downtown areas as a strategic objective that Council has identified.
So when we go back to the amplifier, we looked at can we turn up the volume on the incentive
offered in downtown areas to align with Council's objective without completely turning down
the volume on commercial incentives outside of downtown areas.
So you'll notice that what we're suggesting is a two stream, two streams of commercial
incentive. One that's kind of more aggressive for a longer period in our downtown areas,
but we're also suggesting that commercial incentive or the incentive for commercial developments
outside of downtown areas be turned down a little bit but not completely turned off.
And that is to increase the differentiation between the encouragement we would provide in a
downtown area versus outside of it, so that one of business is considering where to locate
the incentive or the signal from the part of the municipality is stronger to locate in
a downtown area.
I guess I can understand that.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Finn, followed by Councillor McGregor.
Thank you.
Worship through you, too, Gabriel.
Just some questions that came up while I was reading it.
It's with regards to the affordability and
where it says the provincial legislation, then bill 23 requires 100%.
How many units in a project have to be affordable for one?
And who determines what affordable is because 80% of 1600 on that department is still not affordable for most?
That's my first question.
Thank you. Your worship. I'll take that one, Councillor.
So we purposely used the same definition of affordable housing development and affordable
housing in the CIP as we did in our development charges by law. And the way it reads now,
it is more than five units of which 25% have designated as affordable. That counts as an
affordable housing development. The province, why it's in Bill 23, has not yet actually settled
on a definition that's one of the dialogue that's going on, but for right now, we have
our own local definition that's in both of those documents. And it's 25% of the units
within a project, rental housing.
And who determines the price of affordability?
It's defined in there as well, subject to various programs, et cetera, in the definition of what the affordability is so.
And my second one, what is the minimum square footage of a residence under the building code by law right now,
as we're expanding people have parents that they might want to have a tiny home on their property with them.
And right now you can't do that.
So, we did bring forward a change to the zoning by-law during the last housing amendment,
which I believe, but was last year at some, about a year ago.
And that accounted for the additional dwelling units that you're speaking of to allow up to three on a property.
There is no dwelling unit size for what we call an additional dwelling unit.
There is a minimum size of 70 square meters or 700 square feet.
if it's just a single detached dwelling on its own lot or a semi detached dwelling or a town
house unit currently under the zoning by-law. That's the way the zoning by-law is framed.
So if somebody wanted, say for their mother or their father, a 200 square foot home put on their
property, they wouldn't be allowed to do that. Are you talking in addition to their own home?
Yes.
No, they would be allowed to do that under the Zoning Bar Law.
You know, if it's within certain service areas right now, in agricultural areas, it's
only allowed within the dwelling itself, but you can bring in an accessory dwelling and it
all has to meet as the Ontario Building Code for size.
Off the top of my head, I think it's a little less than 200 square feet, but it has to be
designed to make sure it meets.
There's a lot of properties out there that you couldn't put a home on now because...
houses are burned and they flip the foundations that it might be wise to maybe get out there that if they could put a
200 square even in somebody's yard whatever yeah we left it there at 700 square feet for the image like as a default first
standard dwelling on a single lot for now but the circumstances that you might have an
undersized lot certainly you can go through a variance we've we've done amendments to reduce
sizes, if it's larger proposals, it comes forward.
So they just have to come up to the planning committee, I'd take it.
Okay, thank you.
Councillor McGrill, followed by Councillor Simo-Gregor.
Thank you, Mayor Kenneth.
My one question was asked about what the fine, what affordability is.
But so just so I can recap this, when a group sets forward and says I want to build a new
a part in the building.
Do we, are we now implementing that, okay, but a certain amount of these have to be affordable housing units?
Rental, I'm talking about right now.
I'm not mandating that.
Not currently, no.
In order to become eligible for the major rental residential stream, the developer has to propose a building or development that contains at least 50 units.
And then we mandate that there needs to be some of those.
No, no, we do not.
We cannot, all of the developments that are participated in the major market residential
stream so far as far as I know are 100% market rental units.
Okay, so why have it we mandated that?
Just add to that, your worship.
There's subtle change in this particular version, the CIP versus the last.
We were giving 100% over 10 years for those major rental market units to stimulate apartment growth in the community, which we've definitely seen.
What we're saying now, the rebate is still 100%, but only 70% will go back to the developer, and 30% of that tax rebate will go into a reserve essentially into housing services division to keep funding the affordable housing reserve.
So it's another way to inspire affordable housing developments and fund our own bills.
Okay.
That makes sense.
Thank you.
Councillor SEMA-Gregor.
Thank you, and through the mayors.
Just a couple of questions.
I want to go back to what I heard earlier.
So the seven out of four foot knee bills, would that, does that have to be a separate knee
would a grant flat over an existing garage that equated to 700 square feet, would that still count as a new build for somebody trying to say go down to the property to add for family?
That's my first question.
That will qualify as an additional dwelling unit.
And as we've proposed in the housing bylaw, zoning bylaw, amendment in April, we've
essentially removed the minimum sizes for additional dwelling units from a municipal
regulatory standpoint, and we've actually deferred to building code on that.
So as long as the dwelling unit contains, I believe, a sleeping area, a washroom area, a kitchen area, and then has its own separate entrance, I believe those are the main criteria are for qualifying as an additional dwelling unit and achieving conformity with the building standards.
I just want to better definition on eligibility to downtown areas.
Are you talking like BIA areas or like I know in the area where we have businesses outside
to BIA on the Wellington Street area on the far side of the river and we now have a
south side plan coming into place which so I would like a better definition of eligible
down in areas. Okay well thank you for the the question Councillor.
Downtown areas have actually been defined in the appendix to the main report so near the end
You will find 16 maps that have been created for primary residential areas or secondary urban areas and some of our hamlets.
So with regards to Wallaceburg, and these maps, I should say for the primary settlement areas, are based on our official plan mapping for downtown areas in the open.
So for Wallisburg, the boundaries of the downtown area would mirror that of the official plan.
Okay, yeah, I'm just going now. So I got into the by-law and got part with this by-law.
And I'm sorry, I didn't realize that these were at the very end of the, so that it is well-entangled with this.
Okay, but that does, it looks like it covers a very small piece of the portion
across the Sinham River on the Kay Street. It
doesn't run parallel up to Murray Street,
which is a concern. It covers some Herbert to maybe, what does it say here, Bridge Street
and just a couple past there, which is kind of an issue in our area and we're doing a
suicide plan and that goes all the way up to Murray Street. So is there any way to look
look at that or is there a possibility of amending that somewhat to include the other
suicide, which is, or even including what we've incorporated into the suicide plan.
Thank you, Your Worship.
I think we could amend it, looking at it myself, too, and keep in mind that it just applies
to the commercial component of the CIP, so it doesn't impact any residential aspects.
But yeah, I know I hear what you're saying I think it could we could entertain emotions to simply amend the map to me or the commercial.
We haven't brought the final plan back yet, but the commercial areas of the so side plan I think would be simple to do.
It's probably simpler to do it now than to have to bring it all back later, so so if I could
end it time and a motion to then change the at least for the wall is for Gary up to the
Murray Street area where it fits in with us.
I understand for the back of the south side plan is more housing, residential, and other areas, but I'm more interested in the downtown areas because it's still unknown what will happen up to the Murray Street Bridge on the south side plan.
Councillor Scotch, are you good with the amendment? Thank you, Mayor Canif. I guess without be looking at all of the downtown areas because the blend of areas is the same thing. There's some components on the fringe area as well.
I also, I mean, I'd hate to just look at one specific area
because I had the same kind of questions
in regards to them.
I'm just, is that possible to just revisit the map?
I asked, are you in a process of a suicide plan?
In that area, I'm just, I know our suicide plan
has up to Murray Street Incorporated,
which I know hasn't passed yet.
And if it needs to come back at a later date, that's fine.
but I want to make sure that that little slice is not missed out within our
self-by-paying.
First, go ahead. Yeah, thank you, your worship. But I would
suggest to Councilman Gregor's point. That is true. It's been done under a new
secondary plan. I would suggest that we can look at the other downtown areas as
part of kind of the next phase to see if any tweaks need to be done and come
back at that point. But the part of changing it per se is these are the areas that
are identified in our official plan now, so you're changing things on the fly without
any real policy context is my point.
So is this something you can come back with at a future date to look at all communities
and see if there's anything else like the south side plans or something that's applicable
to other communities?
Yeah.
I would suggest entertaining Councillor McGregor's motion to deal with the Wallsburg one.
And we know what that's going to be defined as and at this stage and we'll come back as part of our next review assuming council wants us to do that.
It's part of recommendation number two.
Okay, so the motionals state is without the amendment from Councillor Sima Gregor then.
Can I then entertain a separate motion after this?
Yes.
Thank you.
I'm not opposed to the number three, sorry, to Councillor McGregor's thing.
I was just curious because there's also the aspect of the Wheatley aspects that we're
talking about as well.
One of them is growing substantially, so I just needed to know that there was a mechanism
in place that if these areas start to strategically grow, this motion here is not going to be basically
cut or dry we have to go.
So I'm okay with adding Councillor McGregor's, include that.
What Bruce's response was that they would look at that is enough for me to say that that's
I'm okay with it from the amendment. Councillor Doyle, are you good with the amendment
as well, Councillor Doyle? Okay, the Bruce few. I was just going to comment one more
time on that. Certainly, we'll continue to look at the CIP. You know, enhancements to
weekly downtown potentially are something I think needs to come out of further work again,
and then we come back to council.
There's always an opportunity to come back
and trigger at the CIP amendments, right?
So, okay, seeing all the questions then,
we'll put it to vote.
Just need a minute to put the small amendment on there.
Bruce, to ensure that we captured it properly,
if we say something to amend the Wallisburg boundary map
to include up to Murray Street,
to reflect the Wallisburg Southside plan, does that work?
I'd even keep it simpler,
your words should just say amend the Wallisburg boundary map
to include the areas identified in the Walshburg Southside plan.
All
right, with that, we'll put it to vote.
Councillor Bondy. Yes. Councillor Carmen McGregor.
Yes. All votes are in. Motion passes 17-0.
16-B. Municipal housing pledges and targets,
strong mayor powers and building faster fund.
Councillor Cima Gregor and Councillor Doyle, can I get you with this on the floor please?
All right, so we have Councillor Cima Gregor, the floor is yours and then Councillor Doyle
to you.
Thank you.
Thank you, and through the mayors.
And yeah, I spent a lot of time looking at this, even from before it was offered within
And I have some great concerns with this motion or this direction that is being brought down by the province.
I certainly do not have any, and I'll put it right up front. I have absolutely no qualms with with moving forward with some of this under the direction of
make for our council. I have concerns with the future and the future of democracy for
all of council and our ability to properly represent our communities. In the document,
it is more than just housing. There are other powers added to this, including assigning duties
to the CAO hiring or dismiss ahead of any division or the head of any part of the organizational
structural structure. Determining municipal organizational structure, making requests
of administration to undertake research and provide advice like that part I don't mind.
The beetle powers, which I know are two thirds, which are here or there. There's also the ability
of a man to select committees and appoint chairs. So there's some of the other parts of this
legislation that are not being put forward to properly by the province. And to me, they're
doing it within incentives by giving us money to build homes. If I look at the report
and I look back and I would ask that maybe Mr.
Yamsquim please clarify my thoughts here.
