[0:00] Next there is a part of the chart there will identify whether they had a working group or a consultation group who was that group moving it forward within the corporation. And that was relatively common and somewhat correlated with later success of the program. Okay. Perhaps just as additional supplemental then is as municipalities are rolling this out, and they need to be able to talk about this externally.

[0:30] Do they speak about what were some of their experiences with just socializing this externally

[0:37] because you do want community buy-in as well?

[0:40] So what was that like, did that come up in conversation at all?

[0:44] Through the chair, yes, that did come up in conversation.

[0:47] And the external socialization of this concept is really important too.

[0:53] And that's a little bit what I was touching on when I spoke about the stakeholder engagement

[0:59] and education. So kind of getting ahead of implementing a framework or a policy and connecting

[1:08] with those external vendors and service providers was critical in other municipalities. Some

[1:16] held information sessions, some circulated actual training slide decks out to their kind of key

[1:24] So there's a number of approaches that was discussed in the conversations.

[1:28] Excellent.

[1:29] Okay.

[1:30] My last question then through you, Chair, is about level setting and benchmarking because

[1:36] I do know in your, and I don't want to talk about your report yet, but it was just one

[1:43] of those like as we're starting from a time zero and we're at a, we're at the base level

[1:48] at this point, when you were having these conversations with other municipalities, did

[1:53] Did they share with you how they benchmarked themselves?

[1:57] I think it's more complicated than just saying we had it and we don't have it or we're

[2:04] at zero because we haven't had it and then I just want to understand how do we levels

[2:08] that ourselves and how do we benchmark this so that way we can get a better evaluate of

[2:13] framework as we move through this pilot phase process and that's what I think.

[2:19] Through you, Chair, just for clarification, Councilor Wang, are you referring to as municipalities

[2:24] progress in this work, how they evaluate themselves against?

[2:28] Yes, that's our—

[2:30] Yeah, measuring themselves.

[2:32] That's a really wonderful question.

[2:34] So, some of the municipalities that are further advanced in this work, so those that have

[2:39] been doing it for five plus years, many of them are finding themselves either at the phase

[2:46] or have started to conduct this work of doing thorough evaluations and of identifying

[2:55] using smart, I mean many set smart targets. So using those smart targets, creating that

[2:59] baseline and using that over time, there are some that, you know, recognize that they jumped

[3:04] in and they didn't have time to maybe develop that baseline for themselves and that's something

[3:08] that they're going back to now. But certainly the evaluative tools was a challenge. I would

[3:15] say noted more often than not, but that was a challenge for municipalities, and there

[3:20] are a number of them that are looking back to that now to develop the tools and develop

[3:24] the methodology through which to gather the information so that they can make decisions

[3:30] for the future and share some of those data outputs.

[3:34] Sorry, Chair. Smart, top, smart. Is it SMART? Smart, like, mean, specific, measurable, or

[3:43] Are you saying other smart like what do you mean by smart through the chair?

[3:47] Yes, my apologies for the acronym. Yes, the specific measurable attainable relevant and time bound. Yes, those thank you.

[3:55] Those are all my questions here with the chairs and delgens. Can I add to that answer?

[4:00] Take it away. One of the strong lessons learned was there was no one way to do to do this work.

[4:07] And certainly the range of benchmarking also reflected that across municipalities either

[4:13] done really well or not done at all and all the way in between.

[4:18] Part of the report back to committee with a proposed pilot would be benchmarking suitable

[4:26] for the city of Hamilton if approved to go forward with that work.

[4:34] Thanks very much Councillor Fahing and Brunekel-Skaia.

[4:37] Thank you.

[4:38] Through you, Chair, I have a few questions.

[4:39] Let me know if I have to add myself back to the speakers list.

[4:42] Through you, Chair, to the Senior Project Manager, just some questions as I'm trying to lean

[4:48] into the argumentation regarding the change of the terminology to social value.

[4:54] You would remarked that one of the changes to legislation was the community benefits charge

[5:00] renamed in 2022.

[5:02] That's a relatively recent change you noted that as well.

[5:05] whereas the term community benefits free exists this pretty considerably, but you mentioned

[5:10] that there is confusion around this, whereas I would imagine the confusion would rest and

[5:15] burden in fact the charges.

[5:18] Are there any tangible examples of where this confusion led to issues whether locally or

[5:23] jurisdictionally?

[5:26] Through the chair, thank you for the question.

[5:28] So the, yeah, the piece of other being confusion or kind of even conflation around those terms,

[5:35] That emerged through conversations with each municipality, one of the key questions

[5:40] that I asked them was, why have you chosen to name your program, what you've named it,

[5:47] how are you defining your terminology.

[5:50] So we went through kind of the nitty gritty on the terms and something that emerged from

[5:54] those conversations was there's a number of municipalities as I mentioned as you're aware

[6:00] that have been doing this for many years, right? Five, seven, ten plus years. Those municipalities

[6:06] by and large have used terminology, aligned with community benefits. So, they're using that language.

[6:11] And in those conversations, it started coming up that because of the recent changes in the legislation,

[6:18] that they are seeing confusion internally within their own organization about community benefits

[6:24] charges, and its relationship to their community benefits work, and by and large, they're

[6:29] not connected. So these community benefits teams, they're not leveraging money from the CBC

[6:33] charges. That's a very separate body of work. So they were finding it internally within

[6:38] their own organization, you know, that it was starting to come up more and more, and it was

[6:44] becoming challenging. One municipality who's in development of their program right now, in particular,

[6:51] had a, kind of, did a whole little internal conference with their council and their senior

[6:57] leadership team to talk about the terminology and the naming of their program.

[7:01] And again, the community benefits charges was their key piece of confusion.

[7:07] And this is where they really moved for that shift toward the social value outcome language.

[7:15] I can tell you myself even working on this within our organization that I have received

[7:20] emails internally asking about the community benefits charge work when that's not what

[7:25] we're working on. So it's really come up in conversation, right? And you'll see that

[7:30] in the jurisdictional scan. So, conversationally based, although there are some very specific

[7:36] instances as well with myself of seeing that confusion and conflation in that language,

[7:42] but absolutely community benefits. That term without the charges piece, as we know, that

[7:48] back decades. And I do think I understand the merit of that terminology and what that means for

[7:55] a community. But in light of these changes and the challenges that we're seeing across Canada

[8:01] and how others are responding to it, that's what informed.

[8:06] Thank you. So I'm hearing that the confusion is really condensed internally and maybe one day

[8:13] if the P-A-L terminology changes in the future that confusion can also be relieved that way.

[8:20] Another question I could just a very quick confirmation because you mentioned that

[8:24] municipalities are thinking about potentially changing the names of some of their B-A,

[8:28] the C-B-A offices. To your knowledge at this time, none have changed their community benefits

[8:34] agreement offices names. Through the chair, yes, that's correct. So there's no, you won't see any

[8:39] formal changes at this point. Again, it was through those interviews and conversations

[8:44] that I know that that's in conversation. Yeah, absolutely.

[8:50] And through you, Chair, when I was looking at the jurisdictional scan, excellent work on

[8:54] how much information you were able to flush out. This is a point of correlation, not causation,

[9:00] of course, but there's a pattern between some of the municipalities that did engage with

[9:04] external consultation in which the consultation and the process was two years or longer, because

[9:09] noted that there were some that were less than two years. So there's a strong correlation

[9:13] just seemingly that if they engaged in external consultation, the process took longer.

[9:18] Through your conversations, through you, Chair, did you find any reason for why that correlation

[9:23] may have existed other than it just is a coincidence?

[9:28] Through you, Chair. So, I mean, I can only

[9:31] speculate on this. I can't share definitively why that might be the case. But for the most part,

[9:38] the municipalities that did engage consultants to consult on their work, they tended to be more

[9:46] internal buy-in for this work. That being said, there was sometimes more time allotted to development

[9:55] because there were big goals that were being set. There were commitments being made internally

[10:02] to advance this work. And as many of us know, when we want to do something right and do something

[10:08] well, it often takes more time, maybe sometimes than we would like.

[10:14] So those municipalities that did involve consultants, I would say there was a high level

[10:19] of internal buy-in in those organizations, and you know, as a result, more time to develop

[10:26] those and to really kind of flush out those programs.

[10:29] Again, that's what I gathered from those conversations and how I would speculate that correlation.

[10:35] Excellent.

[10:36] Through you, Chair, do I have a time for a couple more questions?

[10:40] Through you, Chair, to Director of Procurement.

[10:43] On one of the slides in the presentation, it was noted about some additional departments

[10:47] at the city being part of the Social Procurement Pilot Program, such as Healthy and Safe Communities

[10:53] and Corporate Services.

[10:55] Is this an exhaustive list or was there consideration or is there any consideration for any additional

[11:01] elements?

[11:01] I'm thinking about in the report there's a notation about the city of Edmonton, the city of Regina, who also engaged in indigenous procurement framework, so I think they worked with additional departments, so just wondering about your thoughts if those two departments are the exhaustive list.

[11:18] Through the chair, no, it's not exhaustive at all. If anything, it just briefly touches the two departments. Certainly we have to work hand in hand quite a bit with public works department.

[11:31] because when we issue the tenders, we're going to be looking to their project managers and their directors

[11:38] to engage which connector organizations would fit best with each pilot being imposed.

[11:47] So when we did this in 2018-2019, it was a corporate wide effort.

[11:54] We had hand-in-hand, we work hand-in-hand with the Healthy and Safe Communities, but certainly

[12:01] public works for the most part, corporate services, we work with them quite intensely as

[12:06] well.

[12:07] Through you, Chair, that's wonderful to hear.

[12:09] Obviously, that kind of collaboration is fantastic, so thank you for taking the opportunity

[12:13] to clarify that.

[12:15] And my last question is, I was just really struck, as mentioned in the, okay, no actually

[12:24] maybe I'll leave this question for discussion during the report because I just wanted to

[12:27] comment about something from the historical background.

[12:30] Oh no, sorry, it is connected to the timeline.

[12:32] No, I'll ask it now.

[12:34] Thank you.

[12:34] Go for it.

[12:34] Yeah, thank you.

[12:37] So, in noted in the report, under historical background, talked about some of the issues during

[12:43] the 2018-2019 pilot in particular about lacking the necessary staff resources and capacity,

[12:50] which led to issues including some of the projects not being able to be monitored for social

[12:55] value outcomes.

[12:57] In the timeline that was presented, you're thinking about resourcing and how to resource

[13:02] this pilot moving forward in the next quarters.

[13:06] Any additional information you could provide about ways in which that could be resourced to

[13:11] prevent those issues from that pilot in 2018-2019.

[13:15] Through the chair, this time around, we have the position

[13:20] that is not dedicated to social value procurement, but a good chunk of their

[13:25] work plan will be. When we did the pilots in 2018-2019, we

[13:30] had hired an external consultant to assist us, but pretty much all the work

[13:36] was borne by the procurement specialists in order to

[13:39] to work with the consultant, work with the client departments,

[13:42] do some of the outreach issue of the procurements.

[13:47] Unfortunately, by the time we had issued a few pilots,

[13:50] we didn't have the opportunity to go back

[13:53] and do any benchmarking to see if anything was successful,

[13:56] because at that time we were directed to stand down.

[14:00] So that's where we left it at, hopefully with this,

[14:04] with the implementation of the development

[14:06] and the implementation at least,

[14:08] I'm looking for the special projects SPM to assist with that, and then it'll get handed

[14:13] over to the Perman Specialist, but at that time we'll have to reflect as well to see if

[14:19] it's sustainable in that respect, or if we need to ask for additional activities as well.

[14:25] Just a monitor and continue it on.

[14:27] Thank you.

[14:28] Thank you, Chair.

[14:31] Very welcome.

[14:31] Member Andrews.

[14:32] Thank you.

[14:33] So, in the presentation, I just want to ask a couple of quick questions.

[14:38] excellent work on the jurisdictional scan and the reaching out of the municipalities.

[14:42] Thank you again as always for your incredibly hard work on a very comprehensive look at

[14:48] other municipalities and their jurisdictions. So I wanted to ask one of the things that you

[14:53] mentioned during your presentation was specifically around an internal staff and culture.

[15:00] So I'm wondering if that might be one of the ways to overcome some of the challenges with the provincial

[15:07] government's renaming of community benefit charges. The other question I have is in the presentation

[15:14] and the jurisdictional scan that you did perform. I didn't see a lot of mention of the federal

[15:19] community employment benefits program, which a lot of municipalities have accessed outside of

[15:25] even their own social procurement or social value or community benefits

[15:30] divisions, and it is a although non-mandatory. In our talks with the federal

[15:36] government as community benefit networks, it looks like the federal government

[15:40] will be moving more towards adding those community employment benefits to both

[15:44] their new housing funds as well as their public transportation funds. So I'm just

[15:50] wondering was it just a timing issue or how in the jurisdictional scan we did not get in

[15:57] this report, the community employment benefits, because there's a substantial number of those

[16:03] awarded under that federal program.

[16:19] Thank you.

[16:20] Angie Burden, general manager of community services for you, Councillor, to Carl.

[16:25] One of the significant changes that has been happening with Ontario Works is the

[16:33] divesting of employment contracts. So the landscape in which we find ourselves

[16:38] today is very different than six years ago, seven years ago, and there in fact are

[16:44] other communities where Ontario Works still retains the employment contracts as

[16:50] Well, certainly we can be doing some education.

[16:55] We can be forming relationships and developing I guess the best way to talk about it would

[17:03] be hosting conversations to leverage those kinds of opportunities.

[17:07] We have much less leverage and ability to meet employment KPIs because that work does not

[17:19] fall under Ontario works in the same way that it used to, but certainly we can host conversations

[17:26] with the contract employees that are working on those deliverables. I wanted also to mention

[17:33] to an earlier question around the is it only corporate services and healthy and safe communities.

[17:41] Part of what we wanted to model with GM Zagaric and I is the recognition that well,

[17:46] social value procurement may rest within procurement and corporate services.

[17:53] Really, it does need to be, to your point, the education of the corporation.

[17:59] And it needs to be embraced from cultures and values and expertise from the client group.

[18:04] So, Jim Zagaric and I are, if you will, co-chairing this work to provide some, I think reassurance

[18:14] that this is not going to run as a procurement project buried within a division,

[18:20] a single division within a department, but really, in fact, is a corporate-wide commitment.

[18:26] Thank you.

[18:29] Then my next step question through the chair is in the presentation.

[18:33] There's a mention, of course, about community and stakeholder engagement, and

[18:39] through the chair to you, GM, you've identified one of the challenges with the City of Hamilton,

[18:44] and then OWODSP and employment services being removed.

[18:48] I believe Toronto was slated to go through a similar process in quarter two of 2025.

[18:55] So they'll be dealing with some substantial challenges of their own in the way that they

[18:59] handle these types of situations, but I am aware that there are great many including members

[19:06] of the community benefits network, employment service agencies, not for profits in the city

[19:10] of Hamilton who do a lot of great employment service work funded both federally and

[19:14] provincially. So in terms of that stakeholder consultant and in terms of the next steps

[19:21] in terms of the social value outcome pilot that you're proposing through this presentation,

[19:27] I'm just curious where those organizations would fit into that stakeholder. I heard a lot about

[19:32] internal stakeholders, city stakeholders, but I didn't hear a lot about community and outside

[19:36] stakeholders and engagements. So I wanted to see because it's sort of mentioned in the presentation

[19:42] around this engagement, if you could flesh that out a little bit for me. And another thing from

[19:47] the presentation that you briefly mention, and then it's mentioned in your excellent jurisdictional

[19:53] scan is the guiding principles that are developed by various municipalities for the how they're going

[19:59] to undertake this social value procurement. You mentioned it alluded to it a little bit in your

[20:04] presentation, but I'm just wondering, again, on that stakeholder piece on how you plan

[20:09] to frame that, those questions and how to get the best terms of what the made in Hamilton

[20:15] solution is, as it were. Thank you.

[20:20] So, through the chair for your first question, Carl.

[20:25] I think it's in our best interest to go back to see what we did in 2018-2019 and what we

[20:31] did well.

[20:32] and with respect to the external engagement it will be basically once we hire

[20:40] the consultant and figure out what the scope of work will be for the

[20:43] consultant. Perhaps at that time it's putting out some communications to the

[20:49] community to all the communities and stakeholders within Hamilton to open the

[20:55] door again for social procurement and to see how they would like to be engaged

[20:59] and when they would like to be engaged and I think it's a two-way conversation.

[21:04] I really can't put my finger on this time how we go about that but I know it's got to

[21:09] be that two-way conversation between the external community and the city of Hamilton and

[21:16] then we'll need to bring in the vendors as well.

[21:19] So what we learned from the first pilots we did, we couldn't do enough community engagement

[21:25] and conversation, so we're going to revisit that, look to see what we did well and capitalize

[21:31] on that, and look to the consultant to see if they have any other suggestions as well.

[21:37] And we're certainly open to the Hamilton Community Benefits to offer suggestions as well.

[21:42] Thank you.

[21:44] And last question for you, Chair, during the presentation on social procurements on your

[21:55] frame with the city led and externally led mechanisms and embedments based on your best practices

[22:03] from other cities. I am curious on where there are other areas where this different it seemed

[22:14] especially in your beautiful report on jurisdictional scans that the most successful ones of the

[22:22] these social procurement pilots especially,

[22:25] tended to have internal staff champions

[22:27] and internal staff supports,

[22:30] even if it wasn't necessarily resourced,

[22:32] some were just spread across city divisions,

[22:37] some were just staff generated,

[22:39] some were council directed for the policy creation.

[22:44] So I'm just curious on that social procurement piece

[22:47] on exactly what you think that the adequate resources are available to undertake small

[22:55] scales, social procurement pilots, as you've mentioned in the presentation, is the

[23:01] higher the resources there, and is there adequate staff championships in your opinions set

[23:09] up based on the knowledge that you've learned through this presentation from other communities.

[23:14] So

[23:17] perhaps I'll start and then turn it to Tina.

[23:21] One of the things that we did with the recommendations is look at what would be feasible

[23:27] within the resourcing and the structure currently of the city.

[23:34] And we do require consultant for the pieces that Tina had previously mentioned.

[23:40] And we believe that there would be champions across the organization, depending on who

[23:46] the appropriate client group would be for the particular social procurement that we

[23:52] were looking at.

[23:54] And I think the first part of the question was around the resourcing, but that's been

[24:01] factored into the recommendations that are there.

[24:04] It's different than having a dedicated staff team that is committed to the work ongoing.

[24:10] It would be one time resourcing to bring to come in to really start these pilots.

[24:16] And then I believe in Q3 come back or Q4 of next year come back to provide longer-term

[24:24] recommendations based on what has been learned.

[24:27] I'll turn it over to Tina if she wants to add anything.

[24:31] Through the chair. No, I'm good.

[24:36] So through the chair, so that's the timing chart that we're looking at here with VQ on

[24:41] pilot resource and planning, Q2 stakeholder engagement, Q3 pilot implementation, and Q4 report

[24:48] back in 2025. That's correct. Thank you. That's all the questions

[24:53] I have on the presentation.

[24:58] Thanks very much. And now we're to Councillor

[25:02] Thank you for the presentation and the report.

[25:07] Can I just begin with, could you offer me a definition of Social Value Procurement,

[25:17] please?

[25:24] Yes, through the chair.

[25:25] So, Social Value Procurement could be defined as leveraging existing spending on goods

[25:31] and services across the corporation to deliver additional social value outcomes that go above

[25:38] and beyond the primary project deliverable.

[25:45] Okay, thanks.

[25:51] If I could just drill into this social value, social as opposed to say community prosperity.

[26:01] Can you just help me out on the framing of social and why you think arguably at this

[26:09] time in our political history, there would be value in having the word value or social

[26:21] through the chair.

[26:23] Yeah, thank you for that question.

[26:25] That's something that came up a lot in conversation through the jurisdictional scan in interviews

[26:30] with other municipalities.

[26:32] And there was conversation about why the word social because all of us have many definitions

[26:39] of social in our minds and how we connect it, especially in the government realm to the

[26:45] work that we do.

[26:46] The kind of overarching approach that you'll see across Canada is social, it is really

[26:54] being defined as for the people.

[26:57] So it's, again, another almost synonymous to the concept of community, which is also a term

[27:04] that works here, but because social value and social value outcome have been used by

[27:12] other municipalities across Canada in the last five years and are gaining traction, both

[27:19] within municipal programs and policies and in the accompanying literature that we see

[27:24] around this body of work, that term has really taken hold, and it's come to mean social

[27:32] in terms of society and our community, so that's really the use of that language and what it's

[27:40] referring to. I think the important piece to keep in mind here is that from this jurisdictional

[27:47] scan conversations led me to understand that there's a lot of buy-in from the industry, so people,

[27:57] You know, bids and tenders, large corporations, construction companies, et cetera, this language is starting to become ingrained in their work because it's being used across our country.

[28:08] So for that reason, that's the why social and social value has been proposed here.

[28:14] So it does require a bit of an expansion of maybe our definitions of social as we use them in other contexts, but it is meant to be a more broad and overarching term.

[28:24] I see. Was there any work done on the municipalities you surveyed on, whether they're communities,

[28:37] the public understand that term at all, through the chair?

[28:44] Through the chair. So in terms of the understanding of social value, I will share. I did not directly

[28:52] ask that question. However, from conversation, we did discuss definitions and terms and

[28:59] what worked or didn't work. And by and large, what I, as previously mentioned, what I've

[29:05] heard is that community benefits is the term that is being confused because of the CBCs and

[29:11] the CBAs. As a result, using this social value terminology has in some instances replaced

[29:19] based that. And from what I gather from my conversations, they've seen success with

[29:23] this terminology. It, you know, as mentioned, is becoming kind of this industry standard.

[29:30] They're in terms of industry has not been confusion. I think that's where they've seen

[29:35] success. I did have a couple conversations where, again, internally with senior leadership

[29:41] teams or with counsel that there was some question or confusion around using that social language

[29:48] and that took some conversation and some information sharing to move through and move past.

[29:55] Thank you.

[30:00] You could, could staff just clarify for me through the chair, whether this municipality ever formally adopted a section 37. What was then CBCs?

[30:23] I think I'm sorry to say, but planning economic development staff, specifically planning staff aren't in the room, though director Shleyhahn is here. Shleyhahn is here, sorry, and to probably attempt to answer that question. Thank you. Thank you.

[30:38] I need to hear from my apologies. Can you repeat the question?