But
housing directives, based on what the province would give us, is somewhere between $350,000 per year,
which he is one house maybe, a year building, maybe a number of units. But to me,
I'm not sure that I'm willing to sell my soul for the price of a house or two to lose my
democratic rights as a counselor and be able to represent my community. So I'm really struggling with
Yes, and I talked to the mayor about this and again, I will reiterate it is absolutely nothing to do with our current mayor because I have full trust in him and in running our community, but I do have
reservations about the future of the democracy of the ability of a counselor to make decisions around the table moving forward.
So I will, I'll put that out there and I'm hoping that I will be able to wrap up after
those other comments.
But as it is for the amount that I think that Chatham Kent would reap the benefit of,
I can't support you at this point of time.
Thank you.
Councillor Doyle?
Sorry, for Councillor Doyle, followed by Councillor Jubil.
Thank you, Mayor, Councillor.
And, Carmen, I think what you said was perfect.
I agree with pretty much every single thing you said.
To me, again, I don't think to get that amount of money over three years,
it doesn't seem like that amount of money for us to give up our kind of municipal democracy
that we have to make decisions for ourselves as opposed to the province telling us what we should be doing.
I don't really agree with that.
and you hear it from people when you're talking all the time that back before
amalgamation, all little communities had more say amongst themselves than a
lot of them liked it and then we amalgamated and now it seemed to be a little
less control over their small little towns and now if we do this it just seems
like it's one more step towards giving more power to the province and us keeping
less power and I think we know what to do better at our municipality than the
province does and the fact that this keeps changing and it doesn't seem like all the
information is out there yet and they want us to sign up already. Just doesn't, I got
a really bad gut feeling about what's coming down the line and Darren I support what you're
doing and I think you will make the best decision for our community but again I don't know who's
going to be after you whenever that is and I don't I don't want to put all my faith in them
So, I won't be supporting this either.
Councillor Juvenile.
Thank you, Mayor.
And I am echoing Councillor McGregor and Doyle.
I feel this legislation is an erosion of democracy and to be quite frank, it scares me.
Many of my constituents are concerned with the potential impact of this legislation on
our municipality.
And for that reason, we as a council should not take it lightly when discussing this.
While I mean no disrespect to our own mayor, and I do have the utmost faith in him, I do believe this unilateral power should not be extended to any mayor.
This legislation completely negates the purpose of council, and it strips away the rights of the duly elected.
Municipal representatives invest the voices of our constituents.
I'm not suggesting that if these powers were extended to CK, that Mayor Canif would use them or abuse them.
But if the province imposes Mayor Canif or any mayor to use them, he or any mayor would not have a choice and must follow through with the pledge to the province that he must uphold it if he agrees and signs it.
But for now, it's been imposed under the guise of housing, but what's stopping the province
from taking it down the slope further?
What if they want mayors to hold powers over the municipalities and other sectors, public
health, transportation, policing, by-law enforcement, planning, expropriation?
What if this is the vehicle being used to implement 15-minute cities and our municipalities across
the province?
The list goes on.
I am against giving such great powers to one individual no matter who that person made
be and under any reasoning. It is anti-democratic and leads us down a slippery slope. What is the purpose
of having an elected council if the mayor can easily override or veto our decisions? What makes me
extremely nervous is if this was truly only about increased housing, why is the province not simply
just sharing the incentives with the municipalities so they can tap into them on their own accord and leave
it at that. Why do they need to go one step further with the imposed strong mere powers?
It seems like governmental overreach. If there is money on the table for municipalities
to obtain from provincial funds, through incentives by committing and writing to achieving certain
housing targets set by the province, why do they need to go any further? If the municipalities
achieve 80% of their goal, they will be able to access funding. If they don't, then no funding.
In our situation, here in Chatham Kent, we have the potential of receiving funding over
the next three years, and the amount of 900,000 to a little over 1 million.
This is all great news in an economic market where housing is greatly needed.
I support that aspect, but I don't support the strong mayor power's condition, which
accompanies it.
It is not needed to work through housing goals, targets and achievements.
Chatham Kent should be very leery of a provincial government that wants to hold this much power
over our mayor and thus our council and thereby our residents.
So if we don't agree to it, I just want to confirm, does that mean that the mayor doesn't
sign the pledge or how does that work?
And there doesn't seem to be an end date to the strong mayor powers.
So is this like a never ending power that will be implemented in councils across Ontario?
And then it speaks of provincial priorities.
these and what they are currently, they use the word currently, but what happens when
those priorities change?
How does that affect us without even knowing what these priorities are?
And if we do proceed with the strong mayor powers legislation does not require the mayor
to provide any written notice of his or her decisions to counsel, clerk or EMT.
If this does proceed, we need to develop a policy of mayor can of decisions that will be visible
and transparent to the public. Thank you.
I see no other questions on this.
Do you want to comment Dave on any of the, should there
were some questions in there just to clarify.
Thank you, Mayor Canter. I wasn't clear
whether Councillor Juvenile was getting ready. I wasn't clear whether Councillor Juvenile
actually wanted those questions answered or whether there was more about you as speaking.
So that's why I was just getting prepared. So do you want me to answer those questions?
Yes, yes, please.
Okay, there was a number of them in their councilor, Mr. Mayor, through you, so I'll try to cover
the ones that I can, and I miss a couple if you could help me with the reminder.
So the first is on the matter of provincial priorities.
So just to the audience, my name is David Taylor, I'm Director of Legal Services.
The provincial priorities are laid out in a regulation right now under the Municipal Act.
And...
And under the way that legislation works, the minister could add different provincial priorities. So there is a possibility for changes to provincial priorities in the future. As of right now, all of the narrative has been from the province. It's really about meeting the 1.5 million homes goal. You also talked about an end date to that. And we haven't heard anything from the province to indicate any sort of end date. They would be putting these structures in power to achieve those goals. We have no kind of visibility on whether there would be an end date to these parties.
If you can help me remember the other questions.
Maybe.
Well I just wanted to confirm that if we do go ahead with it that we will develop a policy that will be transparent to the public.
Because it states that we don't have to do that or the mayor doesn't have to do that with any of the decisions that he makes.
and I know he doesn't need a resolution from council, so I just didn't know how this was.
Like, are we voting on this or is it just how are we ending it? I guess is what I'm asking.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Councillor, for the clarification there.
So, the way that province has communicated it to date, we received a letter and this is consistent with what the premier had said at the Association of Miscellaneous Ontario.
conference in the, there had been a previous version in which the mayor's powers only would
come if council passed this housing pledge. The province has revised that now. And the
question is whether or not the mayor submits his commitment and that's what ties to the
strong mayor powers. So if council doesn't pass this, that doesn't actually say whether
the strong mayor powers will be granted or not granted. That's not what the, what the
the provinces looking for.
Thank you.
Councillor Story.
Call it forward by Councillor Hall.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just raised a question to Bruce, I believe.
So, if I'm reading your report correctly, you believe in your professional opinion, based on
the housing starts we've already seen in the last several years and going forward, we're
already on target to meet those numbers without the strong mayor powers.
That's correct if my understanding is they would essentially start the targets this year for 2023 and it goes out to 2031 so it's nine years.
If you do the math of 1100 that works out to what did I say 1112 units a year.
We've surprised that even in our slow years back 10 years ago we were doing not a whole lot more in that frankly,
but we were doing more than that.
Last, you can see in the report, we're averaging 500 since 21, 22, and today through 23 per
year.
Thank you.
So we're already surpassed the target for 23 to be, to be clear, if we could just submit.
So we're already meeting the targets and exceeding them in many cases without taking a sledgehammer
to democracy.
Councillor Hall, followed by Councillor Bondi.
Just a quick question for clarification, I know we have a recommendation in front of
us.
I just want to confirm that we're not committed to anything right now except for staff
to work on a housing pledge to come back to council.
We're going to be able to finalize that and vote on it and have another discussion on
it.
We're going to take a look at that, right?
We're not making any final decision on any of this except for we're going to direct
That is correct, the recommendation is for Council whether they want an administration
to work on a housing pledge as Dave noted earlier.
The strong mayors in the actual funding are really subject to the head of Council submitting
and writing whether we're going to meet the target or not by October 15th.
The pledge is, really, it's just kind of an endorsement.
I'll call it a public endorsement of what we're doing is a mispality, you know, to create more housing in the future.
We just need time to get going on it, frankly, if we're going to do it or not.
Councillor Bondy.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can.
Okay, thank you.
Again, thank you, Mayor Kim.
So my question is, we're going to make this pledge this evening, which presumably we will do.
But I don't really see the utility in what we're doing tonight because it's council votes more of this.
It's really mere can of decision to comply with strong mayor powers through the province.
So what council does tonight, all we're doing is effectively
endorsing a housing pledge, which clearly I don't think we'll
be able to do with not endorse because that's something that's
been a priority of this community and every other community.
Many probably, at least years, so clear
that up for me.
What are we actually endorsing?
Is this a re-endorcing tonight a housing pledge or a strong
Thank you, Mr. Mayor, thank you, Councillor for the question.
So no, you are not endorsing a strong mayor powers pledge.
The province really sent us a letter that was provided to council that really broke
these two things out into two different time periods and two different processes.
So one of them is that by the middle of October, the mayor is to respond to the province whether
he has made a commitment to meet the housing goals, and if so, the strong air powers would
be provided to Chatham Kent.
Kind of separate from that.
The province has also asked that the municipality submit a housing pledge, and the direction tonight
is to provide administration with direction to go away, produce that housing pledge, and
return in the time periods indicated in the motion.
So while these two concepts in a previous version of extending strong air powers were kind
of wrap together. The province has now separated these out. I hope that helps Councillor
and understanding the motion tonight. It's really just as Councillor Hall described
in Mr. McAllister indicated, it's sending administration a way to start preparing that
housing pledge and return to council with that.
Great. It's really American. Thanks. So the strong mayor's powers isn't really not really
what we're talking about to see. It's more of a housing pledge.
That's correct, Councillor. Obviously they have some connection to each other because they were dealt with in the same letter, but that's correct.
Councillor Signaggi, followed by Councillor B. McGregor.
Thank you, Mayor Cain. If I just wanted to see the, since we're not actually voting on the strong mayor powers and we're voting on the housing pledge,
I just wanted to hear how it would affect us if we didn't prepare the housing pledge.
If there would be any effect at all, or it would be something that would be detrimental to our municipality.
The housing pledge is not legislative in nature, it's not a policy document, it's really just to show the strategies.
Now, line what the municipality is doing, I think it's to show support to the province in terms of being able to demonstrate what is the municipality of doing to create housing with the goal of 1.5 million homes in Ontario over the next 10 years.
10 years. Other than that, it really has no, it doesn't bind council to anything other
than it's a pledge and we would, I think it's not a bad idea just to track and for the
public to understand all the things that we are doing because we have done a lot of things.
You just, we just went through one, the item before, that we've been doing the last four
years, for instance, to increase housing in the community. So, just more curious if we're
applying for different, you know, funds or different grants that may be out there if they're
We're going to be looking at a housing pledge as a document.
I know it's an official document, but are they going to be looking at that as part of our portfolio to invest in different types of housings, or if there's different types of applications that are coming from the province to incentivize housing?
Thank you, your worship.
I can't sit here and tell you for sure right now, but I would suggest if you do have a pledge, at least if I was just something to demonstrate to the province that you're working on the goal of 1.5 million dollar homes and
cases, other funding.
Even with this, what they call this bill, faster fund.
They haven't really really sold the details on how those funds could be used.
It could be for capital investments and infrastructure.
It could be, you know, other studies are in San Luis, but we don't have those details yet.