[30:41] Yeah, I'm just, I'm curious about the report that there's confusion within the organization

[30:49] about the terminology of community benefits because I was, I thought maybe mistakenly

[30:55] under the impression that the city of Hamilton never used community benefits and or it was only

[31:03] going to be applicable within the downtown secondary plan, but I could be wrong about that

[31:08] if you could clarify.

[31:10] And through back to the Councilor, my apologies. I will have to get back to you on that.

[31:14] I don't have the answer to that question, but I can make it clear.

[31:17] Yeah, I'm just trying to understand the source of the bureaucratic confusion, because I didn't

[31:24] think we used it. Okay, just thank you. My last question, just so I understand

[31:28] And on a number of really good questions and comments on the benchmarks, if did I hear

[31:36] correctly that the survey municipalities don't have an active record on the deliverables

[31:47] achieved thus far in their social value procurement through

[31:56] the chair.

[31:56] So there are more than 50% of the municipalities that we spoke with.

[32:04] This is relatively new work, so work that's been occurring in the last maybe five years.

[32:10] These municipalities are, many of them in the process of measuring their outputs and their outcomes.

[32:16] So some of them do have some kind of high level learnings that they can share in some high level benchmarks that they can provide back.

[32:25] There are a couple municipalities that have been doing this for quite some time, and

[32:29] they do have more data to share back on what they've achieved.

[32:34] Something that I would like to note here is that depending on the lifespan of a project

[32:42] and how long it takes to bring it to fruition, we are looking at large infrastructure projects

[32:47] that have community benefits agreements attached, them taking 30 plus years.

[32:51] So sometimes the monitoring and tracking through the lifespan of the project is a really big undertaking.

[32:57] And there have been touch points of sharing back on those projects from these large municipalities.

[33:04] But as noted, that is an area where there is more work to be done and has been noted as a challenge in that kind of gathering and evaluating of the benchmarks.

[33:16] Okay,

[33:20] so thank you so that I understand that then, so if a municipality put that it was

[33:26] hoping to ensure that 10% of all tendered work went to companies that employed X number

[33:35] of Indigenous persons, for example, or went to Indigenous owned companies, are you suggesting

[33:45] or did you find that they're not able to report on the immediate attainment of that through the

[33:52] course of their work? Just I'm trying to understand the deliverable part. Thank you.

[33:58] Through the chair, thank you for the clarification on that and I'll provide clarification as well.

[34:04] Yes, so and it really depends on how the municipality chose to structure their program and there are a

[34:10] handful of them that have hard targets.

[34:12] So by hard targets, I'm referring to what you've mentioned

[34:15] about saying 10% of below threshold procurement

[34:21] must go to X individuals or X group.

[34:25] In those instances where municipality has set

[34:27] those hard targets, they have been able to provide data

[34:30] back on that and it depends on the targets that they've set.

[34:35] So we are seeing that some set targets

[34:37] that were challenging to meet

[34:39] and they maybe came in below what they had hoped to do.

[34:42] We do see some municipalities, and there are examples of them, who have exceeded the

[34:47] targets that they set.

[34:48] So it really comes down to how they've structured the program whether hard targets have been

[34:53] part of it or not, and that is actually a conversation that was had with municipalities and is captured

[34:59] in appendix A to the staff report surrounding hard targets versus soft targets and how that's

[35:05] been structured.

[35:05] But yes, to your point, they are able to report back if they've set those hard targets.

[35:10] There is usually yearly, yearly monitoring.

[35:15] Thank you.

[35:16] For that, I will reserve, I think I have a question or two on the report.

[35:21] Thank you.

[35:25] Thanks very much, Councillor Wilson.

[35:27] Just really briefly wanted to just offer, if I could, brief response to your question about

[35:31] the cognitive distance and time inside the bureaucracy, as the chair of this committee, having had a

[35:36] a chance to speak to some folks.

[35:37] There was just a general confusion around a,

[35:39] Section 37, the Planning Act,

[35:41] and those kinds of really specific

[35:43] kind of community benefits there.

[35:45] The words community plus the word benefits,

[35:48] generally speaking, what that looks like,

[35:49] we talked about this openly about things

[35:51] at a grocery store, and there was a report in 2022

[35:53] in June that talked about community benefits charges,

[35:57] community benefits charge strategy.

[36:00] That report, if you look at that,

[36:02] I think also made it extra confusing

[36:03] because it went from a Section 37 of the planning act to a different thing about

[36:08] CBCs and that's just made things even more confusing for people so that's

[36:11] what I kept hearing from people when I talked to them inside the organization

[36:13] if that's helpful. Yeah if I if I may my question thank you for that is I don't

[36:18] know if we've ever exercised it so thank you so thank you so thank you so much

[36:23] for clarifying so I guess we can that's not a standing item and maybe director

[36:26] Shleyhahn can find out if we've ever exercised Section 37 of the planning act and

[36:29] when we find out that we can send to the members of the committee offline.

[36:33] On that, the end of the speaker's list for the presentation unless there's any speakers

[36:37] of the report.

[36:38] Oh, sorry, pardon me.

[36:38] Councillor Chattison.

[36:41] I just couldn't buzz in on my microphone here.

[36:44] You can wave to me anytime I see you, and I will recognize you.

[36:48] So just in general to the presentation.

[36:52] So I'm sitting here in the Community Benefits Protocol subcommittee and yet I'm hearing

[36:58] all about terminology that talks about social value, and so forth. Would it be wise in

[37:07] order to de-confuse the situation, maybe rename this committee, or is it committee going

[37:12] to fall under, like, are we going to, later on, go into bigger areas of community benefits?

[37:19] Just throwing that out there right now for that.

[37:21] Great exercise of foreshadowing, Councillor Tattas and we're going to attempt to approach

[37:25] that subject in the reports on the floor by talking about what we might do to support

[37:29] the committees that were going forward and that may at some time be an opportunity to change

[37:33] the committee's name, though that's not on the table for today. You raised an important point

[37:38] of foreshadowing that's coming in the moment ahead.

[37:42] And I respect that answer, Chair, but could I hear from staff?

[37:45] You can. Chair from them, Chair, go for it.

[37:50] Thank you. Through you, Chair, to the Councillors. So we would

[37:54] see clarity on the direction, the future direction of the committee, and then it would be staff's recommendation that the naming, the nomenclature matches.

[38:07] So that if there is a broader piece, then perhaps the committee is broader if it is more focused than the name of the committee reflects the work that's happening.

[38:20] We would, we would be an agreement that we would want to simplify and not have confusion happening with reports and a different nomenclature at the committee naming level, so if that's helpful.

[38:35] And then just in seeing the steps that are recommended, basically it says along the lines of social procurement pilot project, I think that's kind of what you're looking at here.

[38:50] The

[38:54] recommendations say for us that we're going to use a consultant to identify that, those pilot projects.

[39:02] If I'm correct, I think that's what you said or it's recommended in the readings that I did.

[39:07] Is there not the ability right now for us to do that internally with the knowledge gained from the jurisdictional scan to identify projects internally as opposed to having to go to a consultant to identify.

[39:23] within? Does that not, does that not, does the capability not exist within at this point?

[39:32] Through the chair. This couple of work for the consultancy much more than that. So it will be helping

[39:38] us with the training materials, with formalizing any of our processes and our policies,

[39:47] defining what we could use in our procurement documents with respect to social value,

[39:53] evaluation criteria and so on and so forth.

[39:56] So it's not really just forming framework,

[39:59] but it's much more than that.

[40:07] I can respect that answer.

[40:08] I understand that it is about the training and so forth,

[40:11] but again, I think doesn't that expertise lie

[40:16] within our staff or is that beyond the capabilities

[40:20] of staff to, and I know that there was some request

[40:24] us to add additional FTE and so forth.

[40:29] Just in a cost analysis, is it better to hire internally or is it better to use an external

[40:37] consultant if we're going to keep going back at this and it's going to be a long process

[40:43] to educate such, like, a jurisdiction as big as ours?

[40:50] Just a small point of order through the chair before we continue.

[40:54] you? You can have a point of order of any size. Go ahead. I just thought that maybe we should

[41:01] vote on accepting the presentation and move to the report on the floor before we have these broader

[41:07] discussions. It seems like we're kind of drifting into report questions. I mean, we've been

[41:12] drifting the report questions for some time, but it seems like everyone wanted to do that so I

[41:17] just let it go. So this is the council has to finish and then we can sort of close the bracket here

[41:22] I'll put it around my last question, I promise you.

[41:27] Thank you, through you, Chair, to the Councillors.

[41:29] So we are working to respond to the mandate of the committee and the community needs amongst

[41:37] the workload that our staff find themselves in.

[41:41] So what you have before you is, I think it's a combination of there being specialized expertise

[41:47] that we think would be helpful and beneficial to the city.

[41:51] It is also a capacity piece, and when I think in particular of our director of procurement,

[41:57] who could likely do this work, the other alternative is for us to come back and say we could

[42:04] do this work internally, and then these particular projects would need to stop.

[42:11] We have had that discussion, and the recommendation of staff is that we believe that the alternative

[42:17] work that we would stop are things that would be the same or higher priority and be very

[42:25] challenging to put forward as a remedy in light of all the other work that is on the

[42:33] work plan and quite urgent as well. Thank you. Thank you for that full

[42:39] sum answer and I would just like to throw this out there that I did hear that there is no

[42:45] one way to do the work. It's just about starting the work and doing that work in order to learn from the

[42:51] doing. So like I said, I would rather always contain that within and keep that, what would I say,

[42:59] keep that capacity and develop that capacity here inside the city as opposed to just kind of relying on

[43:07] other people because I know when people are invested in something to complete it, they learn it better and

[43:12] and they adapt it better as opposed to just hearing it from an outside source.

[43:17] No more.

[43:20] Next, Councillor Tatticent.

[43:21] On that note, I need a move for the seconder to receive the presentation.

[43:24] Councillor Huayne was so fast and then Vice Chair Andress, all those in favour of receiving

[43:29] the presentation, if you could so raise your hand, that's everybody.

[43:33] The presentation has so been received and now we're on to the report and so I need someone

[43:38] to move the report and someone's second to the report so you can put it on the floor,

[43:41] moved by Councillor Tattisons, second member, Nicholas Kaya, and so now I'll entertain

[43:46] if there's any questions on the report. As a road map ahead for how we're going to try

[43:49] and do this in a timely manner, just everyone knows. I promise everyone that today's

[43:54] me wouldn't last three hours. So, we're going to try and deal with a couple of things here.

[44:01] So we're going to try and add a new recommendation, G, and that's been prepared and chaired in

[44:05] advance. We're going to try and then take some of these things and move them over to the

[44:10] procurement subcommittee because they're very procurement specific. And then we're going

[44:13] to try and address the larger elephant in the room which is how does this committee

[44:17] carry on doing this work without the resources at hand to do it and people have been

[44:22] helpful in trying to craft some language. We're not going to be able to display all the

[44:25] language on the screen right now because we have a bit of trouble getting in touch with some

[44:28] key people at the city but exactly what that process will look like in terms of the wording

[44:31] but trust that everyone here will get the right wording in time for our next approval phase

[44:35] as we go through the subcommittee committee council process. On that note, I'm just keeping

[44:40] that online. Anyone who has comments or questions on the report itself that want to bring those

[44:44] up now, go for it. I look for hands. All right. Member Nicholskaya, carry on.

[44:51] Through you, Chair, to whomever can answer this best, just some questions in the report.