Councilor B. McGregor, followed by Councilor McGregor.
Thank you, Mayor Caniff.
I don't think it's surprising that the province's plans on housing are causing a little confusion tonight.
So I'm glad to hear that they've sort of decoupled the strong
Mayer powers from the housing pledge and I think that you know it's pretty clear we'll make that housing pledge
Rather or that those those quotas pretty quickly in chat and can and hopefully can access that funding
But I you know I do hear a lot of apprehension about the strong mayer powers which I think we heard quite a bit about at the
AIMO conference and many individuals shared those concerns
So not to put you on the spot but wanted to ask to share how they might feel about
signing up for those powers. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Bimograger.
Yes, so it's a very convoluted process, as we've seen. I mean, the rules have changed
a few times and recently it's announced that, yes, I could proceed on without Council proving
anything I could send it in a pledge and say, thanks for the money. However, I'm not going
do that. If council does not want the mayor powers, I will not submit it. However, I think
we have an opportunity to have our cake and eat it too, and that I would suggest that
I submit, because I have to submit by October 15th saying yes or no, because if I don't,
it doesn't matter the December pledge, the money there doesn't matter. So I'm going to propose
that I submit the pledge and say we will commit to that, however we will decline the special
power for the mayor. So that would allow us to get the money, assuming they will accept that.
But I had no plan that when they start talking about special mayor powers and media was asking what I'm saying.
We work well together as a council, the democracy, those type of things.
I didn't see a place for it in Jadam Khan, it really didn't.
So to me, it's a pretty easy decision to say no to those powers.
So that's where I stand right now that if that helps the discussion a lot that we can agree to that, but when I submit, I will say we will accept the pledge, however, no powers.
We will decline the powers of the mayor.
Thank you.
Councillor McGregor, followed by Councillor Finne.
Thank you, Mayor.
You answered my question.
So with this pledge, this gives us the opportunity for the monies.
So
you worship the mayor to be eligible for the funding the mayor needs to commit to the housing targets of 1100 homes by October 15th.
And then subsequently you're expected to do the pledge by December 50th.
Okay, now you got me confused again. The pledge is the mayor's powers pledges that we're saying.
So committing to this by October makes us eligible for the monies.
Thank you, you worship all the, the committing by October 15th is just a commitment from the mayor telling the minister that we will commit to meeting our target of 1100 homes by 2031.
The pledge is more of a strategy document that aligns how you're going to do it.
I got you now.
Okay, thank you.
Councillor Finne. Thank you. Not that I don't believe you wouldn't
write that on a motion, but could we get your words on a motion?
I was just thinking that as I was looking there, I was thinking number two to say the mayor
will, what I said there, number two, the mayor will accept the pledge by October 15th with
decline the special powers. I'm good with putting that motion that I think it makes it really
easy for us to say we'll take the money. So we can add that in.
So with that, given that we've added something into the motion, I guess the mover and
seconder, if I could check with you to make sure that the mover and seconder is okay with
this amendment. Councillor Seymour Gregor.
Oh, Bruce. Go ahead. Thank you, your worship. I get his for clarity.
number two should say housing targets not pledged by October 15th.
Yeah, and you should, sorry, if I can just further clarify that.
So what that means is ultimately the pledge itself.
Oh
We'll have to come back to council. So really, the mayor's letter to the province would say that, you know, I'm accepting the targets, but council will submit a pledge by the end of December, whatever the date is in December, but I'm not accepting the strong mayor powers. Okay, so I want to make that clear because it doesn't end the discussion today because the pledge is still something that must be done by council. And that will be done
then later on as Mr. McAllister explained.
Okay, given the change, I will go back to the Councillor Seymour Gregor.
Are you okay with the amendment to the-
I
will say for everything we are getting on and going forward in all the people I've talked to.
And everything we've seen going on within the province in the last couple of weeks.
You know, this everything in this report just made me a little more on the secure future
democracy for the elected officials, so having this pardon in the better clarification, yes,
I can accept this as this is presented at this point.
And Councillor Doyle, as a seconder, are you good with this, if you have any other final thoughts
on this? Yeah, we can add that I do have a thought on that though. So, what happens if you write
your letter accepting the housing targets, declining the mayor powers, and the province says no?
Well, you either take the money and take the powers or you get neither.
What do we do then?
We have to come back then.
If that's the response, I will come back to council.
I'm not going to make this decision unilaterally.
This has to be a council decision.
Okay.
That's the only thing I was worried about is we start this process.
The public probably just says no and then we're already too far through this process to come
back.
Yes.
Yes, so I will endeavor to write the letter sooner rather than later, IE this week, and
so we'll hear back from the province fairly quickly, if it's anything but thank you very
much.
We'll accept that, and we'll accept the powers.
We will come back to council.
All right.
Seeing no other questions on this, we'll put it to both.
Councillor Sima Gregor.
Thank you.
And just before I say that, I was just going to finish up with just one, one follow-up comment.
And again, I would thank you, Mayor Kenneth, for your comment there.
He is exactly what I've thousand trusted with being in this position.
It was going forward in the future.
So just saying that, I will.
Oh, yes.
Thank you, Councillor Bondy.
Yes.
Councillor Doyle and Juvenville. Thank you.
So all votes are in, motion passes 13 to 4.
We're moving on to section 16G, motion of Councillor Pensano, the natural heritage strategy,
but Councillor, I just have a quick message.
Councillor, as you are aware that there are two motions on the same subject that are on the
agenda this evening.
It is likely necessary to talk about both while Councillors are making their points.
So procedurally, as clerk, I will not be so stickly about sticking to one motion versus
the other. So we will proceed with the discussion
and when the discussion is complete, we'll move to vote on Councillor Pinzano's motion first
and depending on the results, we'll move over to Councillor Hall's motion.
So I just wanted to clarify that at the beginning.
Okay,
we will go on to Councillor Pincino if you can read the motion.
Thank you, Worship. Where is the municipality implemented a temporary
clear-cutting by-law on April 26, 2021 with no end date? And where is the natural heritage
strategy work from July 3, 2014 until April 26, 2021? It resolved that council removed by-law
number 72-2021, the temporary clear-cutting by law, and reinstate the natural heritage
tax strategy. And if I get a second, or I get some comments, your
worship. Councillor Thompson? I'll second it.
Okay, Councillor Pincinal.
Thank you, your worship. 99% of farmers are good stewards of the land,
and they've been good stewards of land on some farms
for several generations.
Personally, I'd like to see incentives put up for woodlots.
I think that could help us somewhat
in this dilemma that we seem to face so regularly.
We need to reinstate the natural heritage strategy
and not only reinstate it but enhance it.
Over the last three council terms,
we've had consolation and public meetings on several occasions. I'm not sure how much
more input we can possibly get that hasn't already been brought up or discussed. Deputations
every time we go through this are pretty much the same and the sides haven't changed any.
They're pretty much exactly where they were on every occasion. And I believe we seriously
we need to deal with this tonight and stop picking the can down the road like we've done
for three councils now. There will be a motion likely to defer this and move to the
next one but I ask let's just deal with it tonight and be done with it. Thank you.
Councillor Thompson? Thank you very much. I just have a couple of quick
notes here that I wanted to bring up. Back on November 29th, 2021, I voted to extend
the temporary bylaw until April of 2022. I voted to extend it again in March of 2022.
That in July of 2022, I voted in favor of pausing the Natural Heritage Committee work
until the new Chamber of Council. Back on December 5th, Councilor Hall was appointed
chair, which to be honest was something I had totally forgotten, but that's okay.
Okay, December 12th, we received the report as a new council.
And then while some work has been done on the strategic plan, that's the last we've
ever moved on it.
And I don't think that's right.
I think that we have to wear that.
I think that's on us.
But I think the important thing was, is that it was supposed to be a temporary by-law.
It was put in place.
To be honest, there's a lot in a councilor Hall's motion I do like, actually.
I think we do need to deal with this issue.
I do think we need to recognize that there's a vested interest by both sides.
Both sides are very deeply entrenched and I think there's to be honest, still work that
needs to be done.
But I think we need to deal with it in a way that doesn't put undue pressure on one side
in support of another.
So I would like to support this.
I will be supporting this.
And I am interested to see what comes out of our future endeavors as we move forward
on this issue.
Thank you.
Councillor Doyle?
Thank you, Mayor.
And this is an issue I can definitely see both sides on and like Councillor Thompson said,
I can definitely see some good things in Councillor Hall's motion.
To me just being a Newark Councillor on here, we just keep approving more and more agriculture
culture land to be developed on and nobody seems to batten eye about that that we're giving
up agriculture land almost every planning meeting like fields of agriculture land. So we
have the same amount of land to grow, we have less land to grow the same amount of crop
and really because we're populations growing we have less land to grow more crop. So you
kind of got to give it to the farmers if they need to create a little more land so they can
grow the food so we can eat it. It seems like everyone except for farmers are allowed
had to take down trees, new highways allowed to take down trees,
high roads allowed to take down trees, developments allowed to take down trees,
but yet farmers who have been taking care of these for generations aren't allowed to touch them.
I've talked to multiple farmers who said that I would be not threatened with the bylaws.
The couple of times we've done it recently, there wouldn't have been as much clear cutting
because when the farmers got threatened that they were going to be told they might not be allowed to cut down
there would lots anymore. Well, because they didn't know what was going to happen, they
wouldn't cut them down. So when they had the opportunity to do it. So had we not made
those by-laws or threatened about the by-laws, we might have more trees now than we did than
we did then. Multiple farmers have also told me that they won't plant new trees now because
they aren't allowed to cut them down. So that's not really helping tree development. It seems
like we're currently valuing housing development over agriculture land and are growing food abilities.
So if we want to stop the farmers from wanting to take down some trees,
maybe we should say no to some of these big developments that are taken up our farmland.
I do really agree with the extra incentive program.
Like I said, the one deputations that Essex would lots have grown by 2% or more with no by-law.
So we should probably look at what they're doing, see if we can get our tree lot coverage up without a by-law as well.
And I know also, we had two deputations tonight that said that they had woodlots over 30 acres.
To me, only incentives could be not taxing any woodlots, regardless of size, because right now,
your, with the incentive program through the government, you're up to 10% or up to maximum 30 acres isn't taxed.
Well, if we don't want them to cut down their trees, maybe we shouldn't tax them on any of them.
That seems to be a pretty good solution in my mind.
So I'll be I'll be supporting
Counselor Spencer Pints knows motion. I think the the farmers have proven before to do the right thing
And I think we need we do need some more land right now to grow crop
So if we don't stop giving up we wouldn't have to do this, but that hasn't happened. So thank you
Councillor Holt
Thank you very much, Mayor can if first of all I'd like to thank every resident
From our community who provided a deputation tonight whether you are here in the council chambers
around zoom or through email. Everybody's input's very important for us to hear while we make
decisions as a council and I think it'll be important moving forward when we delve back into our
natural heritage work and to my council colleagues you know it was only a couple weeks ago that we
unanimously approved our strategic plan for our council term and you know as this has in my
motion you know we collectively identified four priority areas one being ensuring environmental
mental sustainability among the commitments that we made with this plan, includes preserving
natural heritage. Last term and early in this term and as Councillor Thompson mentioned
tonight, I was honored to be voted in by all of you to work as the Chair of the Natural
Heritage Committee the whole. As the Chair, I felt it was imperative
to wait until our current term of council had approved our council term priorities before
re-igniting the process.
Now that we have done that unanimously, supporting, you know, supported our priorities for the upcoming term and affirmed our commitment, now's the time to carry on with this work by the committee.
You know, as everyone is aware of the motion is coming up, I believe it really, it starts really kind of a clear path forward for the natural heritage work and it's rooted in transparency.
It focuses on creating more public consultation opportunities, which I think we still need
for a few of these elements.
I know I give the opportunity for every child to be informed.
And council, we can be informed by the tremendous amount of work and data and information
that we gathered during our last term as well.
It's an important for our community to have to look around the council chamber tonight.
tonight, obviously, there's a lot of passion, I know I've said that before.
There's a wide spectrum of views across Shadow Kent, and we've heard that this evening as well.
I think it's very central for our council to be diligent and
show leadership to all of our residents in our community and
sure, and sure we're following best practices on how to properly tackle important and
challenging issues.
I'm looking forward to getting started with this next phase of the work, and
And making some natural heritage policies or strategies that will be beneficial and positive for generations to come.
History has shown in Chamkin that having these natural heritage conversations,
conference stations in an open forum,
without some form of regulation on clear kind of in place, it puts our natural heritage at risk.
And it really opens up the door for irreparable damage to occur.
We've learned lessons, we've learned lessons back in 2021 and we got it right when we put the temporary by-law in place in order to safely have these conversations.
Now is certainly not a time to remove this regulation. We still have work to do and we're just about to embark on it.
Is the current by-law that we have in place is this the long-term solution? No, absolutely not.
We need to get together as a committee of the whole collectively, and we need to look
at, you know, take a critical, really, an open-minded look and focus look on what the regulatory
piece can look like moving forward.
I know there's examples in many communities all across Ontario of what that could be.
I think we could put a child can stamp on it.
And as was mentioned, I think Councillor Doyle and Councillor Pinto mentioned it tonight,
to, you know, we really need to look at some of those other, like, the incentives.
We need to take a closer look at that of how we can make that work, and as well as the
education elements.
I know those were kind of cumulatively, you know, what we learned last term at the Natural
Heritage Committee.
Those were those three elements, the regulation incentive and education, those were, you
know, that's the best practice on dealing with natural heritage policy creation.
So I'll wrap it up.
But I think the next step, tonight, that we have to make to respond to-
Thank you.
Councillor Juvenville.
I just want to thank everyone who
said delivered deputations tonight on both sides of this polarizing issue. I know all of you are
passionate about your stance on the clear cutting by law, and I am respectful and empathetic
to both sides. I love trees and I respect the importance of Carolinian forests. I know
and value the importance of trees and wildlife. I hate the thought of wildlife being displaced.
I also hate the thought of big developers coming into Chatham Kent, tearing down our trees
or buying up our farmland for industry, development, and housing. It is sad what happened in nearby
St. Thomas in the name of progress with the Volkswagen plant. What I do struggle with as
Does anyone who knows me is taking away the property rights of our local farmers?
I believe in our charter rights, our constitutional rights, our inherent rights, and yes, our property rights.
How can I vote in favor of telling a farmer what he or she can and cannot do on his or her own property?
With farmers losing 319 acres of farmland every day, we are in an emergency state on that front as well.
Who are we to prevent local farmers from enhancing their businesses, which is our food?
I know many farmers, they are good stewards of their land.
Many of them do indeed have woodlots, and I believe many of these small woodlots will remain, no matter if there is a bylaw or not.
The cost alone of clear cutting a woodlot and retiling it for farm use is upwards of $10,000 an acre.
So I know it's not a decision, farmers will take lightly.
I find the current clear-cutting bylaw is unfair and it's very restrictive towards farmers.
If Council's direction is to maintain tree cover, there needs to be opportunities for
farmers to clear-cut their land, but with some sort of program that they must plant and
replace their trees.
There are many woodlots that are managed and if done properly they make money from
being logged but still maintaining new growth. Not all farmers want a clear cut but some
want to remove lots where they have been previously logged or are full of scrub or trees
with no value to the environment. So I do support Councillor Pinsonot's
motion and I support most of Councillor Hall's motion of implementing a new and updated
natural heritage strategy to bring together all the stakeholders with their concerns to develop
up a resolution to this issue that affects so many of us here in Chatham Kent. Thank you.
Councillor Finne, followed by Councillor Wright. Thank you, Worship. Councillor Juvenville
covered most of the blank points. I asked for this last time and I never got the answer.
One was last forest or tree coverage survey done in the municipality.
And do we have an
updated picture of that tree coverage?
Thank you, Your Worship.
I'm just pulling that up to give you the exact date.
It was in late 2020,
told on here, 2021 into 2022 with conservation authority.
It's still, there's a map viewer still up on the municipal website that shows the swoop data and the coverage that was done.
So it was through, from 2010 to 2015, and again, from 2015 to 2020,
20 is what the update was based on.
And thank you and with the guards to the farmers, like I understand the need to have a natural heritage committee.
Should be all stakeholders like it was before, the stakeholders, for the most part, the farmers kept up their end of the deal when they came to an agreement.
I think it was the city that failed them in some way.
So, I'm in support of Councillor Pintinos, if there's a need to do another committee, then I'm sure a lot of the farmers and the non-farmers that would like to see this put in place, I would think that they could all work together again.
Councillor Wright?
Thank you, Mayor Caniff.
Deputations tonight, nothing's really changed on both sides.
The biggest question is, when we put that by-law when it was voted in the last time, staff
was supposed to come back to both parties, talk to them, and come back to Council.
Well, it's been two and a half years and nothing's been done.
Can somebody from the staff tell us why it hasn't been done?
Bruce?
Thank you, Your Worship.
Just to clarify, I'm confident administration met the recommendations we got from Council
last summer.
it was to pause the committee of the whole.
Staff be directed to include a link for related to natural heritage for the 2022 municipal
election page.
We did that and the other one was that we bring an information report to the new term
of council by the end of 22, which it was referenced tonight.
We did that on December 12.
There was no further direction received from council after that.
So then I'll go back to the direction they received tonight or how will it go?
Thank you, your worship.
Yes, we'll take whatever direction we get from council and proceed from there.
Councillor B. McGregor.
Thank you, Mayor.
Mayor Caniff.
I did have a few questions and you know, recognizing that some of us around the table have been dealing
with this issue for quite some time and perhaps have some of this knowledge of other fingertips
and those that are new may not have had the opportunity to look through some of these
reports and go through some of these discussions or going to pick up a ride with bill parks
through East Kent to tour the area like Councillor Crude myself did.
So I did have a few questions of clarity more than anything and I apologize I'll probably
be jumping around a little bit.
So some of the concern that I've heard about both the temporary by-law and a permanent
by law is over concerns around regular farming activities, so things like clearing problematic
trees and trees encroaching on drains or encroaching on field access, removing dead trees
that are in the way of recreational trails that might be in a forested area. How does the current
temporary by law impact those types of activities?
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I thank Councillor
for the question. So the by law regulates clear cutting and so it talks to a woodlot that is
more than 0.2 hectares but a half acre and cutting at least 0.1 which is about a quarter acre.
And so so long as the activities are kind of less than that amount.
So as you described a tree here and there to clear out a field or to address a trail or
whatever it might be, those wouldn't be captured by the by law.
It's clear cutting of at least a quarter acre of trees.
Yeah, and I appreciate that clarity and I think that's really important when we're focusing
We're discussing this discussion on what we're actually talking about and that's the temporary bylaw in its current state, which is really just to stop clear cutting.
It's not to encroach on some of those regular practices of farming and, you know, the intention was never to impact businesses, farm businesses in that way.
To also have a question about the 10% limit on tax exemption up to 30 acres.
I know that's something that we discussed through the committee on the whole and obviously is a concern that Councillor Doyle rightly brings up and I think it's something that we advocated for in the past.
It's my understanding that's a provincial regulation, is that correct?
Thank you, Gordon Quentin, CFO, and I'll turn that part of the question.
So it was recently back about a year ago, it was the province did make a change to that.
So when we were discussing it as a committee of a whole, I think it was 20 acre limit.
And now it's been moved up to 38 acre limit per owner.
Great and I appreciate that and I think that as part of the committee of the whole process
which we should be continuing through Councilor Hall's motion those are the types of solutions
that we need to advocate for obviously regulation on its own isn't suffice and we need to be
looking at all those options which I think we've we've got a good summation of in some reports
but are discussions that can continue.
Another question I had was have we approved any rezoning of areas with wood lots to be
We developed commercially or residentially, and I've been around long enough to answer
that.
But the last time that was proposed, what was Council's response?
Thank you, Your Worship.
No, there's been no development proposals over the last ten years that have resulted in
the removal of a wood lot.
Sure, there's been some tree lines removed and things like that, but a full wood lot.
I wasn't here at the time, but I do recall the discussions.
It was a little more than 10 years ago where last time it came up, it led to the actual
media spot acquisition of Accent's Bush, your and Chad.
Thank you.
Yeah, and I think those are some good questions for clarity, just in sort of refocusing what
we're talking about tonight.
And I think to focus, there's a lot of arguments to be made for and against the by-law.
And I think there's been a lot of helpful deputations and respectful comments tonight, both for and
against, and we're not talking tonight about a permanent bylaw. We're not talking about
the totality of tools that we have to address tree coverage in Chatham Ken. What we're talking
about is a temporary bylaw that is in place with the intention of it to be in place until
such time as the committee of the whole, which includes input from all stakeholders, makes
a recommendation to council and we accept that. So, you know, as much as we may be discussing
the pros and cons and who's impacted we started down this road with the intention to do this the
right way and I think we owe it to community members we owe it to all the stakeholders to continue
that work if it takes another eight months if it takes another year I don't think that that's
burdensome on our community to do that work together and look for those solutions together and I think
we can develop solutions that are better than just regulation but I think we have to recognize
that 10 years ago, when we started down this process the wrong way, it led to irreparable damage.
And we don't want that to be the legacy of making these decisions.
I was particularly struck by a couple of deputations, so Mr. Kerr's deputation I think he did a great job in capturing some of those solutions that we required that are outside of just regulation.
And I think really represented that there's really a wide breadth of opinion in the farming community on what those could look like and we should be listening.
I'm Mr. Navig's deputation, I think, for those that weren't around when we first started
talking about this, I think really revealed part of the impetus that some of us thought
this was reasonable to bring forward.
And it wasn't, you know, that anyone here was accusing generational family farms of being
irresponsible.
We know as Councilor Pintsino said, 99% of them are quite responsible.
They've been great stewards of the land.
It really was like recognizing that those farms are great at recognizing long-term goals
in the value that those would lot spring, but with market forces when some of those farms
are sold, the outcome is clearing by some of these large purchasers.
And I think there's a couple of perspectives we left out tonight.
I think it's important to recognize we haven't really talked about an indigenous perspective.
You know, we recognize at the beginning of each meeting there were on traditional lands and
that we have a responsibility as partners, we have a responsibility to the land and water.
and we have a decision making in stewardship.
So I think that going forward with Councilor's Hall of Motion opens the door for more of that consultation.
And I think we would be remiss, so I think especially this week, in ignoring that responsibility.
So I think that no matter what side of this you are on right now,
whether you think a permanent by-law should be in place or you think it shouldn't be.
This is about the process.
this is about who has been involved and who needs to be involved.
And I think to do this with transparency and responsibility, we need to move forward
with the committee of the whole, find some solutions that are built in chat and can't,
and then make that decision in the way that we always intended to, with the partners at
the table that need to be here.
Thank you.
Okay, I'd like to just add a few comments.