[44:56] it talks up

[45:00] External consultant, as you can understand from some of the questions I've already alluded to, I have some curiosity is about whether that is the most effective recommendation. There are two things presented that recommendation and an alternative considerations, which includes two to three FTEs and an acknowledgement that that is probably a later stage recommendation. There's like a gap in between that, those two sort of binaries. So, were there other considerations discussions about instead of an external

[45:30] consulted, there be an FTE with this kind of experience, be used on a one-year basis

[45:35] and, you know, with possibility of extensions like, I don't know how that works at the

[45:40] City of Hamilton.

[45:40] So perhaps that question is as of ignorance, but I am just curious why that was the foremost

[45:46] recommendation presented and if there are other options that another subcommittee and another

[45:50] committee can consider in the future.

[45:55] Thank you, through you, Chair.

[45:58] We have, we're invested in making sure that whatever work we take on, we have the resources

[46:06] then to do the work well and successfully.

[46:10] So if the committee for example was looking solely at the development of a framework and

[46:18] it was decided that we talked about multiple ways of doing things.

[46:22] So the staff's recommendation is to do the social value procurement pilots, use that to

[46:30] inform the development of a framework, and also then move to an implementation phase

[46:35] when resourcing would be more quantifiable at that point in Q5 of next year.

[46:41] That is one path forward.

[46:43] Another path forward would be to do the team in terms of that dedicated team with the multiple

[46:51] FTEs that has more of a lens on implementation and a broader scope within the city in terms

[46:58] of impacting different divisions, client groups, and furthering the culture of the work.

[47:05] There could be another option where if the subcommittee said, what can we do with one FTE?

[47:12] In my mind, and I'll look to my colleagues on the bench here, it would be then possible

[47:17] to take that resource and develop a framework, it would be theoretical, informed by engagement,

[47:26] but would not lend itself then to implementation.

[47:30] I think we'll be very careful that we're scoping the work so that it's successful.

[47:34] That would be another way forward, so that individual resource could be hired on boarded.

[47:41] If it's a temporary resource, then it is a temporary contract.

[47:45] we may end up in the same space about not having permanent funding for that individual beyond what's

[47:52] approved in a one-time budget, but we could definitely look at that kind of a scope for a

[48:00] single FTE resource within the city. Carrie, I believe that's something to add.

[48:06] Thank you for the question and through the chair. Yes, we did have that robust conversation about

[48:12] different scenarios and one of the overriding factors in the recommendation or the recommendation

[48:18] that we landed on was speed. How quickly or what would be the most expedient path and it was clear

[48:29] that the hiring of an external consultant would be quicker than any recruitment process either on

[48:37] temporary or a full-time basis.

[48:43] Okay, I'm not saying, oh pardon me, a member by a certain interest?

[48:46] Yeah, I'd like to move an amendment to the recommendation at this time.

[48:52] Sure, let's see if we have any other question speakers before we get to any amendments and other kinds of things.

[48:56] Well, then we can get to you, certainly.

[48:58] Just want to make sure I have a gander here in my little chat window, which tells me who's next.

[49:03] I do see Councillor Wilson as a question.

[49:05] If you don't mind, I'll let her ask her questions first, and then we'll get to amendments and other kinds of things.

[49:08] Councillor Wilson.

[49:09] Thank you.

[49:15] I'm still a little needing some assistance on understanding the recommendations

[49:25] and the role of this committee, the role of the FTE and the role of staff. So if I could

[49:35] just by if I'm looking at recommendation C, which is to form a cross departmental committee

[49:46] for the purpose of training on outcomes. I'm going to conclude that that would be a very last

[49:57] deliverable or exercise taken because it's this committee and or would have to sign off

[50:07] on the actual deliverable so whether it be identified as local employment, securement

[50:16] or whether it be a profile of the equity deserving community that would be included in a procurement.

[50:31] I'm just trying to understand the ordering of this work if my question is that any way intelligible.

[50:39] Through

[50:44] the chair, I think the information and the training aspect for corporate staff is

[50:53] going to be staged.

[50:55] I think at the very beginning, we need to have that introductory introduction to the staff

[51:02] of what social value procurement is.

[51:06] And then once the consultant is on board, then we'll be able to develop goals and objectives

[51:12] for the program. We'll have a draft policy. We'll be drafting user guides and templates and

[51:18] tools. And then once we have those, then again we need to go back out to staff and do some more

[51:25] change management and to show staff why we need to implement social value procurement and how to do

[51:32] it. And so you're right. Recommendation C kind of is fairly high up in the order of recommendations.

[51:41] I don't think they're necessarily in chronological order, but the training is going to be extensive.

[51:49] It's just not a one-time venture, if you will, just because that the change management and

[51:55] the understanding of social value procurement is not easy.

[51:59] It's taken me here to figure it out, and I'm not even sure I figured out it out yet, so I'm

[52:05] still learning.

[52:07] No, thank you for that. I appreciate your grace Tina, but I do think it's we've spent

[52:17] a lot of time this afternoon on definitions and understanding deliverables and we've also

[52:26] talked about the capacity of staff who have their plates full doing good, full work and I'm just

[52:33] mindful of engaging in staff unless and until maybe it's just a reflection of the way I learn,

[52:41] it's always easier to change culture, change courses when we have maybe some

[52:49] clearer specifics and deliverables to be offered because we can kind of put the theory

[52:56] and wrap it around something more specific. So I was just a little confused on the ordering

[53:02] perhaps it's not chronological, and it's deliverable, but it just appears that way, so that's just a notation I have.

[53:11] And if I may, Chair, I certainly understand the argument about the term social value and what I've heard from the very exhaustive and excellent survey of other municipalities.

[53:28] is it is now a term that provides a clear sort of demarcation between that which is afforded to municipalities in the planning act, even though I don't believe I've ever used that.

[53:43] And it is the organizations, whether it be the local trade unions or otherwise who seem to understand it.

[53:52] But my point of contention is that I believe as an organization, we have to start using

[53:59] terms which the public understands.

[54:03] And right now, if there was political advantage to itemizing anything as a social value, I

[54:10] haven't seen it.

[54:11] Otherwise, we wouldn't have the health care crisis and the housing crisis that we do.

[54:14] So I would prefer some massaging of that term, although I respect the fact that it would leave Hamilton perhaps as an outlier, but I don't think it doesn't say anything to the public.

[54:29] I would prefer something like community prosperity, and that enables us to actually own the term and define that prosperity is actually more than a singular deliverable.

[54:41] that I'll leave my comment, that it's just one of our words. Thank you.

[54:51] Thanks, Councillor Wilson. So, seeing no further speakers on the report itself, we'll

[54:57] go to the amendments. I've got some kind of amendment also after

[55:01] Carl, and so I'll pass the chair of Carl on to that, but for now, Carl, your amendment.

[55:05] Okay, so I would like to propose an amendment to the staff report by adding a clause G that

[55:13] recommendations B through FB referred to the City of Hamilton's procurement subcommittee with the direction that the social procurement pilot prioritized indigenous diverse owned and equity serving businesses and social enterprises, and the goods and service specials for that pilot not exceed $200,000.

[55:30] I'd also like to recommend an amendment to be,

[55:39] and then by removing the phrase,

[55:44] develop a social value framework and replace it with exploring social

[55:49] procurement policies.

[55:54] Okay, thank you so much. So a couple things that are

[55:56] procedurally fun about this. Number one is, I think that a councillor has to move the

[56:01] actual amendment itself. I recall that correctly. No, that's not what's happening. No,

[56:04] Okay, sorry, but through the chair.

[56:08] So we don't need to add a subsection for a referral.

[56:13] Okay, that can just be done,

[56:16] but it has to be done by someone who hasn't spoken

[56:17] to the matter, and I believe you had questions

[56:21] on the report, so you've already spoken.

[56:24] I haven't spoken on the report.

[56:25] No, on the report, okay, so you could move a referral.

[56:31] But we first need to deal with the amendment first.

[56:34] So we could deal with the amendment.

[56:37] And then if there's no further amendments,

[56:38] you could then refer it.

[56:46] Yeah, I was doing some

[56:47] I could put it up on the screen if that's.

[56:49] It's okay. We're going to put this on the screen.

[56:51] So we're just going to do this in a slightly different order.

[56:53] Nothing exciting has really happened.

[56:54] Yeah, mostly it's boring, but it's tuning in.

[56:57] So what we're going to do is we're going to do things

[57:01] in a bit of a different order.

[57:02] And so we're going to put this information up on the screen.

[57:05] So everybody can see it including those following along at home.

[57:07] Oh,

[57:13] such a thing.

[57:16] One moment of a VLA would like to just interject away.

[57:20] Just point of information.

[57:24] If the vice chair is attempting both a referral and an amendment

[57:29] is providing the amendment technically speaking on the matter?

[57:34] No? Okay.

[57:36] If it was, I would have then moved said amendment.

[57:39] I appreciate everyone's love and kindness, and also,

[57:40] So there's no such thing as a point of information,

[57:42] but it's okay.

[57:43] I know strangely the rules of order

[57:45] don't allow such a real thing,

[57:46] but it's okay.

[57:47] I'm happy for people to interject.

[57:48] What we're doing here is we're stitching together

[57:52] wonderful tapestry to guess through the report.

[57:55] And so all hands are appreciated in that work.

[57:58] Inverse and parallel metrics.

[58:05] So through the chair,

[58:06] how you wanted to strike from B.

[58:11] Developing social value framework

[58:13] and replacing it with exploring social procurement policies.

[58:22] And just again, for some context for those following along,

[58:26] this will be resolved by my amendment,

[58:28] the striking of this.

[58:29] So if people are worried about that, don't worry.

[58:31] We'll be going down the road

[58:32] of actually fulfilling this committee's mandate momentarily.

[58:36] But Carl is doing some...

[58:37] Yeah.

[58:38] A mandate.

[58:39] And that G, with the direction

[58:43] that the social procurement pilot prioritized

[58:45] Indigenous owned, a diversity owned in equity deserving, sorry, my laptop just has to go

[58:52] to sleep, equity deserving businesses and social enterprises and then the goods and services

[58:56] threshold for these pilots not exceed $200,000 as G and then procedurally we'll refer

[59:04] it. That's a different thing, sorry about that.

[59:17] Okay, so we're first going to deal with the amendment to be and if anybody has any questions

[59:22] or comments on the amendment to be?

[59:27] I will need a seconder for the amendment as well.

[59:29] I see Councillor White was first on the draw.

[59:33] Councillor Morin Wilson has a question. Go ahead,

[59:35] Councillor Morin Wilson. Thank you. Could I have the language on the screen, please?

[59:40] Sure thing, it's arriving momentarily.

[1:00:06] If I can just briefly summarize, what the plan is here is to move these things in the referral to the social procurement, the procurement things to the procurement subcommittee for their attention. My dear hand up, though, Councillor Mourinho Wilson, your question go ahead, our comment.

[1:00:28] Sorry, I'm just reading it live chair, so this is to report back to this committee and the procurement subcommittee.

[1:00:39] Can you please provide some clarity on the reporting direction?

[1:00:46] We're just dealing with B right now, which is just this amendment in front of you.

[1:00:49] I think, if I see the screen correctly, just the crossed out bit in B is what we're dealing

[1:00:52] with right now.

[1:00:54] We're just doing this in a different order than previously, then the G will be coming in

[1:00:57] a moment.

[1:00:58] And that G in, it'll be just be a referral, and there'll be instructions with the referral.

[1:01:07] Okay,

[1:01:11] so B is still reporting to the community benefits subcommittee on procurement policies.