I first off, oh sorry, I'll go to the council or see my regular, then I'll find them.
Thanks.
Thank you.
I was actually just texting Judy Smith, which is a fact that she's still on the list.
So I don't know how I could say much better than thank Council Member Greger, and I want
to recognize everybody from the community that presented tonight that had emailed us in the
last few days.
And all of the people that were engaged, even in the last process, I think the difference
for some of us is that the the position of this committee came to a halt because an election
was in place and it was becoming a point where it was better to turn it over to the next council
and to move forward. I don't see that continuing with the temporary clear-putting bylaw at this point
makes much of a difference because our farmers and all of our groups have stayed to us
that they are a very good care gift of our land.
So I think that for them to work with us
and continue on with this process
to let us get to a point as council to do this
and to bring the new council members into this
and moving forward to the teacher of a proper by-law
in place, one that includes incentives
and recognitions and tax credits.
because I understand how that is necessary.
And for those of you who don't know, I lived 30 plus years on a farm, a small farm, a hundred
Ather Farm that eventually was sold out to a bigger farm connection.
And so I do understand the issues of the farm and the needs of farmers and such. So I don't say this lightly, but I truly think that, you know, we talk about the decisions we make at council. Well, we make health decisions for all of our citizens. We don't make them for select groups or select areas. And that's not always easy when we have representatives from maybe rural areas.
or maybe from urban areas depending on their decisions we make.
No difference in our housing, where I totally agree,
you know, we need to be able to build up and not out to preserve
our natural lands and different things.
I also know over the years that I spent on the farm
with green farming in the crop that we did have during those years
that the technology has changed so greatly to increase crops
as within Chatham County, the structures of great house to increase food productivity.
So having settled that, you know, I won't reiterate some of the other comments,
but I really believe that, you know, if we pass this tonight,
we're really taking the way out, or as I'm concerned.
And I think that we need to go back to Council Hall's motion,
and we need to get together with Council, and we need to look at our communities,
and we need to get this right, and we need to do it.
And I don't think that keeping the temporary clear-cutting
by-law in place while we finish this is going to make a big
difference for our good students, of our farmers,
that are within our communities and doing the fine work that they do.
And I think that we could work together to get to an end decision
that will bring us all together in the end and do this right.
and I don't think by taking a short time tonight is a good point to go and I'll leave it at that.
Thank you.
I want to start with, I've been super impressed tonight of we've come together and there's
all sorts of different viewpoints in the room when we've been completely civil, we've listened
each other, we've listened to all sorts of points of view so I got it handed to everyone
in this room tonight just how impressed I am of this discussion and how we've respected
one another.
This is an extremely tough thing to deal with and for me, when I look at, I'm a very strong believer in land rights, that it's your land and you've paid for it and you've done whatever that, but in the flip side, you want trees, everyone's trees, nobody here would say, no, no, that's not have trees, I mean, it's that balance between the two.
I've always stood for to say I wanted to make having a wood lot equal to or even greater than
economically being more beneficial to somebody than at farm.
If you have an area that's marginal farm, I want the owner of that lot to be able to say yes,
that is more economic for me to keep it as trees and however that works.
As I see, we're moving forward here, I want all farmers, anybody who owns a wood lot
to have us, us, the municipality and us as a group have our best foot forward so they
can make that economic decision to say, should I keep a trees, should I move to farmland?
And without those tax incentives that we're talking about, all these other things, that's
what I'm hoping that in the next few months we can fill in whether it's eight, ten months
or whatever it is.
I want to make the right decision, but I want the land owners to have all the information
to be able to make that right decision.
So I'm going to support Councillor Hall in the deferral, but I don't want to see this
temporary thing going on forever.
I want to see ultimately land owners having the right to do what they want to do on the
land.
But I want to have that incentive, those type of things in place so they can make a decision
that they can look at and say, I know everything on the table versus right now if we open it up,
you don't know about the tax incentives or everything else you say, I want to do that.
So I want to support Councillor Hall, but I want to see us move forward as a council quickly.
I don't want to see here in two years from now that we're still talking about this.
We get to get together and make a decision so that we can move forward with that.
And I will go over to the seconder and for this motion, Councillor Thompson and then
Councillor Pincino for final words.
I think everything has been said and we're not going to change anybody's mind so thank
you very much.
Councillor Pincino, I agree with that.
Let's pass this one right now and then Councillor Halls I agree with one to four I think that's
right on the money.
The only one that I don't agree with is leaving the by-law in place, so let's support
this one here, and then we'll do one to four for Councillor Hall. Thank you.
Okay. Seeing all the questions, so we'll put it to vote.
So we're voting on Councillor Pinzano's motion, Councillor Bondi.
And Councillor Cima Gregor.
No.
Councillor Pinzano's motion passes nine to eight.
Moving on to 16-H motion by Councillor Hall.
I'd like to pull my motion, Mayor can I thank you.
Okay, consider it pulled.
We will now go to notices of motion.
Sorry if I can ask everybody to take the discussion outside the room.
We want to continue on with the council meeting.
Thanks.
All right, we'll get started again.
Everybody sit down.
We'll go to notices of motion.
Councillor Anderson.
Anderson.
Thank you, Mary-Kenneth.
I, Councilor Lauren Anderson, request notice be waved this evening for the following motion.
Whereas a boil water advisory is currently in place for the community of Wheatley and
Tilbury areas, whereas Chatham Kent has supplied bottled water to resource centers, food banks,
nursing homes, and others, and are prepared to continue to do so.
Whereas municipal staff and public health continue to focus on vulnerable citizens, whereas the
of oil water advisory recommends boiling water for one minute for drinking and consumption only.
The water is currently perfectly safe to shower with wash hands, feedbacks, clean, et cetera.
Whereas the distributing of bottled water to everyone in Wheatley and
Tilbury potentially for a prolonged period of time will have a cost.
Therefore, it is moved that the municipality of Chatham Kent supply bottled water to members of the communities of Wheatley and
are affected by the borough water advisory and the cost of the bottled water be charged the PUC to be funded by the water reserves and that administration formulate a bottled water policy to be utilized in all future boil water advisories, floods, tornadoes, or other emergencies in Chatham Kent taking into consideration, vulnerable populations, cost associated with supplying water to all and where the dollars to fund the, the dollars to fund this should come from.
And how many days of oil water advisory needs to be in effect prior to supplying bottled water to residents?
Okay, can I will deal with the two-thirds?
I'm clerk will
Councillor Bondy do you want to second this?
All right, so we will it's on the floor but the first thing we have to wave the two-thirds
So
Yes, yes, I was just I was just going to questions for
For the for this
So as I look around Councillor Seema Gregor go ahead. This is on the deferral. I'm sorry.
And I vote no to the deferral. We're not quite to the voting yet. One sec.
Okay. So Councillor on the floor right now we require a two-thirds vote to waive notice for
this notice of motion. It was moved by Councillor Anderson and seconded by Councillor Bondy.
So we can all vote now. Okay. Do I just want to make sure there's
There's no questions about it. Seeing none, okay, we'll put it up.
Councillor Bondy? Yes. Councillor Sima Gregor?
No.
Just looking to see.
We're missing one.
Councillor Ciccache has got it. Okay. All votes are in and motion passes 12 to 4.
Two, you can proceed.
Okay. Councillor Anderson.
Thank you.
It's been almost two weeks that we've been in a boil water advisory and while yes, we are still having water come through our pipes.
It's not suitable to drink or we have not been told that it's suitable to drink.
So it's been long and taxing a couple of weeks, especially for people that have a vulnerable population or those that have multiple children sending water,
are boiling it and having it ready or having other means such as buying water, it's just
gotten to be a lot that supplying bottled water I think would show good faith and also
just let all of the residents know that we are willing to help and be there.
Councillor Bondy, anything bad?
What?
Thank you, Mayor Kenneth.
I support this, of course, as I seconded it.
I think it's simply a goodwill offering to these folks that are having trouble with
a boil water advisory.
Is this called because what are you doing to get cooked with it, of course, can you drink
it?
No.
You can't so I think we'll meet the community to do it, you can't, we've seen provide bottle of water, it's a pretty inexpensive thing to do, and I think it's
still very cool, but true a lot, and as a municipality, I think this is a great thing that we can do, I don't say gas, and I think it's the right thing to do, and that's that.
Okay,
I, the couple of speakers, I'll go to Mr. Taylor, and then our, our, our, our, PUC head, Tim Sunderland, we ever want to speak first, I'll go to.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just recognize that, as opposed to this on the floor, I just recognize issue with the wording at the bottom of the first paragraph, which is the cost of the bottle water to be charged to the PUC to be funded by water reserves.
I think that that just needs to be referred to the PUC for consideration of funding from
the water reserves.
And the reason is that decisions on use of funding from the PUC is made by commission
and not by council.
So I just want to make sure that the motion lines up so it would just be changing the wording
to be referred to the PUC to be considered funded by water reserves and that can be dealt
with in the SPUC meeting.
Okay.
You're good with changing that, Councillor Anderson.
Councillor Bondy.
Good with change.
change.
Tim, can you provide
your comments?
So I just wanted to bring forward we've never
supplied bottled water in a boil water advisory before. We've done bottled water before
in Wallisburg mid-2000s but that was a do not drink order. A boil water advisory water
is still available to the residents but they have to boil it to drink it. We've been in
In 13 days, in a boil water for Wheatley-Tillbury, not completely two weeks, we've tried to,
we're trying to get a handle on this water system that's been given to us without a water
plant.
And I just asked for a little bit of time to get there.
And that's all I wanted to comment on is that we're getting close, but we're still under
a boil water and we've never supplied bottled water in a boil water advisory before.
I really just have a question of the mover, just so that if this passes staff understands
what the expectations are, so don't take anything from my questions, but one of the, I just
point come from
So is the expectation that there would be distribution centers, which is something that we have been working on. So that's probably something we could pull the trigger on. Or is there an expectation? In other words, people would come to us. Or is there an expectation that we'd be delivering two people? And we asked that because I want to make sure that we're if we if it has passed that we're in sync with council's direction.
And the other thing it does talk about taking into consideration vulnerable populations.
I'm going to take from that to mean that we need to make sure that we always have some
available water for vulnerable populations.
So that would be direction to staff that if we did actually go and distribute or deliver,
we would always make sure that there's some back for vulnerable populations.
So in other words, continuing to service the facilities that were talked about earlier,
whether it's resource centers or food banks, that sort of thing, and the other common
I will make is I know I think we need to, and I guess we'll come back in the context
of the bottled water policy, we can't assume that bottled water will always be available
in every emergency. In this particular case, it's only impacting
weekly and Tilbury thankfully but in the future if we have something significant there may
not be bottled water available to us. So that will probably come back in the policy.
But I do agree with Mr. Sunderland that we've never done this before. I also was not here when the
Wallisburg situation happened but I understand that the water that was provided in the Wallisburg
case because there was no, there wasn't a water advisory just could not use the water disappeared
very, very quickly. So we fortunately do have quite a lot of water available. I don't know how
long it'll last. A lot of that depends on how long the water advisory is in place. We'll certainly
do our best to make sure that if this passes, we have the right inventory in place. We will probably
need I would say between 24 and 48 hours to pull the trigger. What I mean by that is
not that we don't have the water, but we would have to develop a process. We have some
plans in place. We already know where we would distribute from, but we don't have the staff
lined up to do that. So there would be some things that we'll have to do. And perhaps if
the mayor would allow a chief case to comment on that, because I think along with engaging
engaging volunteers and this type of thing might mean an emergency declaration, but I'll
turn it over to you. Yes, a chief case.