[1:01:18] Is that what I'm understanding?

[1:01:21] That's your question.

[1:01:22] Thank you so much.

[1:01:23] So that's how it's written, yep.

[1:01:28] Well, I guess I'll have to wait to see G, but what is the role of the procurement subcommittee

[1:01:35] then what's the distinction to the mover?

[1:01:46] I just feel that the original work of the report that we received from the students at

[1:01:56] the research shop was on social procurement and specifically social procurement

[1:02:00] pilots themselves and that there's already a city committee that deals with procurement

[1:02:05] and that referring that work over to the procurement committee, maybe just be a better functional

[1:02:10] space for that social procurement pilot work.

[1:02:13] No, thank you.

[1:02:15] No, I agree with that, but I maybe I'm misreading this.

[1:02:18] Is the suggesting a report to this committee in the future?

[1:02:26] Yes.

[1:02:27] Okay, but I respectfully to the mover, I thought I just heard the discussion to be held within

[1:02:35] and to be deliberated at a different committee,

[1:02:41] so maybe I'm misunderstanding.

[1:02:44] So the original intention was for us

[1:02:47] just to get an information report back

[1:02:49] on those outcomes, not to debate or override AFNA

[1:02:56] or the subcommittee of procurements.

[1:02:59] I'm just gonna jump in here.

[1:03:00] So I think what's happening here is just a thing in B

[1:03:03] or B is just saying that this is gonna report back

[1:03:05] to the community benefits.

[1:03:08] Part of the concept committee, the part that, um, legislative coordinators highlighted, right?

[1:03:12] So the question being asked by Councillor Morin Wilson is, well, wouldn't it make sense for

[1:03:15] actually this information from B to actually report back to procurement since we're changing

[1:03:21] it to be about social procurement policies? Well, what Member Anderson is saying is that B,

[1:03:27] through F, will all be referred to procurement anyways. So over there when they get to procurement,

[1:03:31] procurement will then be able to do what it wants over, over up procurement before this to the next

[1:03:35] So I think what we're doing is trying to accomplish the same thing possibly in two different ways.

[1:03:40] We can either frontend that now by changing this to say procurement or we can just prefer this over

[1:03:45] to the procurement committee and they can deal with it. Councilor Morningwell, so are you proposing

[1:03:48] that we perhaps take this part and be and actually make it clear that we're trying to get it over

[1:03:52] the procurement subcommittee and change this part and be so it's clearer?

[1:03:57] I think, big thank you

[1:03:58] for the question, Chair. I think because I haven't been privy to the conversations,

[1:04:02] I'm thinking in terms of a longitudinal lens, I don't know what the role of this community

[1:04:11] benefits subcommittee will be if the suggestion then is that much of the deliberations on this

[1:04:19] will be done at a different table and so that's where I'm going with this.

[1:04:27] But I suggested earlier, and we haven't gotten there yet, is then when we refer all this,

[1:04:32] right?

[1:04:32] What we would do is say that the information would go to the procurement subcommittee

[1:04:35] with an information report to come here.

[1:04:36] So we would get the information here, and if we wanted to act on what we could, but the

[1:04:39] primary work would be done over there.

[1:04:41] So that will come when this is all referred, that kind of clause will be there, to ensure

[1:04:45] that we're kept in the loop about what's happening.

[1:04:47] But as the LC let me know, you can't actually have someone report to two places at once.

[1:04:52] So that's the challenge that we have here.

[1:04:54] you can't have a direct report of recommendations come.

[1:04:57] Well, we can be having made it aware by, for instance,

[1:04:59] when it's reported the procurement subcommittee,

[1:05:01] it's added here as an item of correspondence, which we can lift,

[1:05:03] and then we can address issues that are we wish to,

[1:05:05] so we're kept informed as to what's happening.

[1:05:07] That, for the time being, seems like the only way to do

[1:05:09] without trying to predict the future too much,

[1:05:11] because once the procurement subcommittee gets it,

[1:05:13] they'll be able to act on this as they see fit.

[1:05:16] Okay, thank you.

[1:05:18] I guess I'm just not appreciating what will be the future agenda.

[1:05:25] and purpose of this subcommittee.

[1:05:30] So I trust that will become apparent in good time.

[1:05:34] Thank you.

[1:05:35] Thank you.

[1:05:37] One second, sorry.

[1:05:38] Director Yakko wanted to jump in with something. Go ahead.

[1:05:40] And then we'll get back to the comments on the amendment.

[1:05:42] To the chair, can I make one recommendation, please?

[1:05:46] Or a request?

[1:05:46] Sure, please.

[1:05:47] Where it says exploring social procurement policies.

[1:05:50] Could we change it to exploring a social procurement policy?

[1:05:54] There could be multiple policies, but it's an overarching policy as opposed to, so just

[1:05:59] singular as opposed to, for a place.

[1:06:01] Thank you.

[1:06:02] That was lovely.

[1:06:02] Thank you for the intervention.

[1:06:03] Put a Y.

[1:06:05] Thank you.

[1:06:09] So on B, not seeing further comments, we have a mover, the Vice Chair, Andrews, the Secretary

[1:06:15] and Council are flying all those in favor of B.

[1:06:21] That's now there's going to be a motion

[1:06:24] to refer B through F.

[1:06:28] Yes.

[1:06:28] And we don't need to add G anymore, because we're just doing a motion to refer B and F with instructions, which was going to be G, but we don't need to have a G now to do so, according to the legislative coordinator.

[1:06:38] Yes.

[1:06:39] And so, then, we'll be, Carl, you want to speak to that.

[1:06:42] But before we do that, Councillor, I want to get a question and procedure that you wanted to ask about that one moment.

[1:06:47] I thought G included a whole tile of different organizational groups, Indigenous, blah, blah.

[1:06:57] in that language. We're going to put it in the motion.

[1:07:00] Oh, okay. All right. Yeah, because I just need your lady.

[1:07:03] For me, I thought it was G, including all of these different organizational groups.

[1:07:07] And then to refer was all of that, including G, which had the additional groups. Okay, thank

[1:07:12] you. Sorry.

[1:07:13] No, it's okay. We're going to be just referring B and F. And the instructions will include

[1:07:16] all of that information and instructions. So if you're going to see a legislative coordinator

[1:07:20] has asked us to do, so we can put that on the screen. Just people can see it. That'd be great.

[1:07:24] and then you've already read it once and so we'll just put it on the screen at this.

[1:07:28] Just put it on screen in the proper format for me.

[1:07:31] I'll see you a seconder for that.

[1:07:35] E through F.

[1:07:37] The seconder's Councillor Foyne again, who's put on the draw?

[1:07:43] While that's coming to the screen next on your dance card,

[1:07:45] we'll be addressing the very question you asked.

[1:07:48] Councillor Moran Wilson about what's going to be going on at this committee.

[1:08:06] Can you make that a little bigger for my eyes?

[1:08:09] is going to make it down here at the end of the table.

[1:08:13] Thank you.

[1:08:17] Perfect.

[1:08:35] We're going to just take a moment of reading at this time, and I will take any speakers

[1:08:39] to this once the reading is finished, and people can speak to the instructions, but not to

[1:08:47] whether or not we're going to refer it.

[1:08:49] I first saw on the speakers.

[1:08:50] Let's see.

[1:08:50] Councillor Mourning Wilson.

[1:08:57] Thank you, Chair.

[1:08:58] So the procurement subcommittee, if this direction is fulfilled, will receive this report

[1:09:10] and they will be requested to adopt and support a social procurement pilot policy

[1:09:30] and that that pilot be informed with this priority.

[1:09:37] and if that is all true, which I have said, along with a expenditure ceiling,

[1:09:49] could someone

[1:09:50] with a governance lens help me understand the capacity of a subcommittee to inform and

[1:10:04] and direct the work of another subcommittee.

[1:10:08] Thank you.

[1:10:14] I'll briefly just say that our recommendations

[1:10:16] are approved by the committee to which we report.

[1:10:20] And then once that approval has happened,

[1:10:21] so the body above us, right?

[1:10:23] Then that referral would take place ultimately

[1:10:25] to be ratified by council.

[1:10:27] So that process will go up and then it will go back down again.

[1:10:34] Okay.

[1:10:40] Before we move on,

[1:10:41] I know that staff wanted to comment on the referral.

[1:10:44] There's some language they want to address

[1:10:45] and so I'll go ahead. I mean, we have some further discussion about that time.

[1:10:50] Thank you, Chair. I would represent that the staff would appreciate if there would be some

[1:10:59] greater flexibility within the referral. We've just had some conversations that the threshold

[1:11:09] of 200,000 and the equity-deserving groups and Indigenous businesses is an important

[1:11:16] focus, however, could then exclude other opportunities, and would there be an openness amongst

[1:11:25] the committee to amend the first part to say some of or ensure that a portion of the projects

[1:11:34] contracts are with the parameters that Carl has mentioned just so that we don't restrict

[1:11:42] ourselves and find that we can't do this work or don't have a committee mandate to

[1:11:47] do the work beyond the smaller contracts with the groups that are mentioned.

[1:11:57] So by understanding correctly what's being proposed is if we could change the language so that

[1:12:02] it's a little bit less exclusive so that the larger network of social procurement is included

[1:12:09] without us being too narrow, but obviously still keeping those in there so we see where the

[1:12:12] priority lies. It's not my general understanding of what you're saying. Okay, so I'll look for the

[1:12:16] mover on that in terms of whether or not that be fine to change. It seems like a couple of

[1:12:20] a couple of words and a couple of prepositions to make that more more inclusive. It's my understanding.

[1:12:26] So, the original intent of that threshold was actually going back to the June 24th,

[1:12:32] Sandra Hamilton recommendation that sets some various outcomes and very clear procurement

[1:12:38] recommendations in her documents around equity deserving groups.

[1:12:42] And I'm very afraid that in a social procurement pilot, if we're not targeting the specific

[1:12:48] groups that we want to help, even if we fail at that, that that's a valuable lesson to

[1:12:53] learned as a corporation, whereas if the language is too broad, we may end up with just undefined

[1:13:01] social value outcome for the social procurement pilot. So I'm a little bit hesitant to do that.

[1:13:08] And then the thresholds themselves were just drawn specifically from the consulting report that

[1:13:12] you guys did back in 2018 and 2019 in terms of those both goods and services thresholds for pilots

[1:13:22] It's from that report specifically, and to allow for smaller businesses to access these by keeping the threshold low as pilots.

[1:13:35] So those were the specific thoughts.

[1:13:38] I know some of my other committee colleagues have some other thoughts as well, so I will.

[1:13:43] Yeah, let me just make sure I understood.

[1:13:45] I think I actually misunderstood and so my apologies.

[1:13:47] I want to make sure we're all talking about the same thing here.

[1:13:49] And then before I take anybody else on it, we let it want to speak.

[1:13:53] My understanding of what you just said was that you wanted us to broaden this out based on the groups that were listed.

[1:14:01] Is that right? General Manager Burton, did you say you were talking about Indigenous own, diverse own, inequities serving businesses?

[1:14:06] And that was the group that I thought you were trying to expand out.

[1:14:09] But here's the language that's already there. It just says prioritize. That's not exclusive language.

[1:14:13] So, you'll be proud, I don't think that's going to be exclusive if we're asking those things to be prioritized.

[1:14:20] And then there was a discussion about the dollar value.

[1:14:22] If I didn't hear that being raised here, I hear being raised here.