Thank you, Your Worship. When this incident
first occurred, even though we hadn't declared an emergency, we settled as if there was
an emergency. An emergency operation centre was put in place with the municipality. Mr.
Sultolan put his own emergency operation centre in place from the PUC.
What we have to
do then is we have to start planning for it if something else happens. The information
that we had was that the system was working, but it was fragile. It was tenuous at the time
because of what had gone on. I can tell you we then planned for what happens if the water
completely stopped. I can tell you we stopped by 175,000 litres of water in a very short space
of time with our help for economic development. That was third in case the water completely
stopped. At the same time, our community paramedics and our partners checked in on vulnerable
people, and this has been going on in the background for the past week and a half as we
have prepared. So we do have water available, but I have to caution Council, that is our
stockpile in case something else should happen. If you wish to start distributing water, as
the CAO said, if we were to start actually going out and distributing it, we probably need
the assistance of volunteers or an NGO, and that would probably be an emergency declaration.
If I may, Mr. Mayor, I want to raise the issue regarding a policy for Bockelwalter and the
event of an emergency. In the event of an emergency, we declare and we go into our emergency management
framework, planning tables, operation tables, technical support tables, logistics tables.
It would be my respectful suggestion that even if we had a policy and emergency
would trump the policy because that emergency would come in and the province would come in
with us and we'd have to plan around what we're dealing with. So with respect to the
mover, if we did have a boiled water policy for floods, tornadoes and other emergencies,
it's unlikely it would be enacted in the way that it was written because we have to be flexible
to deal with everything that comes at us. And the one thing, unfortunately, as I mentioned a few
weeks ago, we've become quite adapted dealing with things thrown at us. So, with respect
right now, I can tell you as the head of emergency management, we're equipped to deal with
a complete loss of the water for a three-fold period of time, three or four days, period
of time, and if we were to move into this provision, we would really have to increase that
round that up to be able to meet the demand. Thank you, Mr. May.
Councillor Sima Gregor.
Thank you and through the mayor and thank
you for the comments from those that have commented so far in an explanation because I was
going to say I could support the administration or the creative of policy but the top part
is not separable by the 1, 2, 3.
But having said that, I know we've
been through many different situations.
And I know the typical past people
to boil water for a minute before they
drink the water.
And some of the issues that come along with that.
And I know the community of Wheatley
has experienced so many devastating issues.
and this just kind of heightened everything that has happened over the period of time.
I do know that, though, if we start to do this, then I don't know where that leads us
and whenever there's a boil, water is vital and moving forward.
And as we heard, there are limited supplies or supplies, let me not limited,
but we do have supplies in case of such a different emergency.
I do remember back in Wallisburg when we had to do not drink, which was much different
than, you know, you couldn't even boil your water at that point at time and be able to
use it.
I know it's a terrible inconvenience and I certainly hope that we can get this taken care
of and we can get things in place so that that is not there much longer.
I'm just scared about putting a policy in place that may transform farther down the road.
I will skip the policy because if it's going to interfere with what would happen
provincially under under a rate and the emergency as she pays to complain to us
and then I won't even go there. But I do think that only to look at this and
yes, it is an inconvenience and understand that, you know, what this direction and
where this may take us in the future.
I would ask though, and there's mention here
about vulnerable populations.
It is my assumption that, and I would like this answer.
But I would think that if we have vulnerable populations,
they are being supplied water regardless.
And it is also in my understanding
that having reached out to our educational systems,
that they are in a position that they do not require us
to supply them with water. So if I can have those two items answered and then I'll just
make sure.
Thank you, Mayor Kenneth. Thank you for the question, Councillor McGregor.
So currently right now we are supplying water to all of our well long-term care homes who
have requested bottled water and they were really struggling in those homes. We are supplying
bottled water to the Wheatley Resource Center, and we're supplying bottled water to the Tilbury Food Bank.
Those are places where they are well-known in those communities for individuals to go and
access help, and obviously they are handing out quite a lot of water.
They're doing another delivery tomorrow to those two places.
We have been in contact with child care and some of the schools today, and they are indicating to us that they are good right now, but we will stay in contact with them as this goes on, so thank you.
And
I understand why this motion is here.
Unfortunately, I cannot support it this time.
I think that we have to look at the options
that are currently in place and how to help
an educator community and hopefully we will gain
the ability to lift those regulations sooner than later
and that that and I know I wouldn't want to be having the
boil of my water for a minute either but you know I think that we
need to maybe look at the bigger picture and what we need to
move forward with in this and and as for policy I think if it's
covered prevention through emergency response then I'm also
happy with that so and I'll admit that thank you.
Okay, we got a number of speakers. Councillor Bondy followed by Councillor McGrale.
We're kind of overthinking the same Councillor
Anderson. It's just two bottles of water available
to people that need it that want. It's not a big ask, it's water, it's not gasoline or
barza. If people want water, I think that as in this
you should be able to offer a seat.
Simple as that.
It's not policy, it's, this is a situation.
You have several people.
If
people don't need the bottle of water,
then they won't come and get it.
We as new as Fowdy can show our support
as offering a seat that's relatively almost like
the bottle of water that they need it.
It's available that you come and get it.
The water, it's fully water,
it's just both.
I'm
not talking about the policy decision.
We're saying we're providing vital water to people that are under this boil water
alert or whatever it is.
It's going to be a very deep sensitivity
that we're behind it.
That we're always getting
out of the water.
And if we drive that tree forward back with all,
I think we should do that.
I think that's right.
I'd ask about how was the, how was there was a vision of being distributed or was there,
do you have any thoughts?
I know Councillor Bondi mentioned in there they come and get it so we need to be clear
on what we're asking for. Certainly if we have to hire a number of staff
to do it, it doesn't become as cheap of an option as what it is. Like if we just could buy
water and put it there and people come and get it, it's one thing. But anyway, can Councillor
Could you clarify? Sorry, I'm going to Councillor Anderson, the mover of the task from that.
Sure. And through you, thank you for the question.
I think that if you were to do what Councillor Bondy has suggested, they'd get a truck, bring
it to the arena and say, hey, you can come get water if you need it. That would be more than
enough for anyone to go and get it. If someone need to grab it for their elderly neighbor
that maybe doesn't drive, then they would. You know, like we're a pretty tight-knit community
I'm sure that we would not need to distribute it everyone in Wheatley until we would gladly help their neighbor
If they couldn't get there to get it and yeah, I don't I think just some place to distribute it is all that's needed.
Okay. Okay, so counts from a grail fold by Councillor Crue.
Thank you, Americana. My question is Tim.
Um, um, have we, how many times have we had a boil advisory past two weeks in the last ten years or ever?
Here, asking for staff, sorry, through you, Mayor. You're asking for staff, I don't have my fingertips. Last year we had a boil water in Wallisburg. I think that lasted almost a week in a bit because of a broken main pipe in the distribution system. From time to time, we do have boil waters that happen independently on the streets due to water main breaks through the winter time. Those will happen now and again. But for community-wide boil waters, Wallisburg comes to mind last year.
this year, and Ridge Town would be my last one that was on the books about 2014.
And that was the same length, like around the two-week mark or a week and a half-mark.
Ridge Town, I believe that one lasted probably a week or so, just over a week.
Thank you.
Councillor Crue, followed by Councillor Story.
Thank you.
Tim, you might as well stay there.
How
much do you expect this particular motion to cost?
I know you're just guessing here.
Through the municipal planning group, through the EOC, that planning group has done some pre-work.
And I think there are certain compiles and numbers today and I think Bruce has that.
But perhaps I can address that, your worship.
So to date, we've spent slightly under $70,000 on bottled water, but like you heard, we
have quite a lot available.
And that's only to vulnerable people.
I say that again.
That's only to a certain particular group, I understand, the vulnerable people.
We have only, through your worship, we've only circulated it to vulnerable people, but I don't
I don't want to leave the impression that we have circulated 68 or $70,000 worth of water to vulnerable people so far.
We have purchased 70,000, but we have plenty that we have not handed out yet.
Okay, all right, thank you.
All right, so and councilman Grille touched on this.
Any boil waters in the past, here's what I'm thinking.
Okay, if I've been drinking this water all along, is it safe to drink once it's boiled?
And yeah, when we follow the public health guidance while water for one minute before a consumption is safe to drink.
Okay, and so we've heard that, you know, it shows good faith if we do this.
But what I'm wondering is what are we saying?
It's like, now it's not okay, you've been drinking this for 13 days and now we're going to give you bottled water.
I'm feeling that we're sending mixed messages here. Is our water safe or isn't it?
We're taking, I understand we're transporting water by tankers full from Chatham or an area to just, go ahead.
So, for the last 13 days, we've been hauling bulk water from Chatham and out of Lake Shore
into the Tilbury Reservoir.
We've been dumping it there and then we've been utilizing it within the distribution
system.
We've also taken water from the Blanum or the South Water Truma plant and the town of
Limiton through Interconnects into Wheatley and have been using that water to supplement
what we don't have right now.
Okay, so why are we boiling the water?
The original boil water notice was put out because of low system water pressure.
With the loss of the water plant, we were running out reservoirs.
And we're utilizing the reservoirs at that time.
And because the system dropped below 20 PSI, the regulation states that we have to notify
the public health.
They have a low water pressure concern, and at that point, a boil water is issued.
It's part of the process that the checks and balances in the water system.
Okay, one more technical question, so when that pressure drops, what causes us to trigger a boil water?
What makes us need to boil water because of the pressure?
Part of the regulations is a safety, is what it is.
It's a moment in time, it's a pressure mark that provides us that safety in the water system.
There's a precaution that we have to notify the public health.
They issue the oil water based on theoretically we could have a potential of water coming from the groundwater into the water system.
So it's a trigger on the whole process of oil water because of low water pressure.
It wasn't because of a bacteria law that's a good result, the trigger the oil water.
Okay, all right, I think everyone else has asked these questions.
It's all resource center.
This water is being distributed from a resource center in food banks.
What's the resource center?
Thank you, Mayor Kenneth, thank you, Councillor Cruz.
So the Wheatley Resource Center is, it houses the food bank and some other services.
So at the, well, right after the Wheatley explosion, we moved a number of services to the Wheatley
resource center including the food bank so they are still in operation and lots and lots of
people in that weekly community are connected to that resource center and so they are accessing
water there every day they're going and getting water. Okay, thank you. So the other part of this is
One of my questions is, this would only be during the boil water.
So if the boil water was done on Saturday, we stop handing out water.
Is that what we understand from this motion?
Or do we continue for another week until everybody's feeling comfortable?
No, no, okay, all right.
I'm going to ask that this be separated into two motions, Councillor Anderson.
That the first paragraph, the number one, and then the second part, the number 2.123.
Does that make sense, Judy?
Yep, I'm happy that that does.
I'm just, and I don't want to give the impression that I don't care.
But what I do care about is the message that we're sending that our water is not safe and it is safe if it's boiled and we're giving water to those that need it.
So I'm going to vote no on the first paragraph, but to have a policy in place for a state of emergency, which I don't think this fits the definition chief for state of emergency.
But I do agree in state of emergencies and we need to have policies.
But like you say, they could be trumped by the province or other things.
But yeah, so if we can get that separated, I'll be voting those two ways for those two reasons.
Hope that makes sense.
Thank you.
Councillor Story, followed by Councillor Thompson.
Thank you, Mayor Kenneth.
I have, I think I have a jurisdictional question because I, it's my understanding that the
The PUC is a separate entity from a municipality, I don't know who this question is going to.
Is it similar to Integress, for example, where it's sort of an arm's-length body that
Council has no decision-making authority for?
Is that correct?
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Thank you, Councillor.
So the PUC is considered a local board under the Municipal Act, so it is like a separate
corporation.
It's called a body corporate.
not quite as separated as a separate corporation that integrates is, but it is a similar type situation where it has a separate forward, which is called Commission, so it does make its own decisions.
So all kind of final decisions about PUC items go up to Commission. Now Council can make decisions about whether to have a PUC and things like that, so there is some control over Council, but day-to-day administration of everything to do with the PUC has been delegated well in the past.
to the PUC commission, so I pointed out at the beginning that decisions about funding
from this actually would go to the commission, and that's for that exact reason that you've
just flagged there. However, the rest of this motion really is more about how the municipal
team would respond to delivering water in these types of things, which is why I believe this
is kind of appropriately before Council still for a consideration on how the rest of the team
would respond to emergency.
Thank you for that clarification, because it now reads with that information, it now reads
to me like the first paragraph should be separated because that goes to a different body than
us as council.
I mean, I think there are five municipal councillors on that, six, okay, thank you.
So we have municipal representatives at that table who I assume discuss this on Wednesday.
I went to the meeting on Wednesday, but just to hear and learn more about what was going
on, so I would be well informed.
This was a discussed in the open session where I was attending, but I'm wondering if
that
goes to the PUC to decide for your next meeting, and then we discuss the municipal question
as the second paragraph onward, is that, I guess I don't know if that's a question.
I just feel like the PUC piece should be addressed by the PUC,
is that any more comment
to that, or maybe perhaps not, I'm not sure, because what if the PUC votes no, I
mean, there
are six Councillors on it, no pressure guys, I'm just wondering if this is, I'm just a little
We'll confuse about the jurisdiction.
It's going to be blurry for me now.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor, so I'll try to provide some clarification on that.
From my read of it, this is something that is well within Council's decision to decide
to do or not, which is in the event of emergency that requires applied bottle water or the Council
wishes to provide bottle water, Council could choose to do this.
You've also now, because of that amendment, decided to refer the cost issues to the PUC to consider
applying to one of their reserves.
In theory, the PUC could also do that first portion of this motion, but I don't think there's
anything that a council can't do this, because while the PUC delivers the water service,
when we have emergencies, generally, it is the rest of the municipal team that actually
does a lot of the response to this.
So I don't think that there's anything here that is outside of council's jurisdiction to
decide should council choose to do so.
It would also be perfectly appropriate if you felt that it was appropriate to refer it,
but I want to clarify, this is I think well within council's jurisdiction to decide in this type of event to direct staff of the municipality, which is within your jurisdiction, to deliver this bottled water.
Thank you for clarifying.
Councillor Thompson, followed by Councillor Juvenville.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Bondi painted this as not a big ask, but I'd really like to understand the size of the ask.
How many people in the communities of Wheatley and Tilbury are currently affected by the
Boyle Water Advisory?
By our records we show about 8,000 people are on water, municipal water.
8,000 people are on municipal water, so maybe a question for April then, how many leaders
of water or drinking water does a person need in a day?
Depends on your hydration.
Sure, depends upon your hydration from food.
Thank you very much, Councillor McGregor.
Thank you, Mayor Canne. So certainly we would like people to obviously be drinking a significant
amount of water every day. And so to pin that down, I mean it depends on so many factors
that it's hard to dictate what that might be. But I think I go back to Councillor
or crews, the water is safe if you boil it for one minute.
And so that I think is still where from a public health perspective,
we would be landing.
But certainly, we like people to be drinking those kind of 8 to 10 glasses of water a day.
So 8 to 10 glasses to 8 ounces in a glass, 240 milliliters,
There's two liters of water, 16,000 liters of water, potentially per day in perpetuity or until this is over.
I appreciated my time sitting on the PUC and I was sorry to give it up.
It didn't jive with the LTVCA.
Mr. Sunderland, what are the water reserves like over at the PUC?
Since that's where potentially this could be funded from?
I can probably look to Gordon say they're doing well.
Well,
maybe I'll rephrase that, doing well, saving up for, I'm throwing out a number 50 million
to our water projects and Wallisberg and things that are in it.
So I guess there is some healthy reserves right now committed to quickly upcoming projects.
So...
Reserves are mainly committed to other projects. I'm asking about the spare pile of cash we've got laying around to pay for it. There is some spare cash sitting there right now because those projects haven't began yet. That the major wallets were rebuilt, for example. Okay, so they're not spare, not really sort of kind. I get it. I think no. I mean, I tell you, if I was in North Kent, my blood would be boiling, but I don't know about why.
My water, as people have been affected by turbines out there, that is certainly, yeah, that's a frustration for sure.
I'm sure we've been doing a lot of bacterial testing on the water for the Tilbury and Wheatley residents.
Have we not since this has been put in place?
So we've done two rounds of bacterial logical testing last week and we did one more completed today.
Okay, and would that be an open session question, can you tell us how they went?
Last week's testing results came back all clear.
And we don't have this week's yet.
Today's samples went in, we won't have a result until Wednesday, possibly Thursday morning.
Okay, how many would we need to see in a row before we could lift a boil water advisory?
Thank you, Mayor Kenneth.
From a public health perspective in order to lift a boil water, we would want to see two samples.
take in at least 24 hours apart, and both of those samples all coming back clear.
Okay, so, all right, going back to my other question, is this a big ask?
Is this a small ask?
What sort of size ask is this?
The first paragraph that is,
so your worship, did you want me to?
Yeah, I can address it.
If you're talking financially, I don't think it's a big ask, and to be clear,
I don't think staff has ever said that the cost is the issue.
In the grand scheme of things, whether cash is assigned to other things or not, it's not
a big ask.
I mean, for 175,000 leaders that we initially purchased, like I told you, it was under $70,000.
And that includes, by the way, the delivery and the vehicles.
So it's not a big ask financially.
And I don't want anyone to leave the, I don't want to leave with anyone in the impression
that's ever been the concern. The concern has been we don't want anyone to think that by doing
that now and I think if this motion does pass we will absolutely have to spend some time on
communicating to make sure the public understands we're not. Council's not pulling this trigger because
you heard that there are any negative water testing. With that I think we have to do one way or
another quite frankly I think we have to do that so I just want to be clear financially I don't think
I think this is a big ask at all and that's not the issue from SAS perspective.
Okay, thank you. I thought my questions were going to clear it up for me. But to be honest, they didn't.
But I appreciate the answers. At least I have more information than I did. Thank you.
Councillor Judenville.
I was actually going to ask to have it separated but Councillor Crue beat me to the punch.
But I just want to make a comment to Councillor Cruz note about sending a message to the people
of Wheatley and Tilbury that they may think that we're, you know, by giving them water
that we're not, you know, we think the water is not safe.
But I think it's also a matter of convenience for these people.
I've read messages from people that they have, you know, three children at home and boiling
in water for everybody is it is a big inconvenience and I just think we I don't know because of what
the people from Wheatley have been through I really do think we owe them something because
they've been through a lot so I but I will support this and I do appreciate that it's going to be
divided as well because you might get support on on part of it at least so thank you.
I had a few questions, is I read the motion?
A few things pop up just how we practically make this happen.
The first one, Mr. Dubin mentioned communication, and we know there's been issues with communicating
people that didn't know there's a bottle or there's a boil alert with everything we've done.
So I don't know how we, in the short term, we need to address that, how in the short term
do we get everyone?
I want everyone to know where to get the water, how the little that's going to take some time.
I look at the, I want to ask a question on supplies.
So I know we've acquired some, is are we able to go acquire a lot more of needed in a short time frame?
And the short answer is yes.
Okay, so I look at the time evil when I see there, I'm wondering if our media friends are going to walk out here and
and announce, oh, you got water and we don't know where it is yet or when it's going to be made available.
I'd like to see in the motion to say, as of this date, you know, give 24 or 40 with some period of time
to say this is when the water isn't going to be available because I, so everybody's clear on us for communicating,
they're clear to say, as of this date, whatever it is, we need some time to get the supply in there.
And is the other thing, is it contemplated 24-7?
So if I need water at night at night, can I go get something or like you mentioned, the arena.
Those are the logistical things like it.
You know, if all we had to do was drive a transport truck of water and dump it, easy.
It's all the other things.
And what I don't want to do is create a lot of confusion in the public's eyes and say, well, geez, I went for water and there wasn't any or the door was locked or I didn't know about it.
So those are the things that I just wanted to plot on that, Councillor Juneville.
Sorry, I guess, Anderson.
Thank you.
And I think that they did say that there's another delivery that's happening tomorrow.
And I guess I could just speak to a number of different things and I definitely appreciate
the conversation that's being had around the horseshoe here about this.
So like the people of Wheatley and Tilbury have also been asked to conserve water.
So, they are, a lot of them are not even boiling, they're actually purchasing because they're also being asked to conserve water as well, and there's been a lot of communication on that because of the low pressure and because we're now shipping it in from other areas, so there's that aspect to consider also.
I think that recognizing the inconvenience of then having to go and purchase a lot of water or boiling it plus conserving it and trying to figure out how to navigate all these different things, I think that there are some people that could benefit from it just being a very easy distribution of the resource center has extra water if you need a case of water go grab what you know what they mean.
I also think that it's really important to consider that, you know, while there is 8,000 people, many, many people do not work nor are at home or like work within those specific areas either.
You know, a lot of people work in Windsor, they work in Liemington, they work in a different municipality that doesn't have a boil of water advisory.
So, I mean, like at Liemington Hospital, I'm not bringing water, my bottled water from home, I'm bringing something, you know, I'm bringing my jug and filling it at work.
with the clean water that I don't have to boil.
And I think that a lot of people are generally doing the same thing.
So I don't think that it adds up to like all of those thousands of gallons per person per day, per whatever.
And I think that that's also something to consider.
I also think another thing to consider is that not everybody necessarily is going to utilize this show of good faith.
We have a colleague in sitting on our table that has one of those funny dispenser things where you push a button and
puts the water into your, like, I don't think everyone will necessarily use this either.
So aside from, I don't, I don't think that there will be a massive influx of people that
will be needing to utilize this service whatsoever, but I think it shows good faith.
I think that it shows that it is a trying time for the people of Tilbury and Wheatley.
I think that it shows that this has gone on for a decent amount of time, and we don't come
to council next week so this could continue on for even longer.
We don't know how long the Boil Water Advisory is going to last, it could go on forever.
People think it's going to be a year or 12 months based on the communication that they've
been given.
So I think that we can definitely better improve communication as no one knew the sample
results and I don't know why that wasn't made public.
And I also think, you know, it's important for, it's not that people are going to think
that by getting bottled water, that our water is no longer safe if you boil it.
It's a simple fact of we are recognizing the inconvenience of you having to go in by water or having to boil it and we're going to actually just say here if you need water like really quickly on your way home from work because you forgot to stop in Liemington, you know, stop it and grab go to the distribution, you know, and grab a case of water if you need it not just anyone is vulnerable that anyone can utilize it if they need to and I mean, I I think that it's I think it's an easy ask I didn't expect to have this much conversation, but I definitely
appreciate it for sure. And I think that as far as the policy came through, I think that it's more for us to have something in place that we then don't need to have this conversation again if we do get in a situation where we are around here again where a boil water advisory is going on for the indefinite future of us not knowing for how long that was the purpose of the policy to say then we don't need to come back here and do this all over again if say Wallaceburg is updating their water and they lose pressure and they now have a boil water advisory for who knows how long
But we also aren't going to distribute any bottled water if it goes this length of time, right?