[1:14:25] So I'm just trying to make sure we're all following along here.

[1:14:27] So it seems like there's worry from staff about the word prioritized.

[1:14:32] Is that my understanding?

[1:14:35] Please clarify.

[1:14:36] I want to make sure we're having the right discussion.

[1:14:37] Go ahead.

[1:14:38] Through the chair, for me, I just need to have a full understanding and I completely appreciate where Mr. Anders is coming from.

[1:14:48] With respect to the 200,000, if we keep it at 200,000, then we're strapped not being able to do an invitational R of Q and R.

[1:15:00] As is the Canadian free trade agreement levels. So if we had more flexibility with respect to the dollar value, I would appreciate that, because that will allow us to do very smaller pilots and be successful in target the right community organizations with respect to the word prioritize. If there was no expectation behind that word, I think then perhaps we could move forward with that word. I just don't want to, I don't want to be restrictive for staff.

[1:15:29] We fully understand what these pithers are for, because of we've done the pithers previously in the intent.

[1:15:36] So, I'm not sure if we need the mandate to move forward with these, because that would be the intent anyways.

[1:15:47] Okay, a couple of things are clarified before we keep moving.

[1:15:50] Just trying to make sure we're managing the conversation in a way that makes sense.

[1:15:52] So, I think what you said, Tina, was the opposite of what it says.

[1:15:55] I think you said you were looking for a smaller dollar amount, but this is not to exceed 200,000.

[1:15:59] and so could you clarify?

[1:16:02] Sorry, Councillor, we need flexibility.

[1:16:06] So if we get a project to come forward

[1:16:09] and it's under that 200,000, that's great.

[1:16:12] We can issue it out.

[1:16:13] If we have something like a janitorial contract,

[1:16:16] millions of dollars in that contract,

[1:16:18] but if there's the ability to chunk out

[1:16:21] part of that contract and perhaps use that

[1:16:24] and with respect to social value procurement

[1:16:27] and take a bit of that contract and do it so that it's tailored to these organizations.

[1:16:36] I think that's in its best interest.

[1:16:38] But with this information, I'm strapped because the contract itself is over 200,000.

[1:16:44] So I just don't want to get caught up in the language that straps staff from doing the pilots.

[1:16:51] We fully understand the intent of the pilots and the equity-deserving groups to be reached

[1:16:59] out to and to engage.

[1:17:02] Again, we need some flexibility.

[1:17:04] It could be over the 200, it could be under, if it's under the 133, 100 threshold, then

[1:17:14] we can do certainly an invited invitation.

[1:17:17] And we could certainly spearhead those connect organizations alone, as opposed to doing something public.

[1:17:25] Okay, here what's happening here. I think we're entering into a procurement discussion,

[1:17:29] which is probably the original point of trying to get this over to procurement.

[1:17:32] This is just our recommendation to procurement. They can do what they want over there.

[1:17:35] I mean, they can amend this and change it before it comes back and get sell.

[1:17:38] That's why we're doing this in a certain kind of way. This is just our recommendation here.

[1:17:43] Ultimately it's up to them. I'll go to Member Necklace-Guy and then to Councillor Wilson

[1:17:46] though they had further comments on this and we'll try and see if we can resolve it through

[1:17:49] the discussion. Thank you Chair and through you Chair.

[1:17:53] I appreciate the comment that you had raised about the word prioritizing and whether or not

[1:18:00] that offered flexibility. I hope that it offers flexibility because it doesn't say solely

[1:18:04] reward two or a word two but I just heard a remark from the Director about if the word

[1:18:11] prioritized doesn't hold expectation, then it offers flexibility. I think the word prioritizes

[1:18:16] there on purpose because it holds a sense of expectation, and it means what it means.

[1:18:21] So I still think that the term prioritized does offer that flexibility because it is not all

[1:18:28] exclusive, it is not all binding. But I would love to hear from staff through you, Chair,

[1:18:36] why the word prioritized does not offer the flexibility that would be appreciated.

[1:18:45] Through the chair, the concern is less with the word prioritized than it is with the second part

[1:18:52] of the recommendation, which is definitive, and that the goods and services threshold for

[1:18:59] these pilots not to exceed. There is no wiggle room there.

[1:19:08] Okay, so we're now to seemingly on the point about the dollar amount, it seems to be the

[1:19:12] remaining thing to speak about at this point. Notwithstanding other things people like to bring

[1:19:15] up, Councillor Morinwell said.

[1:19:19] Thank you.

[1:19:23] This is getting to some of the confusion of my first

[1:19:27] questions. Could someone just clarify for me once again then? One of the recommendations or we

[1:19:36] talked about the importance of hiring a consultant and that consultant would be informing the

[1:19:45] social value procurement policy. This amendment seems to be defining the policy.

[1:19:55] And it's doing so by giving priority to certain groups or principles. And I just need clarity

[1:20:05] on where did, what is the role then of the consultant?

[1:20:16] Someone from staff able to answer that?

[1:20:18] I think just to start, I think this came from the original consultant's report,

[1:20:22] Sandra Hamilton's report, some of this stuff.

[1:20:24] But anyways, go ahead, whoever wants to respond to where this is at.

[1:20:28] You know, respectfully, I don't think this didn't come from staff.

[1:20:34] It came from a member of the group.

[1:20:36] So I'm just requesting just to be clear on my question to staff.

[1:20:40] was the intent of the recommendation to secure a consultant, to ultimately inform or to advise

[1:20:53] on what the social procurement policy would, what it would be populated with, what values

[1:21:03] why, what would that mean in terms of specific groups perhaps.

[1:21:09] That's what I'm seeking, thank you.

[1:21:11] through the chair. Yes, that's my understanding. The consultant would help us develop the policy

[1:21:17] and how we're going to carry out the policy. And when I look at the jurisdictional scan that

[1:21:24] pre-ended various municipalities, use various tools with respect to social procurement,

[1:21:31] by using surveys with the vendors to attest to if they have simply various policies within their

[1:21:39] corporate entity that assist with social awareness. Some entities have and require

[1:21:50] bidders to register themselves as an equity deserving group. So there's various

[1:21:57] levels of rigor that various agencies carry when they're doing their social

[1:22:05] I'm not sure we're at that point, this is why we need the external consultant to come in to tell us what other municipalities are actually putting into play to give us some examples because I'm looking to them to have previous example or previous experience and rolling this out and to give us their best advice with respect to how we can implement this within the city of Hamilton.

[1:22:30] So I'm not exactly sure if we could do this from the get go, we need someone to come in

[1:22:36] and tell us if we were, for example, to use the registry. How does that work? What does it look

[1:22:44] like? What does it mean? How do I, you know, how do I, how do we reject bidders who aren't registered?

[1:22:51] Do we allow them some time to register and so on and so forth? So there's more, it's very complex.

[1:22:55] I'm not sure if I've answered your question, cancer, though.

[1:23:00] No, you have.

[1:23:02] And I respectfully, my read of this is to define a policy which we haven't yet defined

[1:23:11] yet.

[1:23:13] For the very reasons I read the thorough report and the environmental scan is that it requires

[1:23:23] is rigor and it requires engagement with the very partners that were seeking to ensure

[1:23:30] success. And I'm not personally disputing the value of that which is prioritized in

[1:23:40] this motion. I am suggesting that this specific language in this motion is premature because

[1:23:47] Because we don't have a policy yet and we started this meeting by saying the staff who've

[1:23:55] done the due diligence, they did a very thorough job.

[1:23:59] We are all holding our breath because we thought we lost that work due to cyber.

[1:24:04] We were able to breathe again when we were security, and I think there is value in the work that

[1:24:12] work has been thoroughly tested through our questions today which have been very deliberative,

[1:24:17] focused, um, challenging. And now we're here landing on a definition. And I'm just a

[1:24:24] little confused, um, as to how I, as a member, would have pulled, um, having had that rigorous

[1:24:34] scan done, having heard the caution, and then jumping to what we're doing here is defining up

[1:24:43] policy and I would not be able to advise, I would not be able to, I don't think as a member,

[1:24:53] uphold the rationale that informed this. I don't know why we would have landed there. So

[1:25:03] that's my challenge. Also the dollar amount and I appreciate the massaging of it. I don't know where

[1:25:09] that came from. So I'm just expressing some real reservation. And I don't think this

[1:25:17] is in keeping, frankly, with the evidence that has been shared with us today. Thank

[1:25:26] you.

[1:25:28] Okay. And trying to chart the path forward, I'm going to suggest a few different things here.

[1:25:33] Number one, that dollar amount came right of the Sandra Hamilton report. That's what was

[1:25:37] said earlier, so I'm repeating that so everyone knows.

[1:25:40] But what?

[1:25:41] That report is respectfully.

[1:25:42] That report is not on the floor today.

[1:25:44] We're having this discussion within the context of a report that is on the agenda.

[1:25:50] I understand.

[1:25:50] I'm just answering the question that was asked, but where it was coming from.

[1:25:53] I'm just like, you know, where it was coming from.

[1:25:55] I must suggest I get a came from today's report, just where it was coming from.

[1:26:00] So right now there's an amendment on the floor.

[1:26:03] I'm not seeing further speakers to the amendment, we have a couple of different things here.

[1:26:06] We can anyone here who wishes can ask to change the amendment.

[1:26:10] What I'm sensing from the discussion is that the part after the referral to the Procurement

[1:26:15] Subcommittee, which starting with with all the way to the end, is something that some

[1:26:19] are not feeling comfortable about, is why I'm hearing, just listening, by listening

[1:26:23] yours on, staff have raised two flags with that issue, and then Councillor Warren Wilson

[1:26:29] has raised some other flags with that part, and so if anyone would like to ask the mover

[1:26:33] to a friendly amendment and a friendly manner, they can go for it, or we can have a further

[1:26:39] amendment and throw it on the further amendment to strike that. There are various paths forward

[1:26:43] here. So I guess I would turn to you, Councillor Mory Wilson, since he raised the concern as a member

[1:26:46] of the committee. Is there anything you would like to do at this time?

[1:26:54] Well, just as the way—it's not

[1:26:56] my motion, respectfully. It's not—the onus is not a need to rewrite. If the mover seeks to

[1:27:03] incorporate any of the comments back, just as it is presently worded. I wouldn't be able to support

[1:27:08] it because I think it's putting the cart for the horse. It's defining a policy without the work

[1:27:14] of the policy work being done.

[1:27:19] Okay, so I'll turn to the mover because I'm just wanting to make

[1:27:22] sure we can move this process forward in a way that makes legislative sense. That's all. So I don't

[1:27:26] want everyone to understand what we're going to do when we vote on this so that if we're voting in

[1:27:31] favor against or voting for the whole thing if we don't want to amend it then we don't. Anybody

[1:27:34] Anybody else want to speak to this at this time?

[1:27:38] Is it weed?

[1:27:39] Remember Andrews?

[1:27:41] So the, the mandate of this committee was to come up

[1:27:45] with a community benefits protocol.

[1:27:48] That was the mandate of this committee.

[1:27:50] The McMaster report was to look at one aspect

[1:27:53] of community benefits, specifically social procurement

[1:27:58] and develop a social procurement pilot projects.