I think that it just gives us an opportunity to, when we know better, and we're putting these situations where we have kind of unprecedented things that we can discuss.
We can also form policy to handle it differently, should, and if it happens again.
I'm happy to give to the other.
Councillor, Councillor, I just like in the motion, I think we need to give guidance to say when is it going to be available?
You mentioned tomorrow morning, do we say tomorrow?
That's, but then logistically, you know, by 8 o'clock tomorrow morning, not many people will know about it.
So that's why I'm trying to catch up communication with the actual logistics of it.
So when it starts getting out, we have something we can tell people it's going to be available at this time, this place.
That's why I'm missing here, because it's pretty vague, and I just see it's a recipe for a lot of confusion if we just put it out here, and I can only see the next few days we heard about bad communication before, but if we don't even know what we're communicating, it's going to even worse.
Absolutely, and I can certainly, I can certainly understand that, but that's also, I don't think a question for me, I think that that's probably a question that Michael would better take care of.
So could I put a friendly amendment in here just to say, we give an effective date.
If the boy of water advisory doesn't, if last, I'll pull a 72 hour, whatever it is.
So we have 72 hours to set up logistics or something so that we said there it is.
But we know that we got three days at least to communicate in that.
And I think it sets us up for more success than just putting it out there, let's give them water.
and not giving the details, but at least we could go there and say is it just put a date in there?
In fact, if I throw that out there, because it meets the compassionate and you're just going to go on forever?
Yes, we're dealing with it that, but if it's going to come off in 72 hours,
well then we don't have to do any more of us, we've shortly thereafter or something.
Would that be an amendment that you have?
Yeah, I think that that's definitely a friendly moment.
I mean, I think that Michael would be able to say when we would be able to start
distributing more water to more people, but then also, I also would like in the policy to say like as soon as the oil water advisory is lifted, I think that we should immediately stop distribution of water.
Yeah, thank you through you, your worship. So I guess I'll deal with the second issue first.
In the way that motion is word is it says air is affected by the water advisory. If there's no more water advisory than I presume we would stop handing out water at that point in time.
So I think that question's answered.
Although you're the mover of the motion, but I'm assuming that you're not in agreement.
So yeah, so once the water advisory is lifted, then at that point we can stop any bottle
of water.
I believe that we can, because as the chief stated earlier, we've already had some discussions.
I think that I'm going to say 48 hours.
we should be able to start handling
things, hiding water out.
What that will do is give us time to communicate
when, where, why?
I really think the why part is very important.
I think we've heard that a few times now.
We really want to make sure the people are in panicking
and thinking that, oh, there must have been some negative tests
so now they're handing out bottled water.
I really like the emphasis on the recognizing
the inconvenience to people, especially in Wheatley
and everything they've been through.
So we need time to do that because otherwise
otherwise you will immediately get phone calls from people complaining they don't know where to go or they showed up and it wasn't ready that sort of thing so I would say 48 hours, yeah 48 hours would actually that doesn't make a lot of sense in the middle of the night now so probably
Thursday morning, would you agree Thursday morning, Bruce and the chief?
It's Monday.
Okay.
I think we just talked about why do we say Thursday at noon to give us time to communicate
it on Thursday morning if that's fair and then Councillor
Anderson, if you're okay
with that now, I think it can be in the motion or not.
If everybody agrees that it's going to be that time, we'll make it happen.
But if you want to add it to the motion, it just gives us more direction.
Thank you.
We can certainly add that but I think that Thursday is more than reasonable.
I guess my other question would then be for April.
So if this next test comes back, is this considered the third consecutive that's been and then
will we potentially have this lifted or what is the direction from public health at this
time?
Thank you, Mary-Can if so all starts, certainly Tim can chime in.
So we are working as public health very, very closely with the PUC. As soon as and Tim can comment on this, they feel that they have stabilized the system. Then we will do our two tests. So once that, once Tim gives us the go ahead, that everything is stable. Then we'll do the first round of tests. And then we'll do the first round of testing. And then we'll do the first round of testing. And then we'll do the first round of testing. And then we'll do the first round of testing.
do the second round of tests and if those come back then we will and they're all clear we'll be able to lift the boil water.
So what I would while my mics on say I want everyone to remember we do have bottled water at the resource center and at the Tilbury Food Bank.
So in that interim time while we are setting up a bigger kind of distribution,
We do have water available in both communities.
Yeah, and I thank you for clarifying that.
I think that I'm glad that you clarified that these samples are not considered to be
part of the samples that would be determined of lifting the advisory.
This is still considered an unstable situation until it's deemed that we can maintain this
pressure long-term.
So,
Mr. Mayor, yes, that's exactly what we're doing, we're working in public health.
After the fire of the water treatment plan, it was unusable.
We have a brand new system we had to learn from.
The sampling that we did in the last week and a half was to do some checks and
balances to make sure and ensure that we are able to maintain this water system in the current state's end.
And that's what it is, it's just confirmation for us to make some decisions that we're doing.
everything we can possibly do to make sure the water is going to be safe at the
end of the day when we do our two consecutive declarations. Thank you and I
certainly appreciate that how much longer before you think that you would
consider this stable.
I can answer that at that time. We are learning every day
and I'll say that we are learning every day and we're becoming more confident and
things are getting closer and that's what I'll leave it at. I don't know what
media wants to spin it at, but we're getting closer, okay?
No, and I definitely appreciate that honesty, and I think that I think that the more
honest and the more detail that we can provide in this situation, the better, because there
is a lot of questions coming through, and I know you and I, and I'm so thankful for conversations
that we've had candidly, candid conversations of the frustrations and things that people
are feeling.
So I definitely think that the more detail that we can get out to everybody, the better.
And I think being truthful and honest and saying, we are not confident at this time, which
is why we have not done the testing to determine whether we can lift it.
So I'm thankful for that, and I definitely appreciate that honesty and transparency.
And I think that moving forward, I definitely appreciate your expertise on this,
and that you wouldn't move forward with something until you were sure.
So I definitely appreciate that.
Thank you.
The ultimate goal for us is public safety, public health, right?
I want to supply the right product.
We want to ensure the public is safe, and that's our ultimate goal.
is what we're trying to get to. As for communication, there is a website through
Let's Talk, right, with all of our information going to it, from PC and Public Health as well.
Seeing all the questions, we're going to split it into, so we're going to be voting on the first part.
And then, so from there, we'll put it to vote.
Councillor C. McGregor.
Councillor Bondi. Councillor
Couches not here. All votes are in and motion passes ten
to six.
I'll vote in the second part.
Councillor Bondi.
Councillor McGregor.
And all votes are in. Motion passes 15 to one.
Yes.
Okay. Approval of communication items.
Councillor McGrill, you wanted to pull out item 2D.
Yes, please.
And I'll move to put the other ones forth.
Okay.
So Councillor McGrill and Councillor Allen are going to get the two of you to move the communication
items.
Happy second.
Okay.
Anyone opposed to the communication items?
Sering none.
Okay.
So we'll go to 2D.
And what is it you want to talk about with that?
Sure.
I'll be really quick.
But 2D is in response to, sorry, the notice of the solution of the Chinomkin A Development
Committee.
So I just want to take a moment to say thank you to everyone that's been part of that
group.
I have the privilege to be part of that.
But just say a little overview of what that group has done.
It started in 1996, and that group originally, not called TKAD, but in its origin, was
actually part of the collaboration to bring Greenfield ethanol to Chatham Kent, or what we
call a Greenfield ethanol today to Chatham Kent, so they were very instrumental in that.
But from the onset of this group and in its many different transitions, you know, they've
worked hard to represent Chatham Kent.
They've done a good job.
They truly believe in Chatham Kent and that we grow for the world.
So we grow for the world branding came from this group, too.
So I just want to take a moment to say thank you to everyone that's been involved in that
group.
to Kim Cooper. He was a very instrumental in the coordination of CKAD when it came back
and that hopefully in the near future with Councillor Thompson we can create a new group
to move forward in what needs to be done for a culture and chat. Thank you.
All right, okay, the non-agenda business, we've got, okay, here I get to take names here.
So, keep your hands up this for a second, now I'm just going to,
yeah, we've got eight minutes, good point, story, okay, and then on the right, and who else on this side?
No, okay. All right, so we've got five, so we'll start with Councillor B. McGregor, and then Councillor McGregor.
Thank you, Mayor Kenneth. I just wanted to remind everyone it's National Truth and Reconciliation Week in Chatham Kent. So thank all Councillors and staff and everyone in the audience.
They wore their orange shirts this evening. So there's a number of events throughout the week. You can see them on Let's Talk ChathamCant.ca.
Today, notably tomorrow, there's the TRC walk-and-flag raising that starts at 1130 at 495 King Street West and ends here at the Civic Center.
And there's a number of other events throughout the week, so I'd encourage you to check those out and participate where and when you can.
Thank you.
Councilor Grail, follow-up by Councilor Stori.
Thank you, Mayor Kenneth.
I just want to give a shout out to the grade 10 civil class from Dresden High School.
I had the privilege last Friday to join them in a discussion on municipal politics.
So I've been trying to get their mug in a shot.
So here we go and cheers to the civil class.
Thank you.
Councillor Storyfall, by Councillor Wright.
Just wanted to build on Councillor McGregor's note there.
It will be if you still want orange t-shirts or making pins like the one a few of us are
wearing tonight.
You can pick them up. The pin making supplies at any Chatham Kent library branch.
And you can also pick up the pins and shirts at 67 Adelaide Street south at the indigenous learning building there.
And on October, so there's that. The next one is October 1st, 1954.
The Essex and Kent Scottish Regiments were formed combining the Essex Scottish Regiment and the Kent Regiment.
Each history of the regiment has been preserved along with the history of each regiment separately.
I think good to note at the end of Legion week.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Wright, follow-up by Councillor Pinsnall.
Thank you, Mayor Canaf.
I'd like to congratulate the Ridge Roadrunner Car Club that was able to raise $30,000 for
their first car show on Saturday for hospice, the 50-50 draw ended up being for the person
that won at $8,530.
They'd done a great job for the first time at the event.
But the other thing is, I gave fair this Saturday at 12 o'clock, it's 169 years, and the fair lasts for four hours.
So, good hope to see you out there.
Councilor principal.
Thank you, worship, and I'd like to thank you yourself for raising my bid on the pie at our hunts' rehearsals.
I attended an Inrich town storm fall classic of charity event, which had already had booked.
I would love to have went to that hot rods for hospice as well, but anyway, both events
were successful.
Thank you.
Okay.
Reading the bylaws.
Councillor Pincino, Councillor Thompson for the first and second reading.
So moved.
And seconded.
And we're posed.
Motion carried.
Third and final reading.
Councillor Hall.
Councillor Anderson.
So moved.
So seconded.
Okay.
And we're posed.
Motion carried.
We then we have resolution of council if I can get council hall to wrap it up for us that'd be great that
chat
No way. It's late. Okay. I move that chat. I'm can't counsel adjourn to its next meeting to be held on Monday October 16th
2023 and that chat. I'm can't counsel authorize itself
To meet in closed session on that day to discuss any matters permitted by the municipal act by some move all second
Anyone opposed to wrapping it up at 9.56?
6, see none, it's a wrap everyone, thanks.
We are your TV, connect with us, your TV, truly local.