[1:28:02] I want to just make sure by prioritizing

[1:28:05] targeted groups, which is, actually, if you go through the appendix to the reports are

[1:28:11] all of the groups that tend to be prioritized in all of the municipalities based on the hard work

[1:28:16] that's been done in the jurisdictional scan. I just want to make sure that those pilots are given

[1:28:20] the most priority towards that. I don't think this is setting what the total framework or framework

[1:28:27] I think that the chair has, especially with recommendation A, direction that the key

[1:28:35] will be bringing forward in terms of how we can re-center the framework discussion

[1:28:39] itself around the entire policy.

[1:28:42] I wanted to just set some constraints on the social procurement policy itself on looking

[1:28:49] at some of those best practices, and this helps us look at Toronto just released that I

[1:28:54] I know that on December 6, Social Procurement Policy Review, which was quite in depth outlining

[1:29:01] some of the challenges that they've had with their Social Procurement that a consultant would,

[1:29:05] but most definitely be looking at and reading as to the dollar value, I just, you know, that was

[1:29:12] sort of an arbitrary pick based on a previous recommendation of a previous consulting report.

[1:29:19] I'm open to procurement changing it or the procurement committee changing it, but I really want us

[1:29:23] to focus strictly on the social procurement piece, that is to say what was recommended

[1:29:29] right in the staff report, which was those catering contracts, those small opportunities

[1:29:34] for to pilot social procurements, so that we can get some report backs on those challenges

[1:29:40] while this committee works on the broader mandate of A, and I think what the chair is bringing

[1:29:45] forward shortly on some recommendations on a path forward to develop that framework of the community

[1:29:52] benefits, which is what this Protocol Advisory Committee was originally structured to do,

[1:30:00] With a very narrow and leave it with procurement, because they're the experts in the city on that particular piece of work. So that's my response.

[1:30:13] Okay. And so just waiting for legislative coordinator, because my thought is that what we may wish to do is just have a referral sections, arts, A and B. One is that we refer to the procurement subcommittee and B is the rest of it. So that we're still doing the work of referring it. And we're not going to, that motion's not going to potentially fail as a result of the rest of the language.

[1:30:31] because I think everyone's on the board of this Board of the Procurement Subcommittee,

[1:30:35] but maybe having an A and B might be something we can do,

[1:30:38] the legislative coordinator is just reviewing right now,

[1:30:40] because I don't think the procedural by-law speaks to that,

[1:30:43] splitting a referral into two bits,

[1:30:44] so we may just be able to do so,

[1:30:45] or some other procedural gymnastics.

[1:30:49] My job here is just to make sure we can actually have a legislative decision that makes sense

[1:30:53] at the end of the day.

[1:30:57] Sorry for clarification from the Chair in the LC,

[1:31:00] then we would be looking at reviewing, so, D,

[1:31:08] C, D. No, sorry, let's just pause here.

[1:31:12] Yeah, I'm just suggesting we do.

[1:31:14] Okay.

[1:31:15] Just give me a sec.

[1:31:33] So does anybody, we can't split them into two sections.

[1:31:36] Thank you for looking into that.

[1:31:37] Let's say for Darryl Goethe, appreciate your hard work during the middle of the meeting.

[1:31:41] I'm seeing some, Heather Chasner, do you want to speak to this?

[1:31:46] I'm just listening to what staff had asked and saying, why can't we just strike and that

[1:31:51] the goods and services are special for pilot not exceed 200,000, why can't we just slash

[1:31:58] that out?

[1:32:00] You want to put that amendment on before you're, what are more than welcome to?

[1:32:03] I'll put that amendment on the floor if I've got a seconder.

[1:32:11] Mr. Fein is going to second slash out a bit from, and if the goods and services are special

[1:32:17] for these pilots not to exceed $200,000, so the ending part of that is the amendments on

[1:32:21] the floor. Does anybody want to clarify that? It's been highlighted. Can you see that they're

[1:32:29] councillors? I'm just making sure for accessibility reasons that you're following along because you're

[1:32:32] not in the room. Thank you. I could see the slash out. Okay. So I understand that we have an

[1:32:42] amendment on the referral, and the amendment is whether we slash that bit at the end of

[1:32:47] or not any discussion on the amendment to the referral.

[1:32:51] I can accept that as friendly.

[1:32:53] I don't think we need to vote.

[1:32:55] Oh, okay.

[1:32:55] Great.

[1:32:56] So that's an exception.

[1:32:56] Just friendly.

[1:32:57] We're going to take that out.

[1:32:59] Drop that out.

[1:32:59] If that's, you know, the will of procurement in that home.

[1:33:05] Right.

[1:33:05] And so on that,

[1:33:09] referral to the procurement committee with these instructions

[1:33:12] for their further deliberation.

[1:33:16] I'm going to call the vote.

[1:33:17] All those in favor of the referral?

[1:33:30] I'm going to hand the chair to, Mr. Andrews, to introduce something with respect to A.

[1:33:39] And I want to just start by saying that, again, we did our best to try and reach finance

[1:33:46] staff with respect to the budget process to ensure we could do this in the exactly right way.

[1:33:50] Unfortunately, we weren't able to connect with them fully, so we have something here, and

[1:33:55] I'll turn to the legislative coordinator there.

[1:33:58] I heard the chair.

[1:34:01] Through the chair, I was in correspondence with the City Clerk on the matter.

[1:34:05] Committee can't direct staff to prepare an amendment.

[1:34:08] They could request that council consider an amendment to the budget process, and then a member

[1:34:16] Council could work with staff offline to draft that amendment to bring forward to the GIC budget process.

[1:34:26] Thanks, Cameron. Through the Chair to the Legislative Coordinator,

[1:34:29] thanks very much for some draft language to be shared there.

[1:34:32] And if I can speak to this briefly while the language is going up,

[1:34:35] the purpose of this is to allow for the work of this committee to carry on. At this point,

[1:34:42] as you learned at the very beginning of this meeting, Brianne Gashko is no longer with this work

[1:34:47] and is already on to doing other work at the City of Hamilton and grateful that she was able

[1:34:53] to be here to help us today, but this is an longer part of her job and we don't have

[1:34:57] a resource at this point to be able to be framework slash protocol work that we need to be

[1:35:02] doing here as a whole. The entire purpose of this committee is that it's going to develop

[1:35:06] a protocol or framework through which community benefits or social value, however we want to understand

[1:35:11] that, is going to function and flow in the City of Hamilton. And we can't do that work if we don't have

[1:35:15] a resource. And so this motion will just be asking the budget process, the mayor, council,

[1:35:21] however we want to understand that process, right, to dedicate some type of resource to

[1:35:25] develop that framework. That's pretty much it, and nutshell, and that is the language that

[1:35:30] we've come up with at the moment, based on the information that's been received by the folks

[1:35:34] in our city clerk's office. I think I need a seconder.

[1:35:43] Councillor Foyne is going to second.

[1:35:44] And

[1:35:49] without this, we are kind of a bit of a bit of a longer head, so to speak in terms

[1:35:54] of how we do the primary work of this committee, so that's why it's there.

[1:35:58] Is there any conversation on the amendment?

[1:36:01] Let's just get some clarification just so through the chair, so this would be a new subsection

[1:36:08] that's being added, subsection G, am I correct in making that assumption?

[1:36:15] Through the chair, what I'm going to say is you don't better than me, so take it away.

[1:36:18] All right, the subsection G is, so committee has dealt with section V2F, so what's outstanding

[1:36:25] is subsection A. Oh no, this is really an amendment A part of that, so it's amendment A because

[1:36:31] A right now sets out this path that we can't really embark down without getting some funding

[1:36:38] to do so, and so we need someone to come in, have that conversation begin to do that work

[1:36:45] engagement with the public, you name it, like we do with everything here in the city.

[1:36:50] So it's a mending A to say we need a person for that work.

[1:37:18] We can have speakers list, well, are we finishing up with the amendment wording first?

[1:37:27] Waiting for the LC here, so

[1:37:38] Councillor Wilson and Councillor Tathson as soon as we are finished

[1:37:42] with the LC's.

[1:37:47] Sorry.

[1:37:48] So, through the chair, I think what would be the best course of action would be to defer

[1:37:54] A, because if I'm understanding correctly, you need the resources to do A, and that this

[1:38:04] new direction for the budget resource request be dealt with separately, because if you would

[1:38:13] defer a with the instruction that's not really doing anything by itself because it's being deferred with the instruction with the instructions.

[1:38:27] It's

[1:38:30] too late to defer it to the budget process, unfortunately.

[1:38:33] So I think the best course of action would be to add a new subsection G, which I can share for you.

[1:38:42] And that someone else would be able to move the deferral of subsection A, which there are some members that I believe still haven't spoken to the report who could do so.

[1:38:58] Okay, I'm happy with that through the chair.

[1:39:01] Thanks for the extra help. I just had a coordinator go to, so I'm just going to move G and then someone who hasn't spoken to defer A.

[1:39:07] Great. Thank you.

[1:39:09] So I'm starting with a speaker's list on the amendment G and I believe it was Councillor

[1:39:17] Wilson and then Councillor Cattison. Councillor Wilson.

[1:39:28] Thank you. Chair, my apologies on just looking for a language on G again, please.

[1:39:36] Is it amended

[1:39:37] or is it as there's a new G? Could you just provide benefit, reiterate the language? Thank

[1:39:45] Thank you.

[1:39:49] We'll get that up on the screen for you shortly.

[1:39:51] Thank you.

[1:40:39] The Chair, do I still have the floor to seeking confirmation?

[1:40:43] Yes.

[1:40:44] Okay.

[1:40:44] Thank you.

[1:40:52] What is the amount, please, that the Chair will be seeking to, what is the amount that

[1:41:00] will be informing the amendment?

[1:41:04] Councillor Crouch.

[1:41:07] What is the amount?

[1:41:08] Is that a question?

[1:41:09] Yes.

[1:41:10] No, we're referring this to staff to come up with the business case for that, but essentially

[1:41:14] is what the note pardon me, we're bringing an amendment together, and I'm going to work with

[1:41:16] staff to figure that out. That will be in the amendment that's forthcoming. I don't have that

[1:41:20] information here today, but that will be in the amendment forthcoming.

[1:41:25] But it's just so I understand it. The amendment is going to be served at the GIC Budget Committee.

[1:41:35] and you're not able to apprise this subcommittee what amount you're seeking permission to get?

[1:41:46] I wish I could. I don't have that information or I would apprise if I promised.

[1:41:50] I don't just don't have that information through the chair to provide.

[1:41:52] But that's the whole point of this as we've been trying to figure out a way to advance this work

[1:41:56] given the budget timing and the way things are going with the new process.

[1:41:59] And so this is the best way to be able to figure out how to do it to be completely honest with you is to do this work.

[1:42:04] But through the chair, I believe that some staff has, they want to, so I'll be quiet.

[1:42:10] So, GM.

[1:42:12] Thank you, through you, Chair, to the Councillor.

[1:42:15] We're just conferring on the bench and wanted to clarify that we are not looking at resourcing in the multiple FTEs.

[1:42:23] like was in the alternative to the recommendations in the report, the maximum that we would need

[1:42:30] to do this work if we're strictly looking at the development of a framework would be one FTE.

[1:42:37] However, staff are also thinking that it would be less expensive and potentially faster

[1:42:44] to procure a consultant to do the framework development and that could be discussed post meeting.

[1:42:52] but to give you a sense of the scope and then the budget or the GIC budget would

[1:42:59] either be January 23rd or February the 7th in terms of days. Thank you.

[1:43:06] Councillor Wilson.

[1:43:10] Okay, so respectfully my reservation is based on seeking this

[1:43:18] subcommittees approval to submit a budget request via an amendment or an undefined

[1:43:31] amount for an undefined purpose, which may, if I understood, Jamburden correctly, could

[1:43:39] be one FTE and I'm not sure my recollection of the amount in the report was it 75. I'm not

[1:43:50] sure an amount to secure a consultant is it's challenging for me for my governance perspective to

[1:44:03] the land approval to a budget ask that is yet undefined and in amount and in scope.

[1:44:14] So I'll have the mover respond first.

[1:44:19] Yeah, I don't have to do this here.

[1:44:20] I'm just doing it here because I think this is where we're all having a conversation

[1:44:23] about community benefits.

[1:44:24] I can just bring this through outside of this process by having a conversation.

[1:44:29] The goal is to defer a, that's all, apologies.

[1:44:34] And so not to make a decision about that today because we need some support around that

[1:44:38] work.

[1:44:38] And so this is the way I'm trying to structure that here based on the rules in front of

[1:44:42] us.

[1:44:43] But I don't have to do an amendment here.

[1:44:45] I can simply bring the amendment to the project process.

[1:44:48] I thought, scoping that here letting people know there will be an amendment coming to the

[1:44:52] budget process would be something we'd want to support here and have that conversation

[1:44:56] and here briefly because it seemed like that.

[1:45:00] But if people think no, I don't feel comfortable with us having the conversation. In advance, if you bring me an amendment, all this will throw it. Like, I don't want to just prolong this to be completely honest with you.

[1:45:12] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sure Wilson. No, thank you. If the the move is to withdraw, that's great. Thank you.

[1:45:23] Great. I'll just withdraw this and now I know what we're going to do anyways. So heads up. Hooray. Thank you.

[1:45:32] So are we still going to be voting on the chair back and someone else is going to defer?

[1:45:37] I look to the floor for a deferral of A. Oh, Councillor Fyne, thank you so much for that.

[1:45:44] And deferred to a future meeting, I suppose, leaving it time indefinite for that reason.

[1:45:49] Seconder in that?

[1:45:53] The deferral?

[1:45:54] For the deferral?

[1:45:55] Vice Chair Andrews?

[1:45:57] Discussion on the deferral of A.

[1:46:02] There are no instructions except for a two-of-a-future

[1:46:04] meeting.

[1:46:05] Does somebody else want to jump in on the two-of-a-future meeting they could?

[1:46:09] So I think this deferring A gives us a little bit more time to hash out in better detail.

[1:46:17] There's a question of the mandate of this committee, and although the staff did excellent

[1:46:22] report, and social jurisdictional scan, that hasn't really cut to the, what we're doing.

[1:46:29] No, it may be a pain, but we can't talk about the deferral.

[1:46:32] We're not allowed.

[1:46:35] report.

[1:46:41] All in favour of the deferral?

[1:46:46] Any discussion on the instructions?

[1:46:48] Any discussion on the instructions?

[1:46:52] Not seeing any?

[1:46:53] All in favour of the deferral?

[1:46:56] Any one opposed?

[1:46:58] Let's carry on.

[1:46:59] Thank you so much everybody.

[1:47:00] We got through that thorny bit of procedural stuff, and we're going to move on now.

[1:47:04] Now to voting on the report as amended, we don't have to do that because there was

[1:47:09] never an amendment, never mind.

[1:47:11] So onto consent items, number nine, nine point one, the municipal social procurement

[1:47:16] policy is an analysis of recommendations from the research shop at Bassory University.

[1:47:20] Can I have a mover and seconder to put the report on the floor?

[1:47:23] Move by, Vice Chair Andrews, seconded by Councillor Huyang.

[1:47:28] Is there any discussion on the report?

[1:47:34] Okay, Councillor Huyang.

[1:47:36] Is there an opportunity to also perhaps not refer, but also share this information with

[1:47:42] the Procurement Subcommittee?

[1:47:46] I don't want to refer because I think that it ought to stay here, but I think that

[1:47:51] there's an opportunity to at least share the findings with the Procurement Subcommittee

[1:47:56] as per, and I don't know if that's by way of a communications item.

[1:48:03] No wait, we don't have that any further.

[1:48:05] I'm currently legislated for it at this time for how we might share this information with the procurement subcommittee.

[1:48:11] The formal mechanism to share it would need to refer it to the procurement subcommittee.

[1:48:21] Okay, that's fine. We've already seen it here. We prefer it there.

[1:48:24] Oh, okay. Sure. It's still present on our agenda. We'll be for all time.

[1:48:29] So, Councillor Hayden, do you want to move to refer to the procurement subcommittee?

[1:48:33] I put the report on the floor, so I don't know if I can also refer it.

[1:48:36] Sure.

[1:48:37] You can.

[1:48:38] Okay.

[1:48:39] Do you want to second it, Councillor Towson?

[1:48:40] Okay.

[1:48:41] So we're going to move and second to refer this to procurement subcommittee.

[1:48:44] The only thing we can talk about now is whether it gets referred to the procurement subcommittee

[1:48:48] not on the referral itself.

[1:48:50] Someone else would like it to go somewhere else or attach other instructions they can not

[1:48:55] seeing any.

[1:48:56] We're going to vote on the referral.

[1:48:58] Councillor Towson was a second or pardon me.

[1:49:00] Okay?

[1:49:05] All those in favor?

[1:49:07] I'm referring it.

[1:49:10] I think that carries. Thank you very much.

[1:49:12] I didn't see other speakers on this item for 9.1.

[1:49:18] So we're going to move on receiving the report here also, I believe.

[1:49:22] My apology is already being referred, so nothing else will happen.

[1:49:26] This is fun.

[1:49:28] Isn't it? I'll say it.

[1:49:30] 11 motions.

[1:49:32] 11.1 light rail transit early worst community employment benefits.

[1:49:35] and this is a motion from Councilor Hawaiian Councilor

[1:49:38] fine, please introduce your motion.

[1:49:39] And let us know what your seconder will be.

[1:49:41] Thank you.

[1:49:41] Although it's never addressed.

[1:49:43] Yeah, I know it's written right on here.

[1:49:45] Thank you, Chair.

[1:49:47] This is moved by myself, seconded by member,

[1:49:49] Vice Chair Andrews.

[1:49:51] This was a notice of motion from previous meeting.

[1:49:54] We've had the benefit of having conversations

[1:49:59] with the director of LRT, director shake.

[1:50:03] We've been back and forth on this because of timing, but ultimately, we landed on this particular motion.

[1:50:10] So, just reading through, light rail transit early works, community employment benefits,

[1:50:16] whereas the construction of the light rail transit project and the delivery of regular operations and

[1:50:20] service will create significant employment opportunities, whereas community benefits,

[1:50:24] agreements, insure residents have equitable opportunities and economic inclusion through commitments to social

[1:50:30] of procurement and social enterprise opportunities, whereas the pillar won employment opportunities

[1:50:34] of Metrolinx community benefits and support program. And I

[1:50:41] think we're going to have just

[1:50:41] strike president and chief executive officer because I don't think he's there anymore.

[1:50:46] The CEO is no longer the CEO of Metrolinx.

[1:50:50] Okay.

[1:50:51] Looks to promote apprenticeship training and workforce development opportunities for local communities

[1:50:57] and Equity Seeking Groups, whereas Metrolinx Project Delivery on Finch West,

[1:51:02] Eglinton Cross Town, and Hazel McCallion, LRT's of Gaines' Estangil experience in delivering

[1:51:06] community employment benefits and providing apprenticeship training and workforce development

[1:51:10] opportunities for local communities and Equity Seeking Groups. And whereas the City of Hamilton

[1:51:14] has very responsible for the delivery of several LRT early works, including Wentworth,

[1:51:19] Sherman, Rosewood, Maine, and they're all paid by Metrolinx. Therefore be it resolved

[1:51:25] that a staff be directed to work with Metrolinx to identify projects and attempt to deliver community employment benefits and social procurement ideals to the city-led procurement for any future LRT earlier extended in 2025 and beyond.

[1:51:40] Be city staff report back to the relevant committees.

[1:51:43] The findings of these conversations with Metrolinx, including any challenges, barriers or successes, and see that the mayor and city clerk be authorized to direct to execute any required agreements

[1:51:53] and or incillary documents with such terms of conditions in a form satisfactory to the city's list or in Metrolinx while meeting the city's procurement policy and authority to award the contracts. May I speak to this chair?

[1:52:07] We've had conversations with director of LRT and I do see that acting director. Farhand is also online because I know director shake is on vacation this week, but we had a chance to chat about what is the opportunity and the expectation.

[1:52:23] And even though mention of the early works has already gone forward and has already been

[1:52:28] tender, there is still one more outstanding.

[1:52:32] So this motion seeks to have to give authority to the LRT Office to have further and deeper

[1:52:39] conversations with Metrolinx around community benefits.

[1:52:43] And the intention is that we will help with setting the guidelines and the potential procurement

[1:52:48] framework moving forward for this.

[1:52:51] but because we can start to try and leverage the value of the timing, because there is only

[1:52:58] one more that is still outstanding, so this is, again, seeking to give LRG office the authority

[1:53:04] to actually further those conversations with Metrolinx moving forward.

[1:53:09] Thanks.

[1:53:09] Just before we proceed with any further discussion, should there be any?

[1:53:14] On A, Roman numeral 2, and on B, Roman numeral 4, we're missing dates at the end of those

[1:53:19] clauses. So, oh, I'm on the wrong thing. I'm on the wrong thing entirely. Never mind.

[1:53:26] I've apparently been anticipating moving forward in the agenda and have skipped ahead.

[1:53:31] So, I'll be quiet now and ask if there's anybody else who'd like to speak to Councillor

[1:53:35] Feint's motion.

[1:53:38] I'm not seeing anybody, so we'll go to the vote. I'll call the question. All those

[1:53:41] in favor.

[1:53:45] That's everyone. It carries. Now we're going to move on to notices of motion and

[1:53:53] notices

[1:53:54] This is a motion, and notice is a motion we have policy framework for voluntary donations

[1:53:58] for community benefits, and I know that Councillor Towson is going to leave it as a notice.

[1:54:02] And so, there's not much to say today, unless Councillor Towson is just shaking his head,

[1:54:06] saying, nope, something to say today, it'll be kept as a notice.

[1:54:10] And we'll move to 13, we should general information in other business, and this is going to be

[1:54:14] regarding this to any business list.

[1:54:16] And please have a move around the second or two, approve the amendments to the outstanding

[1:54:19] business list, which is removing the one item we discussed today.

[1:54:22] move by Councilor Fuyang, seconded by Member Nicholskaya.

[1:54:34] Sorry, I'm just clarifying, a member was asking, but if we're whether or not we're voting

[1:54:36] on the notices, a motion number not because they're staying as a notice.

[1:54:41] And we're now on to general information on other business.

[1:54:43] We do have a mover and a seconder.

[1:54:45] Any discussion on the housing business list?

[1:54:47] And it was Councillor Fuyang and Member Nicholskaya's reference?

[1:54:52] Not seeing discussion, all is in favor of approving it to the business list amendments.

[1:54:57] That's everyone.

[1:54:58] That carries. I believe it or not. We've arrived at adjournment. May I have a mover and seconder to adjourn today's meeting?

[1:55:07] Seeing Councillor Klein and seconded by member Nicol Scaya. All those in favour? That is all of us. See you again next year.

Community Benefits Protocol Sub-Committee

Agenda

Transcript